Principia Discordia

http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2013/06/28/196605763/girls-legos-are-a-hit-but-why-do-girls-need-special-legos

Specifically...

QuoteLego Friends triggered the ire of Joy Pochatila, a scientist and mother of two small girls. Her first reaction to the line was dismissive. "Why can't they just play with regular Legos? Why does it have to be girl-driven?" she wondered.

Is this really an issue? I wondered because I've bought my daughter legos in the past--Spongebob Legos--which are pretty gender neutral.  We've gotten her some lego Friends but she never really embraced Legos like my son did.  Personally, I don't think that there's anything wrong with the Lego Friends collection as it increases choice.  Legos are cool. I STILL play with them.

I'm just  not sure if this is just inane social justice or if there's a legitimate thing here.

It's more unnecessary gender segregation.

I'm fine with it as long as the girl legos aren't dumbed down.

"Girly" =/= "taking shit off of people"

My daughter always had a lot of pink girly stuff and she's proof of this.  :lol:

The only problem I can see with this is if a boy wanted these, and he had asshole parents who didn't like fabulous.

Go check out a toy store or a toy section in some other store and see if you can spot the difference, Bu*ns. :P

Boys' aisle is all sorts of colors and lots of build-y toys, games, and action figures. Girls' aisle is pink and almost all dolls; Barbie, Bratz, baby, etc.

I suppose it has improved somewhat. There was a point in time I'd hear parents telling their kids they couldn't go to one aisle or the other because it wasn't for THEM. Not that many boys want to be in the pink doll aisle but lots of girls want legos and tinker toys and such.

On the other hand, my daughter goes gaga over glitzy girls stuff. The more stereotypically girls something is, the more she loves it. That's just the way she is. We neither encourage or discourage it, we just take a lot of pleasure in seeing her decide for herself who she wants to be. So I don't object to girl Legos. It isn't like the package says Girls Only, or other Lego products say Boys Only. Not everything is intentional gender segregation. Some people love stereotypical girls stuff, so some people make it and sell it. Why can't it be that simple?

Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on June 30, 2013, 08:06:48 PM
It's more unnecessary gender segregation.

This.

What I object to is the binary marketing; there is absolutely no reason OTHER THAN THE WAY TOYS ARE ALREADY MARKETED that they couldn't have simply started incorporating a spectrum of figures and themes into their existing line. Changing gender-binary thinking and assumptions is a HUGE part of equality; right now society is still operating on more-or-less a "separate but equal" model of equality, and it's tremendously dysfunctional. The most obvious place you can see this separation visually represented is in the toy aisles.

Notice that pink isn't used ANYWHERE in "boy's" toys, aka "default" toys. Pink is ONLY used in girl's toys. The gender segregation is intense at that level, which means that from birth, little kids are indoctrinated with the idea boys and girls are fundamentally different. The most insidious aspect is the way "boy" toys are normalized, while "girl" toys are marked with PINK AND PINK AND PINK AND PINK, sending the message that girls can be regular people who play with normal toys, but ONLY GIRLS PLAY WITH GIRL TOYS.

Seriously, it's super fucked up, and it's so ingrained in our culture that most of us don't think anything of it.

For shits and giggles, I Googled 'boy toys' and 'girl toys'. Here are the results.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v11/curiosity/ORLY/ScreenShot2013-06-30at42200PM_zps1863b7b6.png)


(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v11/curiosity/ORLY/ScreenShot2013-06-30at42211PM_zps08088fbf.png)


I especially like the Jon Benet Ramsey make-up kit that popped up for girls. Super classy.

So do away with the aisles, throw everything together and let the kids pick what they want.

I wouldn't PUSH a particular toy on a kid, but that works both ways. That Marlo Thomas "Forget girl stuff, don'tcha wanna be a FORKLIFT OPERATOR when you grow up?" shit is just bad as "No you CAN'T have a water gun, take these plastic high heels and STFU."

Quote from: stelz on June 30, 2013, 09:40:00 PM
So do away with the aisles, throw everything together and let the kids pick what they want.

I wouldn't PUSH a particular toy on a kid, but that works both ways. That Marlo Thomas "Forget girl stuff, don'tcha wanna be a FORKLIFT OPERATOR when you grow up?" shit is just bad as "No you CAN'T have a water gun, take these plastic high heels and STFU."

Yeah. It sucks either way.

I recently started collecting Legos, and one thing I've noticed is that all the Legos go in one isle. They don't put the "girl" Legos in the "pink isle." So far, I'm actually pretty impressed with the company. There are clearly some sets that are specifically 'geared towards boys/girls' but there are loads of 'gender neutral' sets (the city sets are great).

But, regardless, I'm pretty sure that it's not so much the company (in this case, Lego) that makes these types of decisions; it's the retailer itself that decides where to place their products. In fact, some retailers have so much financial influence over individual manufacturers that I wouldn't be surprised to find that things like packaging decisions (pink boxes for girls) are made, at some level, by the retailers. Y'know, "We won't buy as much of your product unless you can sell us something that we can 'market' towards girls." And, by 'market towards girls,' they mean 'put it in a pink box.' Mainly because people in marketing actually have no working conceptualization of how the world really works. 

Quote from: Cuddlefish on June 30, 2013, 09:43:17 PM
I recently started collecting Legos, and one thing I've noticed is that all the Legos go in one isle. They don't put the "girl" Legos in the "pink isle." So far, I'm actually pretty impressed with the company. There are clearly some sets that are specifically 'geared towards boys/girls' but there are loads of 'gender neutral' sets (the city sets are great).

But, regardless, I'm pretty sure that it's not so much the company (in this case, Lego) that makes these types of decisions; it's the retailer itself that decides where to place their products. In fact, some retailers have so much financial influence over individual manufacturers that I wouldn't be surprised to find that things like packaging decisions (pink boxes for girls) are made, at some level, by the retailers. Y'know, "We won't buy as much of your product unless you can sell us something that we can 'market' towards girls." And, by 'market towards girls,' they mean 'put it in a pink box.' Mainly because people in marketing actually have no working conceptualization of how the world really works. 

No, they just put the girl Legos in a pink tub or make sure the picture on the box shows that they're pink. :P It's weird how supply and demand has worked around this warped view of gender and toys. I'm sure there's any number of parents who wouldn't let their girls play with Legos because they were a boy's toy . . . until the pink Legos came out.

