Boy Legos and Girl Legos

[AFK]

not everyone has the time or the energy or health for that. you are sitting in your nice little middle class bubble and prescribing shit that doesn't always exist in reality

It can, if we do a better job of empowering single parents.  I've run parenting classes, attended by many single parents.  And it is amazing the changes you can see just by empowering them.  In this case, it really can be as simple as telling the adults watching your kids, "I don't want them watching X.  I don't want them playing with Y."   Just set some ground rules at the beginning.

RWHN thinks single parents are incapable of asserting what they don't want their kids doing and he needs to "EMPOWER" them. 

No, actually I've been arguing that they can, Pixie is the one saying they are too tired/stretched thin to do anything. 

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

not everyone has the time or the energy or health for that. you are sitting in your nice little middle class bubble and prescribing shit that doesn't always exist in reality

It can, if we do a better job of empowering single parents.  I've run parenting classes, attended by many single parents.  And it is amazing the changes you can see just by empowering them.  In this case, it really can be as simple as telling the adults watching your kids, "I don't want them watching X.  I don't want them playing with Y."   Just set some ground rules at the beginning.

RWHN thinks single parents are incapable of asserting what they don't want their kids doing and he needs to "EMPOWER" them. 

No, actually I've been arguing that they can, Pixie is the one saying they are too tired/stretched thin to do anything.

No, you said

, if we do a better job of empowering single parents.  I've run parenting classes, attended by many single parents.  And it is amazing the changes you can see just by empowering them.

Single parents generally ARE stretched very thin. And you don't fix that by court ordering people working poverty wage jobs and raising kids into "parenting classes" and talking to them like they're too stupid to instruct the babysitters that they can't afford in the first place.

[Doktor Howl]

He's run parenting classes.   

[Pope Pixie Pickle]

hahahah! 

[Cardinal Pizza Deliverance.]

not everyone has the time or the energy or health for that. you are sitting in your nice little middle class bubble and prescribing shit that doesn't always exist in reality

It can, if we do a better job of empowering single parents.  I've run parenting classes, attended by many single parents.  And it is amazing the changes you can see just by empowering them.  In this case, it really can be as simple as telling the adults watching your kids, "I don't want them watching X.  I don't want them playing with Y."   Just set some ground rules at the beginning.

RWHN thinks single parents are incapable of asserting what they don't want their kids doing and he needs to "EMPOWER" them. 

No, actually I've been arguing that they can, Pixie is the one saying they are too tired/stretched thin to do anything.

No, you said

, if we do a better job of empowering single parents.  I've run parenting classes, attended by many single parents.  And it is amazing the changes you can see just by empowering them.

Single parents generally ARE stretched very thin. And you don't fix that by court ordering people working poverty wage jobs and raising kids into "parenting classes" and talking to them like they're too stupid to instruct the babysitters that they can't afford in the first place.

I think that's reading more into it than he said.

[Pope Pixie Pickle]

well he did ignore several points and try to paint me as some kind of fucking straw feminist, so, fuck that guy.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

How many male social-worker action figures do you see in the boy's aisle?


Should I start picketing Wal-Mart because they don't sell toys representing every career option that exists?

Hamleys in London, and The Entertainer, here in the UK have stopped gender separation of toys. Boots the Chemist, too. they are now based on crafts, construction and the type of play rather than by gender.

the whole practice of separating toys by gender is bollocks, imho. Science kits for boys are proper science kits, science kits for girls are on how to make makeup.

The thing that's most frustrating about this Legos fiasco is that they could have simply done what they already have with so many other sets, and licensed a theme that already has broad girl appeal, like Brave or The Hunger Games or something, in a way that would fit in with the existing Legos. They could also have changed up some of their City themes to include more traditional "girly" activities and added pink blocks, effectively integrating what is currently deeply gender-segregated play, instead of further segregating boys and girls play.

Also, is it just me, or is it totally condescending for men to be telling women that being offended by gender-segregated toys is "inane social justice"? Wow. That right there is some heavy-handed privilege speaking.

[Bu🤠ns]

All: Thanks for contributing and helping me flesh out my ideas. 

When gender-segregation was called out, it first seemed like an over-generalization...but it's that but it's more complicated than that.  I'll get into this in a sec.

I also really appreciated Pixie's videos because, while I tend to cock an eyebrow at the Feminist Frequency webcasts sometimes, she was spot on with the LEGO assessment.  I don't think LEGO was terribly smart with this marketing campaign because they digressed from their roots.  That's the shameful part.

Vex's and RWHN's* main idea  that it's the parent's responsibility to educate their children and allow them to transcend the media marketing is also spot on.  It's the marketer's job to find what sells, so it's up to them to be open to what the public wants.  If the public speaks up then they have no choice but to comply.  I realize there's the trend for marketers to push ideas and values but, at the end of the day, they're still at the mercy of the public--That is if the public knows it. 

So, in my mind, the accountability is 80%-90% parents/guardians and 20%-10% marketers...ymmv.

To get a fresh perspective on this I asked both my daughter and son...