I overheard something relevant to Cuddlefist's post a week or two ago.  My Friend Who Is the Game Shop (MFWIGS) was saying something about Walmart not carrying Games Workshop products like Citadel paints and Warhammer anything because GW won't drop their products' prices by 5% every year.  GW is big enough and has cornered their niche market well enough that they're free to give no fucks that general stores won't carry their shit, and their moneymaker, Warhammer 40K, is so popular that they can actually raise the prices every year and people will still buy, even if it means beggaring themselves.  It's such a problem that GW has screwed a lot of small business game store owners over with really shoddy and shady business practices, MFWIGS among them, and the small businesses continues carrying them because to drop GW is to lose the business.  It's fucked.


That turned out to be more tangential than I really wanted. :/

The interplay between creator/manufacturer and retailers can be pretty F'd. I used to collect transformers, until WalMart decided for Hasbro that every other figure needed to be a version of Bumblebee, or they can kiss their shelf space goodby. Stealth Bumblebee, Action Feature Bumblebee, Ultimate Bumblebee, Yet Another Bumblebee. It was terrible to watch those damn things just sit on the shelves, no doubt while WalMart was blaming Hasbro for the terrible sales (can't really sell someone something they already have, now can you? In this case, more Bumblebees). I think some people would be surprised at how much influence retailers like WalMart have on the products available, not just at WalMart, but at every other chain that competes with WalMart, what with the precedent having been set by bulk retailers like WalMart.

Definitely.  Major retailers like WalMart, who must always have those low, low prices screw with those businesses who don't have the clout to say "It's like this or fuck off," and can't afford to sell at those prices.  And I never fully comprehended how disgustingly childish and selfish consumers are until I listened to MFWIGS try to tell a customer/tournament director, in three different ways, why they couldn't sell a new card game at the price he was saying they should (which was the price their major competitor is selling at) because they would like to keep their doors open and the power on.  It was appalling. 

http://www.feministfrequency.com/2012/01/lego-gender-part-1-lego-friends/

Anita Sarkeesian on why lego for girls sucks.

lego used to be gender neutral, damnit.

Quote from: Bu☆ns on June 30, 2013, 07:41:44 PM
http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2013/06/28/196605763/girls-legos-are-a-hit-but-why-do-girls-need-special-legos (http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2013/06/28/196605763/girls-legos-are-a-hit-but-why-do-girls-need-special-legos)

Specifically...

QuoteLego Friends triggered the ire of Joy Pochatila, a scientist and mother of two small girls. Her first reaction to the line was dismissive. "Why can't they just play with regular Legos? Why does it have to be girl-driven?" she wondered.

Is this really an issue? I wondered because I've bought my daughter legos in the past--Spongebob Legos--which are pretty gender neutral.  We've gotten her some lego Friends but she never really embraced Legos like my son did.  Personally, I don't think that there's anything wrong with the Lego Friends collection as it increases choice.  Legos are cool. I STILL play with them.

I'm just  not sure if this is just inane social justice or if there's a legitimate thing here.

inane social justice.  My daughter has a bunch of these, and the thing is, they aren't all traditional-gender-role driven.  I mean one my daughter has is a cafe.  So it is a girl that is cooking, sure, but she's also running her own business.  Another one is a magician.  Another a girl that likes to play rock and roll. 


So this isn't Barbie-land, teach girls to be good little wives...I think there is a fairly expansive imagination to them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oe65EGkB9kA

Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on June 30, 2013, 11:12:55 PM

Quote from: Bu☆ns on June 30, 2013, 07:41:44 PM
http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2013/06/28/196605763/girls-legos-are-a-hit-but-why-do-girls-need-special-legos (http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2013/06/28/196605763/girls-legos-are-a-hit-but-why-do-girls-need-special-legos)

Specifically...

QuoteLego Friends triggered the ire of Joy Pochatila, a scientist and mother of two small girls. Her first reaction to the line was dismissive. "Why can't they just play with regular Legos? Why does it have to be girl-driven?" she wondered.

Is this really an issue? I wondered because I've bought my daughter legos in the past--Spongebob Legos--which are pretty gender neutral.  We've gotten her some lego Friends but she never really embraced Legos like my son did.  Personally, I don't think that there's anything wrong with the Lego Friends collection as it increases choice.  Legos are cool. I STILL play with them.

I'm just  not sure if this is just inane social justice or if there's a legitimate thing here.

inane social justice.  My daughter has a bunch of these, and the thing is, they aren't all traditional-gender-role driven.  I mean one my daughter has is a cafe.  So it is a girl that is cooking, sure, but she's also running her own business.  Another one is a magician.  Another a girl that likes to play rock and roll. 


So this isn't Barbie-land, teach girls to be good little wives...I think there is a fairly expansive imagination to them.

there aren't any women as cops or firefighters. Gendered play shapes gender roles, so RWHN, your assertion is bullshit.

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?

Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on June 30, 2013, 11:17:24 PM
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.

Besides, you can still just get a regular ole tub of gender neutral Legos if you want them.  So just keep your kids out of the pink aisles or order them on Amazon. 

Quote from: Pixie on June 30, 2013, 11:22:20 PM

Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on June 30, 2013, 11:17:24 PM
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.

Well, it's not like WalMart puts up "Boys Only!" signs in the aisle of Matchbox cars.  I dunno, when my daughter wanted Thomas the Tank Engine toys, I just walked to the aisle with those toys and bought them.  No one jumped out of the wall to force me to buy her a pink doll.

Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on June 30, 2013, 11:22:35 PM
Besides, you can still just get a regular ole tub of gender neutral Legos if you want them.  So just keep your kids out of the pink aisles or order them on Amazon.

What if boys want toys from the pink aisles? what is wrong with separating toys by the type of play rather than the gender of the kid?

girls toys suck as dolls foster empathy. you seem to be implying that :O "girls" toys have no learning value.

Quote from: Pixie on June 30, 2013, 11:26:46 PM

Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on June 30, 2013, 11:22:35 PM
Besides, you can still just get a regular ole tub of gender neutral Legos if you want them.  So just keep your kids out of the pink aisles or order them on Amazon.

What if boys want toys from the pink aisles? what is wrong with separating toys by the type of play rather than the gender of the kid?

girls toys suck as dolls foster empathy. you seem to be implying that :O "girls" toys have no learning value.

There's nothing wrong with it, but if a store doesn't do it, there is nothing stopping you from buying any toy for any kid.  And with the internet, you don't even need to go into store if that is a big deal.

Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on June 30, 2013, 11:17:24 PM
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?

I see you're still in "villain of PD" mode...

Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on June 30, 2013, 10:17:32 PM
I overheard something relevant to Cuddlefist's post a week or two ago.  My Friend Who Is the Game Shop (MFWIGS) was saying something about Walmart not carrying Games Workshop products like Citadel paints and Warhammer anything because GW won't drop their products' prices by 5% every year.  GW is big enough and has cornered their niche market well enough that they're free to give no fucks that general stores won't carry their shit, and their moneymaker, Warhammer 40K, is so popular that they can actually raise the prices every year and people will still buy, even if it means beggaring themselves.  It's such a problem that GW has screwed a lot of small business game store owners over with really shoddy and shady business practices, MFWIGS among them, and the small businesses continues carrying them because to drop GW is to lose the business.  It's fucked.


That turned out to be more tangential than I really wanted. :/

I heard GW is going to be sold.  I've also seen a lot of Warhammer fans getting very excited about 3d printers.

On the lego topic my daughter is a huge fan of legos and has been since she was little.  I hadn't noticed any gender based marketing.  Maye just be my own blindness, but she has all sorts of legos and drags me to the lego aisle every time we are in a store.

Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on June 30, 2013, 11:31:21 PM

Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on June 30, 2013, 11:17:24 PM
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?

I see you're still in "villain of PD" mode...

No, I'm in "posting my opinion in a thread" mode.  Is that okay?

Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on June 30, 2013, 11:12:55 PM

Quote from: Bu☆ns on June 30, 2013, 07:41:44 PM
http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2013/06/28/196605763/girls-legos-are-a-hit-but-why-do-girls-need-special-legos (http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2013/06/28/196605763/girls-legos-are-a-hit-but-why-do-girls-need-special-legos)

Specifically...

QuoteLego Friends triggered the ire of Joy Pochatila, a scientist and mother of two small girls. Her first reaction to the line was dismissive. "Why can't they just play with regular Legos? Why does it have to be girl-driven?" she wondered.

Is this really an issue? I wondered because I've bought my daughter legos in the past--Spongebob Legos--which are pretty gender neutral.  We've gotten her some lego Friends but she never really embraced Legos like my son did.  Personally, I don't think that there's anything wrong with the Lego Friends collection as it increases choice.  Legos are cool. I STILL play with them.

I'm just  not sure if this is just inane social justice or if there's a legitimate thing here.

inane social justice.  My daughter has a bunch of these, and the thing is, they aren't all traditional-gender-role driven.  I mean one my daughter has is a cafe.  So it is a girl that is cooking, sure, but she's also running her own business.  Another one is a magician.  Another a girl that likes to play rock and roll. 


So this isn't Barbie-land, teach girls to be good little wives...I think there is a fairly expansive imagination to them.

Check out the link that Pixie posted. The videos are pretty good at explaining the issues with the gender segregated Lego experience. :)

Again, you can still get gender-neutral lego block sets so I don't see why this is an issue.  I mean, sure, it is an issue if you let the TV and the TV alone influence what your kids want to play with.  Otherwise, the parent has full control over that situation. 

Anita Sarkeesian probably isn't wrong about Lego...but since she so horribly butchered her review of Borderlands 2 and the role of Angel, I have a hard time taking her entirely seriously.

Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on June 30, 2013, 11:25:20 PM

Quote from: Pixie on June 30, 2013, 11:22:20 PM

Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on June 30, 2013, 11:17:24 PM
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.

Well, it's not like WalMart puts up "Boys Only!" signs in the aisle of Matchbox cars.  I dunno, when my daughter wanted Thomas the Tank Engine toys, I just walked to the aisle with those toys and bought them.  No one jumped out of the wall to force me to buy her a pink doll.

At the risk of sounding like I agree with RWHN, I agree with RWHN. Maybe it's my privilege talking, but I really don't see why this is an affront to social equality. I surely agree that it does nothing to eliminate gender-binary preconceptions -- and by not eliminating those preconceptions, it actively encourages them -- but I can't muster any anger about it any more than I object on moral grounds to having gender-segregated restrooms (actually I object to that practice much more, because everyone has to tinkle, and nobody HAS to buy Legos). But it isn't like anyone is enforcing anything here, or even intentionally engineering anything. It's pretty much entirely passive. The companies that make these toys, and the companies that sell them, do so because that is what people expect to see in stores and that is what people respond to. They are there to make money, not change the world.

If it is unacceptable for these things to exist the way they do, then let's have that conversations and do something about it. Stage boycotts, write angry letters, plaster the Internet with disgust, and basically do exactly what's happening here. But let's talk less about how there are people in places of authority or market dominance "enforcing" something, and more about what can be done to get the General Public to stop responding in a way that encourages them to keep doing it.

If people saw this toy and went "meh," and opted for something else instead, Lego would stop making it. Neither Lego nor Walmart are enforcing anything here, they're reflecting general sentiment. And that's all they're ever going to do, because they are a toy maker and a retail store, not social action networks. No one is going to write a letter angry enough to get Walmart or Lego to switch from a profit-based business model to one based on "Let's enlighten the ignorant masses."

Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on June 30, 2013, 11:44:00 PM
Again, you can still get gender-neutral lego block sets so I don't see why this is an issue.  I mean, sure, it is an issue if you let the TV and the TV alone influence what your kids want to play with.  Otherwise, the parent has full control over that situation.

The TV . . . and the product packaging . . . and the product itself. It all serves to reinforce the idea that girl Legos are different than boy Legos and the two shouldn't be swapped. If you buy the regular buckets off of Amazon, it is less of a problem, unless your kid wants the sets or access to the customized minifigs and pieces. Pirate ships, Hogwarts, and fire-fighters are going to be slathered with male stereotypes including male minifigs and such. The cafe, vet's office, and beauty salon are going to be pink and purple and have those Bratz doll knock off figurines.

Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on June 30, 2013, 11:30:33 PM

Quote from: Pixie on June 30, 2013, 11:26:46 PM

Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on June 30, 2013, 11:22:35 PM
Besides, you can still just get a regular ole tub of gender neutral Legos if you want them.  So just keep your kids out of the pink aisles or order them on Amazon.

What if boys want toys from the pink aisles? what is wrong with separating toys by the type of play rather than the gender of the kid?

girls toys suck as dolls foster empathy. you seem to be implying that :O "girls" toys have no learning value.

There's nothing wrong with it, but if a store doesn't do it, there is nothing stopping you from buying any toy for any kid.  And with the internet, you don't even need to go into store if that is a big deal.