With my son...

Me: What do you think about the LEGO Friends line?
Son: It's okay if the girls like it.
Me: Why do you think girls aren't interested in LEGO?
Son: Because [LEGO] aren't being creative enough.
Me: How could they be more creative?
Son: They should do a lego spy set with girls...and do a whole bunch of sets so they can get addicted. But they should just do it in normal LEGO colors
Me: (laughing) You should go work for LEGO
Son: i WANT to!

With my daughter...

Me: What do you think about the LEGO Friends line?
Daughter: It's stupid.
Me: (laughing) What kinds of LEGOs would you rather have?
Daughter: I'd rather have the electronic kinda stuff
Me: Like what?
Daughter: Like rockets and stuff
Me: So if the LEGO company came to you and said, Mya, we'll make you any kind of LEGO set you want just name it, what would it be?
Daughter: I'd want a 50 foot tall turkey.

XD

I'm pretty happy with this.  They're honest.  And I wonder how much of this is a result from a limit on commercials.  My kids use a media center (XBMC) for a lot of their content.  They tend to go to YouTube also.  They both actively seek out their media rather than passively absorb it from the television.  My son also tends to be more emotionally intelligent than a lot of other kids I know and my daughter tends to be more crafty and creative than what the media assumes she is.  (Okay I might be cheering my kids a bit here but I 'm a dad and can't help it). 

What I'm getting at is that the game appears to be changing with the advent of more media channels.  It's no longer just TV and we're also a lot more selective with what we want to be exposed to...at least on the internet.  But things like Netflix and OnDemand and TiVo our kids are less exposed and more empowered to select what kinds of viewing they want.  With this in mind, it seems the social change we all want is in the public's favor.  I mean might it even naturally evolve into a more gender neutral market with technology advancements alone?





* RWHN was kind of hard to follow due to the signal/noise ratio but I'm assuming it was, in essence, the same core.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Lego made a statement about how it spent millions of dollars on research to expand the Lego experience to include girls. And it came up with the 'Friends' theme which includes the beauty salon and a cafe as opposed to Hogwarts and pirate ships. The sets for the 'friends' are primarily pink and purple. The sets not for the 'friends' are all colors. The packaging for the 'friends' set is pink and purple. The sets not in the 'friends' line are either blue or a variety of colors.

And the 'friends' theme is Lego SPECIFICALLY marketing to girls. Where the game-play isn't focused on actually building the sets but playing with them after they're already built so there's less emphasis on being creative and playing with the kits as you please and much more do it this way so your dollies will be happy.

Right, and like I said I acknowledge that this product does nothing to improve the cultural preconceptions about gender identity and gender roles. But Lego is soft of damned if they do and damned if they don't here. Either they're preaching at little girls to do things the Girl Way, or they're preaching at everyone else to Stop Telling Little Girls What They Should Be. Being a company that exists primarily to sell toys and make a profit, they are obviously going to behave in a way that makes them money. And in this case, whatever research they did told them that they would make money selling to little girls this way.

Again, I'm not saying it's "right" for them to do it this way, only that it isn't Lego's job to tell society what it believes. Society sets the standards, and Lego responds with products that fit those standards, because that's what will make them money. There's a certain cycle there, where society bases its self-image on what's sitting on store shelves, but that doesn't mean it's Lego's job to make the first move.

If it isn't Lego's job to make the first move (love how you facilely abdicated all corporations of any social responsibility, there) then it's ours, by being vocally disgusted with their product and marketing, isn't it?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Out of curiosity, assuming you had a boy, would you let your little boy play with the set in the second picture? How would you respond if he was bullied by his friends for playing with it? Would it go more like "they're jerks, play how you wanna play" or "well that's what you get for playing with girl toys" ?

I'd say that they were jerks, and I'd also get ready to tell him that over and over as he got older, because I would suspect he had some gender identity issues.  Those girly legos are REALLY girly (and they don't sell them around here)

why the fuck would you assume they had gender identity issues? I played with a lot of "boys" toys and I'm pretty much straight, cisgendered and have none of these issues.

or would you only assume that for a boy playing with "girly" toys?

Barbie dolls or raggedy ann, no.  Those legos yes.  If my daughter was heavily into guns I'd have the same concern, other than that, as you and others have said, being into boy toys is considered normal for girls, it doesn't indicate gender identity issues, being into girl stuff does for a boy.  It may not be right that society is that way, but it is that way and as a parent I need to be prepared to nurture and protect my child.  If I had a son who was playing with those legos, or some of the other excessively feminized toys that are out I'd assume he had gender issues and I'd be ready to deal with that by the time he came to terms with it enough to vocalize it.  And by deal with I mean reassure him that it is ok, that I know that he'll be facing more challenges than may of his peers and that I'll be there to support him through them.

right.

so assuming you have a trans kid if its a boy but not a girl isn't a bullshit assumption at all?

yea, right.

There's warning signs for girls but in our current society playing with boy toys isn't one of them.

What are the warning signs for girls, if I may ask?