We live in a society where for boys being told that they do anything "like a girl" is a massive insult. Girls toys seem to come in pink, pink, pink, lilac and more pink, it's the how they are marketed that is bullshit, as well as the bullshit assumptions that science and engineering toys are only for boys (THAT really pisses me off and actually there is a correlation in the lack of women in STEM fields and it being a bit of a sausage fest) and vice versa for teaching and nursing. Play is a form of education and if we want girls and boys not to be constrained by gender when it comes to ambition and imagination then segregating toys by gender is limiting.  If as you say, there is nothing wrong with segregating toys by the type of play rather than gender why the fuck are we as adults imposing gender roles on them?

from Pinkstinks.co.uk

QuoteOur second, smaller campaign, challenged Sainsbury's and its sexist labelling of children's dressing-up clothes. Whereby doctor's outfits were labelled for boys, nurse and beautician outfits were of course tagged - girl.

Some kids aren't as lucky to have parents that won't give them shit for choosing the "wrong" toys. 

I would say from my experience growing up as a tomboy that girls playing with "boy's" toys isn't considered bad or weird, but i know dudes whose fathers freaked when they played dress up in a dress or played with toy kitchens and made disparaging remarks.

http://www.naeyc.org/content/what-research-says-gender-typed-toys

Quote from: V3X on June 30, 2013, 11:45:30 PM

Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on June 30, 2013, 11:25:20 PM

Quote from: Pixie on June 30, 2013, 11:22:20 PM

Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on June 30, 2013, 11:17:24 PM
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.

Well, it's not like WalMart puts up "Boys Only!" signs in the aisle of Matchbox cars.  I dunno, when my daughter wanted Thomas the Tank Engine toys, I just walked to the aisle with those toys and bought them.  No one jumped out of the wall to force me to buy her a pink doll.

At the risk of sounding like I agree with RWHN, I agree with RWHN. Maybe it's my privilege talking, but I really don't see why this is an affront to social equality. I surely agree that it does nothing to eliminate gender-binary preconceptions -- and by not eliminating those preconceptions, it actively encourages them -- but I can't muster any anger about it any more than I object on moral grounds to having gender-segregated restrooms (actually I object to that practice much more, because everyone has to tinkle, and nobody HAS to buy Legos). But it isn't like anyone is enforcing anything here, or even intentionally engineering anything. It's pretty much entirely passive. The companies that make these toys, and the companies that sell them, do so because that is what people expect to see in stores and that is what people respond to. They are there to make money, not change the world.

If it is unacceptable for these things to exist the way they do, then let's have that conversations and do something about it. Stage boycotts, write angry letters, plaster the Internet with disgust, and basically do exactly what's happening here. But let's talk less about how there are people in places of authority or market dominance "enforcing" something, and more about what can be done to get the General Public to stop responding in a way that encourages them to keep doing it.

If people saw this toy and went "meh," and opted for something else instead, Lego would stop making it. Neither Lego nor Walmart are enforcing anything here, they're reflecting general sentiment. And that's all they're ever going to do, because they are a toy maker and a retail store, not social action networks. No one is going to write a letter angry enough to get Walmart or Lego to switch from a profit-based business model to one based on "Let's enlighten the ignorant masses."

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.

Quote from: V3X on June 30, 2013, 11:45:30 PM

Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on June 30, 2013, 11:25:20 PM

Quote from: Pixie on June 30, 2013, 11:22:20 PM

Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on June 30, 2013, 11:17:24 PM
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.

Well, it's not like WalMart puts up "Boys Only!" signs in the aisle of Matchbox cars.  I dunno, when my daughter wanted Thomas the Tank Engine toys, I just walked to the aisle with those toys and bought them.  No one jumped out of the wall to force me to buy her a pink doll.

At the risk of sounding like I agree with RWHN, I agree with RWHN. Maybe it's my privilege talking, but I really don't see why this is an affront to social equality. I surely agree that it does nothing to eliminate gender-binary preconceptions -- and by not eliminating those preconceptions, it actively encourages them -- but I can't muster any anger about it any more than I object on moral grounds to having gender-segregated restrooms (actually I object to that practice much more, because everyone has to tinkle, and nobody HAS to buy Legos). But it isn't like anyone is enforcing anything here, or even intentionally engineering anything. It's pretty much entirely passive. The companies that make these toys, and the companies that sell them, do so because that is what people expect to see in stores and that is what people respond to. They are there to make money, not change the world.

If it is unacceptable for these things to exist the way they do, then let's have that conversations and do something about it. Stage boycotts, write angry letters, plaster the Internet with disgust, and basically do exactly what's happening here. But let's talk less about how there are people in places of authority or market dominance "enforcing" something, and more about what can be done to get the General Public to stop responding in a way that encourages them to keep doing it.

If people saw this toy and went "meh," and opted for something else instead, Lego would stop making it. Neither Lego nor Walmart are enforcing anything here, they're reflecting general sentiment. And that's all they're ever going to do, because they are a toy maker and a retail store, not social action networks. No one is going to write a letter angry enough to get Walmart or Lego to switch from a profit-based business model to one based on "Let's enlighten the ignorant masses."

actually campaigning IS what stopped Hamleys, the Entertainer, and Boots in the UK to stop segregating toys by gender.

I just wanted to say that I am not particularly disgusted or up-in-arms about the topic. Just wanted to post my answer to Bu*ns' question and point out some things. But I'm not going to get my torch and pitchfork out for this. I thought the woman in Pixie's video mapped everything out really well.

Personally, if I'm going to buy Legos, I get the big tubs and avoid the kits all together. That doesn't help anyone wanting the space ship parts or whatnot, but since last time I bought Legos I was building an altar set-up out of them, it didn't really bother me. :P

The idea of a toy that fosters creativity and imagination is should do just that. But it shouldn't do so by reinforcing damaging messages of what's appropriate based on gender or cultural stereotypes that have proven to be harmful in so many ways.

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on June 30, 2013, 11:51:46 PM
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.

Quote from: V3X on July 01, 2013, 12:01:57 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on June 30, 2013, 11:51:46 PM
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.

advertising and the gender of kids in adverts plays a part in this, I personally would like more mixed-gender adverts. Gender roles in society influence what toys we buy for kids which in turn enforces the gender roles in society. Play is one of the places we can break the cycle as consumers and as adults, so I think putting pressure on toy companies and retailers is important.

Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on June 30, 2013, 11:37:36 PM

Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on June 30, 2013, 11:31:21 PM

Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on June 30, 2013, 11:17:24 PM
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?

I see you're still in "villain of PD" mode...

No, I'm in "posting my opinion in a thread" mode.  Is that okay?

Really? Because you jumped to angry strawmans awful fast.

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on June 30, 2013, 11:47:57 PM

Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on June 30, 2013, 11:44:00 PM
Again, you can still get gender-neutral lego block sets so I don't see why this is an issue.  I mean, sure, it is an issue if you let the TV and the TV alone influence what your kids want to play with.  Otherwise, the parent has full control over that situation.

The TV . . . and the product packaging . . . and the product itself. It all serves to reinforce the idea that girl Legos are different than boy Legos and the two shouldn't be swapped. If you buy the regular buckets off of Amazon, it is less of a problem, unless your kid wants the sets or access to the customized minifigs and pieces. Pirate ships, Hogwarts, and fire-fighters are going to be slathered with male stereotypes including male minifigs and such. The cafe, vet's office, and beauty salon are going to be pink and purple and have those Bratz doll knock off figurines.

Gee, could maybe the parents step in and talk to their kids and guide them in their imaginative play wants and purchases?  If you are so worried that your son playing with a Harry Potter set is going to turn him unto some unempathetic, stereotypical Male monster, then steer him towards the generic sets.  Problem solved. 

Quote from: V3X on July 01, 2013, 12:01:57 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on June 30, 2013, 11:51:46 PM
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.

Why not, when they had such a good thing going pre-80's? Why couldn't they have maintained that trend instead of morphing into a more gender-segregated stereotype enforcing experience?

Continue with an updated theme like this:

(http://designbeep.designbeep.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/7.vintage-lego-ads.jpg)

Instead of this:

(http://assets.inhabitat.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2012/01/LEGO-Friends-3061-537x326.jpg)

EWWWWWWWW

That's the first I've seen of this shit and EWWWWWWWWWW.

Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 01, 2013, 12:09:38 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on June 30, 2013, 11:47:57 PM

Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on June 30, 2013, 11:44:00 PM
Again, you can still get gender-neutral lego block sets so I don't see why this is an issue.  I mean, sure, it is an issue if you let the TV and the TV alone influence what your kids want to play with.  Otherwise, the parent has full control over that situation.

The TV . . . and the product packaging . . . and the product itself. It all serves to reinforce the idea that girl Legos are different than boy Legos and the two shouldn't be swapped. If you buy the regular buckets off of Amazon, it is less of a problem, unless your kid wants the sets or access to the customized minifigs and pieces. Pirate ships, Hogwarts, and fire-fighters are going to be slathered with male stereotypes including male minifigs and such. The cafe, vet's office, and beauty salon are going to be pink and purple and have those Bratz doll knock off figurines.

Gee, could maybe the parents step in and talk to their kids and guide them in their imaginative play wants and purchases?  If you are so worried that your son playing with a Harry Potter set is going to turn him unto some unempathetic, stereotypical Male monster, then steer him towards the generic sets.  Problem solved.

you are using a bullshit straw man argument.  please, shut the fuck up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZn_lJoN6PI

again, as the feminine is seen on a cultural level as being inferior or vapid, not all parents are going to offer their kids more than the blue or pink aisle or give them shit for choosing the "wrong" one.

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 12:11:09 AM

Quote from: V3X on July 01, 2013, 12:01:57 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on June 30, 2013, 11:51:46 PM
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.

Why not, when they had such a good thing going pre-80's? Why couldn't they have maintained that trend instead of morphing into a more gender-segregated stereotype enforcing experience?

Continue with an updated theme like this:

(http://designbeep.designbeep.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/7.vintage-lego-ads.jpg)

Instead of this:

(http://assets.inhabitat.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2012/01/LEGO-Friends-3061-537x326.jpg)

Frankly, because there are people like my daughter who would love to have the product in the 2nd picture, and parents like me who aren't going to say "No you can't have that because it reinforces an exploitative and segregated notion of gender."

Or are we supposed to tell little girls they can't have girly things at all, because it is not in keeping with the New Way?

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" ?

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 12:16:45 AM

Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 01, 2013, 12:09:38 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on June 30, 2013, 11:47:57 PM

Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on June 30, 2013, 11:44:00 PM
Again, you can still get gender-neutral lego block sets so I don't see why this is an issue.  I mean, sure, it is an issue if you let the TV and the TV alone influence what your kids want to play with.  Otherwise, the parent has full control over that situation.

The TV . . . and the product packaging . . . and the product itself. It all serves to reinforce the idea that girl Legos are different than boy Legos and the two shouldn't be swapped. If you buy the regular buckets off of Amazon, it is less of a problem, unless your kid wants the sets or access to the customized minifigs and pieces. Pirate ships, Hogwarts, and fire-fighters are going to be slathered with male stereotypes including male minifigs and such. The cafe, vet's office, and beauty salon are going to be pink and purple and have those Bratz doll knock off figurines.

Gee, could maybe the parents step in and talk to their kids and guide them in their imaginative play wants and purchases?  If you are so worried that your son playing with a Harry Potter set is going to turn him unto some unempathetic, stereotypical Male monster, then steer him towards the generic sets.  Problem solved.

you are using a bullshit straw man argument.  please, shut the fuck up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZn_lJoN6PI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZn_lJoN6PI)

again, as the feminine is seen on a cultural level as being inferior or vapid, not all parents are going to offer their kids more than the blue or pink aisle or give them shit for choosing the "wrong" one.

It isn't bullshit at all.  The reason this is an issue at all is because too many parents relinquish control of their kids' minds to marketing machines.  THAT is the problem you need to fix first.  Otherwise you will be endlessly treading water.

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 12:20:09 AM
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 do have a boy, and he likes all kinds of things that would normally be reserved "for girls." And when the issue of someone giving him shit for it, it is very much "they're jerks, play how you want." The same goes when my daughter plays with Transformers or Thomas. We actively discourage any of that bullshit, because our kids should get to be and like whatever they want.

Quote from: V3X on July 01, 2013, 12:18:31 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 12:11:09 AM

Quote from: V3X on July 01, 2013, 12:01:57 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on June 30, 2013, 11:51:46 PM
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.

Why not, when they had such a good thing going pre-80's? Why couldn't they have maintained that trend instead of morphing into a more gender-segregated stereotype enforcing experience?

Continue with an updated theme like this:

(http://designbeep.designbeep.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/7.vintage-lego-ads.jpg)

Instead of this:

(http://assets.inhabitat.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2012/01/LEGO-Friends-3061-537x326.jpg)

Frankly, because there are people like my daughter who would love to have the product in the 2nd picture, and parents like me who aren't going to say "No you can't have that because it reinforces an exploitative and segregated notion of gender."

Or are we supposed to tell little girls they can't have girly things at all, because it is not in keeping with the New Way?

We are supposed to empower our kids to be secure in who they are, however they decide to definemthat for themselves.  If they decide they like the girly, girl stuff, not out of peer pressure or marketing pressure, but just because it is what they like, we should empower them to make that choice. 