Refusing to wear skirts or dresses (or makeup when she's a bit older) otherwise vigorously rejecting feminine traits and activities.  Because of societies sexism doing boy stuff isn't much of an indicator, actively spurning girl stuff means she might have gender issues or she might have some internalized misogyny, which is also going to make life hard for her.

Please

for the love of god

get an education.

[Bu🤠ns]

How many male social-worker action figures do you see in the boy's aisle?


Should I start picketing Wal-Mart because they don't sell toys representing every career option that exists?

Hamleys in London, and The Entertainer, here in the UK have stopped gender separation of toys. Boots the Chemist, too. they are now based on crafts, construction and the type of play rather than by gender.

the whole practice of separating toys by gender is bollocks, imho. Science kits for boys are proper science kits, science kits for girls are on how to make makeup.

The thing that's most frustrating about this Legos fiasco is that they could have simply done what they already have with so many other sets, and licensed a theme that already has broad girl appeal, like Brave or The Hunger Games or something, in a way that would fit in with the existing Legos. They could also have changed up some of their City themes to include more traditional "girly" activities and added pink blocks, effectively integrating what is currently deeply gender-segregated play, instead of further segregating boys and girls play.

Also, is it just me, or is it totally condescending for men to be telling women that being offended by gender-segregated toys is "inane social justice"? Wow. That right there is some heavy-handed privilege speaking.

I hope you didn't take it as me telling women anything.  From the OP article alone it seemed like it might have been blowing it out of proportion and I knew that PD was the right place to take it.  From Pixie's links really helped me get a better understanding of the situation. I knew that there was definitely an issue with gender advertising but I couldn't quite place where that line actually was. I layed out the spectrum and hoped some folks would fillin the gaps.  Please don't assume I'm jumping to conclusions..I know better than that, Nigel.

To your first point, I agree completely...In the course of this i found this pic also:



to me that's exactly the kind of smart marketing that they should have continued with.  That, and maybe she totally reminds me of my daughter.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Your kid likes Legos? Get ALL THE LEGOS. I'd LIKE to see what kids would do with multiple sets. Maybe a beauty parlor with gun turrets or something.

See, that would be cool, if the "girl" sets and the "boy" sets went together, which they don't. The sizing is the same but the sets don't thematically work together and the girl sets aren't as modular so you really can't customize and interchange them the way you can with the boy ones.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Burns, you merely posed the question. I may disagree with your conclusions about corporations and social responsibility, but my comment about men telling women that their protest is "inane social justice" is not directed at you, but at those men who either stated or agreed that it is such.

That falls under the category of "it isn't oppression because we say so, silly woman".

It's my opinion that the segregated play marketing trend and the encroachment on reproductive rights in the US are not unrelated; they are both symptoms of the same disease.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

He's run parenting classes.   

It's FOR THE CHILRIN, Dok. 

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Lego made a statement about how it spent millions of dollars on research to expand the Lego experience to include girls. And it came up with the 'Friends' theme which includes the beauty salon and a cafe as opposed to Hogwarts and pirate ships. The sets for the 'friends' are primarily pink and purple. The sets not for the 'friends' are all colors. The packaging for the 'friends' set is pink and purple. The sets not in the 'friends' line are either blue or a variety of colors.

And the 'friends' theme is Lego SPECIFICALLY marketing to girls. Where the game-play isn't focused on actually building the sets but playing with them after they're already built so there's less emphasis on being creative and playing with the kits as you please and much more do it this way so your dollies will be happy.

Right, and like I said I acknowledge that this product does nothing to improve the cultural preconceptions about gender identity and gender roles. But Lego is soft of damned if they do and damned if they don't here. Either they're preaching at little girls to do things the Girl Way, or they're preaching at everyone else to Stop Telling Little Girls What They Should Be. Being a company that exists primarily to sell toys and make a profit, they are obviously going to behave in a way that makes them money. And in this case, whatever research they did told them that they would make money selling to little girls this way.

Again, I'm not saying it's "right" for them to do it this way, only that it isn't Lego's job to tell society what it believes. Society sets the standards, and Lego responds with products that fit those standards, because that's what will make them money. There's a certain cycle there, where society bases its self-image on what's sitting on store shelves, but that doesn't mean it's Lego's job to make the first move.

If it isn't Lego's job to make the first move (love how you facilely abdicated all corporations of any social responsibility, there) then it's ours, by being vocally disgusted with their product and marketing, isn't it?

Yes! Of course! I don't object to the outrage, but I don't understand the tone and the target. I agree it's unfortunate (beyond unfortunate, poor word choice, but bear with me it's late) to be marketing toys by capitalizing on gender-binary thinking when we should be well past that by now. I just think Lego is a symptom of the fucked up culture, not a source of it.

Also this particular topic sort of hits me weirdly because it sounds like "pink flowery girly stuff shouldn't exist because it reinforces stupid stereotypes," and I'd be inclined to agree if it weren't for the fact that this kind of toy is exactly what my own daughter loves, and reinforcing gender stereotypes is the last thing that's allowed in our home. So the argument can't be as simple as that.