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 12:20:09 AM
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)

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:25:21 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 12:20:09 AM
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?

Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 01, 2013, 12:24:46 AM

Quote from: V3X on July 01, 2013, 12:18:31 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 12:11:09 AM

Quote from: V3X on July 01, 2013, 12:01:57 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on June 30, 2013, 11:51:46 PM
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.

Why not, when they had such a good thing going pre-80's? Why couldn't they have maintained that trend instead of morphing into a more gender-segregated stereotype enforcing experience?

Continue with an updated theme like this:

(http://designbeep.designbeep.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/7.vintage-lego-ads.jpg)

Instead of this:

(http://assets.inhabitat.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2012/01/LEGO-Friends-3061-537x326.jpg)

Frankly, because there are people like my daughter who would love to have the product in the 2nd picture, and parents like me who aren't going to say "No you can't have that because it reinforces an exploitative and segregated notion of gender."

Or are we supposed to tell little girls they can't have girly things at all, because it is not in keeping with the New Way?

We are supposed to empower our kids to be secure in who they are, however they decide to definemthat for themselves.  If they decide they like the girly, girl stuff, not out of peer pressure or marketing pressure, but just because it is what they like, we should empower them to make that choice.

not enough people are media savvy enough, and kids channels are CONSTANTLY bombarded with gendered marketing.

Quote from: V3X on July 01, 2013, 12:24:18 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 12:20:09 AM
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 do have a boy, and he likes all kinds of things that would normally be reserved "for girls." And when the issue of someone giving him shit for it, it is very much "they're jerks, play how you want." The same goes when my daughter plays with Transformers or Thomas. We actively discourage any of that bullshit, because our kids should get to be and like whatever they want.

That's cool. Have they asked why people say some toys are for girls and some are for boys, yet?

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 12:29:34 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:25:21 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 12:20:09 AM
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.

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:42:01 AM

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 12:29:34 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:25:21 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 12:20:09 AM
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.

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 12:45:51 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:42:01 AM

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 12:29:34 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:25:21 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 12:20:09 AM
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. 

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 12:36:41 AM

Quote from: V3X on July 01, 2013, 12:24:18 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 12:20:09 AM
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 do have a boy, and he likes all kinds of things that would normally be reserved "for girls." And when the issue of someone giving him shit for it, it is very much "they're jerks, play how you want." The same goes when my daughter plays with Transformers or Thomas. We actively discourage any of that bullshit, because our kids should get to be and like whatever they want.

That's cool. Have they asked why people say some toys are for girls and some are for boys, yet?

They ask but not very seriously. We tell them some people like to be told what they like, and other people like to find out for themselves what they like, and in our house everyone is free to decide for themselves.

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:42:01 AM

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 12:29:34 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:25:21 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 12:20:09 AM
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.

I just... I don't even...

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:48:34 AM

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 12:45:51 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:42:01 AM

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 12:29:34 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:25:21 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 12:20:09 AM
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.

do you realise HOW sexist it seems for you to assume that "boy plays with girls toys, must be queer/trans*"

:facepalm:

oh my god he picked up a doll! he must be growing up to be non hetero/cisgendered!

give me a fucking break.

Quote from: V3X on July 01, 2013, 12:49:14 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 12:36:41 AM

Quote from: V3X on July 01, 2013, 12:24:18 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 12:20:09 AM
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 do have a boy, and he likes all kinds of things that would normally be reserved "for girls." And when the issue of someone giving him shit for it, it is very much "they're jerks, play how you want." The same goes when my daughter plays with Transformers or Thomas. We actively discourage any of that bullshit, because our kids should get to be and like whatever they want.

That's cool. Have they asked why people say some toys are for girls and some are for boys, yet?

They ask but not very seriously. We tell them some people like to be told what they like, and other people like to find out for themselves what they like, and in our house everyone is free to decide for themselves.

I like your approach. It is a shame more parents don't have your handle on things. I think the labeling and presentation of the girl Legos sends a shitty message to girls and boys but as long as you're prepared to answer the questions it and other toys like it might bring up, it's not as bad as it could be. Does your extended family back you up on that, letting your kids pick, or do they stick to the gender themed approach?

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:48:34 AM

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 12:45:51 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:42:01 AM

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 12:29:34 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:25:21 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 12:20:09 AM
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?

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 12:51:32 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:48:34 AM

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 12:45:51 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:42:01 AM

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 12:29:34 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:25:21 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 12:20:09 AM
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.

do you realise HOW sexist it seems for you to assume that "boy plays with girls toys, must be queer/trans*"

:facepalm:

It might not be true if the kid was raised in a cultural vaccuum,, but I am assuming he's old enough to play with legos, so at least 6 or so, and that I let him watch TV and play with other kids.  He's already been socialized that those are toys for girls.  Maybe he is just curious, and that is fine, maybe he likes girly stuff without being trans, if so I still need to be ready for him to face a shitty time in high school, worse in some ways than the trans kid because he doesn't have the strength that comes with a different identity, he's just a weird kid.

How sexist is it for you to assume that an adult man with shaved face and legs in a dress is queer/trans?  I assume you assign a much higher likelihood to that than a woman in jeans and a wifebeater with no makeup on being trans.

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 12:53:23 AM
oh my god he picked up a doll! he must be growing up to be non hetero/cisgendered!

give me a fucking break.

I assume you didn't read my posts, since I specifically said that barbie dolls and raggedy ann were NOT warning signs.

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 12:56:09 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:48:34 AM

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 12:45:51 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:42:01 AM

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 12:29:34 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:25:21 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 12:20:09 AM
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.

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:57:27 AM

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 12:51:32 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:48:34 AM

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 12:45:51 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:42:01 AM

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 12:29:34 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:25:21 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 12:20:09 AM
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.

do you realise HOW sexist it seems for you to assume that "boy plays with girls toys, must be queer/trans*"

:facepalm:

It might not be true if the kid was raised in a cultural vaccuum,, but I am assuming he's old enough to play with legos, so at least 6 or so, and that I let him watch TV and play with other kids.  He's already been socialized that those are toys for girls.  Maybe he is just curious, and that is fine, maybe he likes girly stuff without being trans, if so I still need to be ready for him to face a shitty time in high school, worse in some ways than the trans kid because he doesn't have the strength that comes with a different identity, he's just a weird kid.

How sexist is it for you to assume that an adult man with shaved face and legs in a dress is queer/trans?  I assume you assign a much higher likelihood to that than a woman in jeans and a wifebeater with no makeup on being trans.

no. I use the pronouns people ask me to. gender variance/ presentation can be a awesome myriad of things and I have very femme genderqueer friends, some that are more androgynous, some more genderfluid friends and some binary trans friends.

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 01:01:17 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 12:56:09 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:48:34 AM

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 12:45:51 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:42:01 AM

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 12:29:34 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:25:21 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 12:20:09 AM
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.

internalised misogyny, yes.. that one fits, the rest? yea, not so much.

refusing to wear makeup could just be an act of rebellion, a NO, NO SKIRTS is sometimes a matter of comfort.

And where the fuck did i make the assumption about presentation and gender identity?

I know from my social circle that it's not at all cut and dried, or binary, or even static.

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 01:04:27 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 01:01:17 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 12:56:09 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:48:34 AM

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 12:45:51 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:42:01 AM

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 12:29:34 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:25:21 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 12:20:09 AM
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.

internalised misogyny, yes.. that one fits, the rest? yea, not so much.

refusing to wear makeup could just be an act of rebellion, a NO, NO SKIRTS is sometimes a matter of comfort.

So aside from your son/daughter coming to you at 12 or 13 and telling you that he/she is trans, how would you figure it out?  This idea that there are no signs whatsoever seems pretty silly to me.  Gender means something, being trans means taking on a gender different from what your genitals would suggest, so if someone is acting like the other gender than their genitals, it is a sign they might be trans.  Someone with a penis who wears women's clothes and makeup and has a cleanshaven face but who still prefers to be referred to as he is, in my opinion, far more trans than someone with a penis,a beard and pants who wants to be called she.  The first person is also going to have a much harder time from other people than the second.

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 01:08:52 AM
And where the fuck did i make the assumption about presentation and gender identity?

I know from my social circle that it's not at all cut and dried, or binary, or even static.

So apparently you already live in a feminist utopia, that's great, the rest of us still have to deal with the patriarchy on a daily basis and part of that is being ready to shield our children from it, even being over prepared in some cases.

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 12:30:22 AM
not enough people are media savvy enough, and kids channels are CONSTANTLY bombarded with gendered marketing.

Turn off the TV.  My daughter sees very little of this because she sees very little TV.  But when she does see it, she has me to help her process it.  And she also gets constant reinforcement and encouragement to follow the paths she wants, regardless of what the TV tells her, or her friends, or anyone else. 


It's called parenting.  Marketers can only get to your kids if you let them. 

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 12:54:37 AM

Quote from: V3X on July 01, 2013, 12:49:14 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 12:36:41 AM

Quote from: V3X on July 01, 2013, 12:24:18 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 12:20:09 AM
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 do have a boy, and he likes all kinds of things that would normally be reserved "for girls." And when the issue of someone giving him shit for it, it is very much "they're jerks, play how you want." The same goes when my daughter plays with Transformers or Thomas. We actively discourage any of that bullshit, because our kids should get to be and like whatever they want.

That's cool. Have they asked why people say some toys are for girls and some are for boys, yet?

They ask but not very seriously. We tell them some people like to be told what they like, and other people like to find out for themselves what they like, and in our house everyone is free to decide for themselves.

I like your approach. It is a shame more parents don't have your handle on things. I think the labeling and presentation of the girl Legos sends a shitty message to girls and boys but as long as you're prepared to answer the questions it and other toys like it might bring up, it's not as bad as it could be. Does your extended family back you up on that, letting your kids pick, or do they stick to the gender themed approach?

My extended family are all fundamentalist baptists, so they don't back anything up. They are strangely bewildered by the fact that our 5- and 7-year old kids are more well adjusted and better behaved than the hardcore Christian kids in the family. But they never ask for pointers, for some reason.

I can't really provide anecdotes from my own personal experiences because I grew up in such a dysfunctional cluster-fuck. That being said; I'm pretty sure nature, nurture, and random circumstance combine to varying degrees to give everyone a somewhat customized experience of childhood. I'm now curious to explore the whole warning signs of gender non-conformity, though.

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 01:09:10 AM

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 01:04:27 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 01:01:17 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 12:56:09 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:48:34 AM

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 12:45:51 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:42:01 AM

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 12:29:34 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:25:21 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 12:20:09 AM
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.

internalised misogyny, yes.. that one fits, the rest? yea, not so much.

refusing to wear makeup could just be an act of rebellion, a NO, NO SKIRTS is sometimes a matter of comfort.

So aside from your son/daughter coming to you at 12 or 13 and telling you that he/she is trans, how would you figure it out?  This idea that there are no signs whatsoever seems pretty silly to me.  Gender means something, being trans means taking on a gender different from what your genitals would suggest, so if someone is acting like the other gender than their genitals, it is a sign they might be trans.  Someone with a penis who wears women's clothes and makeup and has a cleanshaven face but who still prefers to be referred to as he is, in my opinion, far more trans than someone with a penis,a beard and pants who wants to be called she.  The first person is also going to have a much harder time from other people than the second.

you are thinking in binary terms, for a star, and gender is a continuum for some trans* folks. Dude in a dress that wants to be called he? probably a crossdresser, still a dude.

Kids will tell you and there are plenty of cases of kids that will tell their parents before puberty. Making an assumption that this kid is definitely going to be gender non-conforming/ trans because they prefer certain toys is bullshit.

i HATED wearing makeup, dresses, skirts until I was about 14, and honestly, I only wear makeup when I can be arsed to and feel like it.

Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 01, 2013, 01:16:34 AM

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 12:30:22 AM
not enough people are media savvy enough, and kids channels are CONSTANTLY bombarded with gendered marketing.

Turn off the TV.  My daughter sees very little of this because she sees very little TV.  But when she does see it, she has me to help her process it.  And she also gets constant reinforcement and encouragement to follow the paths she wants, regardless of what the TV tells her, or her friends, or anyone else. 


It's called parenting.  Marketers can only get to your kids if you let them. 

Your daughter is one of the lucky ones. Not all kids have that luxury. Marketing doesn't exist outside a societal vacuum though and the fact that 89% of engineers are male would suggest that gendering toys (especially science kits) is a problem.

Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 01, 2013, 01:16:34 AM

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 12:30:22 AM
not enough people are media savvy enough, and kids channels are CONSTANTLY bombarded with gendered marketing.

Turn off the TV.  My daughter sees very little of this because she sees very little TV.  But when she does see it, she has me to help her process it.  And she also gets constant reinforcement and encouragement to follow the paths she wants, regardless of what the TV tells her, or her friends, or anyone else. 


It's called parenting.  Marketers can only get to your kids if you let them.

Are you with your kids all the time? Is your view prevalent in the schools in your area? I agree that an involved parent has better odds of circumventing harmful media messages but societal stereotypes are subtly enforced in pretty much every media format.

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 01:22:17 AM



you are thinking in binary terms, for a star, and gender is a continuum for some trans* folks. Dude in a dress that wants to be called he? probably a crossdresser, still a dude.

Kids will tell you and there are plenty of cases of kids that will tell their parents before puberty. Making an assumption that this kid is definitely going to be gender non-conforming/ trans because they prefer certain toys is bullshit.

i HATED wearing makeup, dresses, skirts until I was about 14, and honestly, I only wear makeup when I can be arsed to and feel like it.

Definitely is the important word.  I never said the boy playing with the girly legos would definitely be trans, I said it increases the likelihood.  That's a hard talk to have and I'd want as much warning as possible.   If I didn't have to explain to the kid that it is ok too, and makes life easier, but that preparation wasn't wasted because I can use it to talk to him about how to treat trans folks (the way I would have wanted him treated if he had turned out to be trans)  It also is a binary as far as a parents concern goes.  Either the kid is normal enough, gender wise, that I don't need to worry about it, or the kid is different enough from standard gender norms that he or she is going to be given hell from his or her peers. 

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 01:22:54 AM

Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 01, 2013, 01:16:34 AM

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 12:30:22 AM
not enough people are media savvy enough, and kids channels are CONSTANTLY bombarded with gendered marketing.

Turn off the TV.  My daughter sees very little of this because she sees very little TV.  But when she does see it, she has me to help her process it.  And she also gets constant reinforcement and encouragement to follow the paths she wants, regardless of what the TV tells her, or her friends, or anyone else. 


It's called parenting.  Marketers can only get to your kids if you let them.

Are you with your kids all the time? Is your view prevalent in the schools in your area? I agree that an involved parent has better odds of circumventing harmful media messages but societal stereotypes are subtly enforced in pretty much every media format.

Well I'm divorced so no, but ex-Mrs. WHN and I are on the same page on this.  I don't know if my view is prevalent, but the thing is, marketers are doing their job.  Their job is to move units.  Which means you need to be able to advertise in a language those with the purse strings are going to understand.  In other words, they are filling a demand.  It's easy to blame the marketers, bit they aren't going to change so long as they are reaching parents and kids.  If parents didn't want to get things like Lego Friends for their kids, then that product and marketing would dry up fast.


So my point is that I think there are FAR more powerful elements at work that steer a kid to want gendered toys, and to make parents think it isn't a big deal.  So that is the shit you need to change,  Going after the marketers will do jack shit if those mindsets are still there.

Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 01, 2013, 01:31:00 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 01:22:54 AM

Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 01, 2013, 01:16:34 AM

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 12:30:22 AM
not enough people are media savvy enough, and kids channels are CONSTANTLY bombarded with gendered marketing.

Turn off the TV.  My daughter sees very little of this because she sees very little TV.  But when she does see it, she has me to help her process it.  And she also gets constant reinforcement and encouragement to follow the paths she wants, regardless of what the TV tells her, or her friends, or anyone else. 


It's called parenting.  Marketers can only get to your kids if you let them.

Are you with your kids all the time? Is your view prevalent in the schools in your area? I agree that an involved parent has better odds of circumventing harmful media messages but societal stereotypes are subtly enforced in pretty much every media format.

Well I'm divorced so no, but ex-Mrs. WHN and I are on the same page on this.  I don't know if my view is prevalent, but the thing is, marketers are doing their job.  Their job is to move units.  Which means you need to be able to advertise in a language those with the purse strings are going to understand.  In other words, they are filling a demand.  It's easy to blame the marketers, bit they aren't going to change so long as they are reaching parents and kids.  If parents didn't want to get things like Lego Friends for their kids, then that product and marketing would dry up fast.


So my point is that I think there are FAR more powerful elements at work that steer a kid to want gendered toys, and to make parents think it isn't a big deal.  So that is the shit you need to change,  Going after the marketers will do jack shit if those mindsets are still there.

Hmm. I'd hope marketers were open to all sorts of feedback, if only to better adjust to (hopefully) shifting market trends.

Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 01, 2013, 01:31:00 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 01:22:54 AM

Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 01, 2013, 01:16:34 AM

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 12:30:22 AM
not enough people are media savvy enough, and kids channels are CONSTANTLY bombarded with gendered marketing.

Turn off the TV.  My daughter sees very little of this because she sees very little TV.  But when she does see it, she has me to help her process it.  And she also gets constant reinforcement and encouragement to follow the paths she wants, regardless of what the TV tells her, or her friends, or anyone else. 


It's called parenting.  Marketers can only get to your kids if you let them.

Are you with your kids all the time? Is your view prevalent in the schools in your area? I agree that an involved parent has better odds of circumventing harmful media messages but societal stereotypes are subtly enforced in pretty much every media format.

Well I'm divorced so no, but ex-Mrs. WHN and I are on the same page on this.  I don't know if my view is prevalent, but the thing is, marketers are doing their job.  Their job is to move units.  Which means you need to be able to advertise in a language those with the purse strings are going to understand.  In other words, they are filling a demand.  It's easy to blame the marketers, bit they aren't going to change so long as they are reaching parents and kids.  If parents didn't want to get things like Lego Friends for their kids, then that product and marketing would dry up fast.


So my point is that I think there are FAR more powerful elements at work that steer a kid to want gendered toys, and to make parents think it isn't a big deal.  So that is the shit you need to change,  Going after the marketers will do jack shit if those mindsets are still there.

you go after both prongs of the fork.

I wasn't suggesting that this is an either/or solution.  However your kids don't live in a vacuum, other peoiple aren't as media savvy, or watch what their kids take in media wise because they don't see how it matters. Changing representation is one part of it, and educating parents on HOW different toys foster different brain development is the other side.

I doubt a single parent working way too many jobs has as much time to be involved with their kids.

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 01:35:46 AM

Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 01, 2013, 01:31:00 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 01:22:54 AM

Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 01, 2013, 01:16:34 AM

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 12:30:22 AM
not enough people are media savvy enough, and kids channels are CONSTANTLY bombarded with gendered marketing.

Turn off the TV.  My daughter sees very little of this because she sees very little TV.  But when she does see it, she has me to help her process it.  And she also gets constant reinforcement and encouragement to follow the paths she wants, regardless of what the TV tells her, or her friends, or anyone else. 


It's called parenting.  Marketers can only get to your kids if you let them.

Are you with your kids all the time? Is your view prevalent in the schools in your area? I agree that an involved parent has better odds of circumventing harmful media messages but societal stereotypes are subtly enforced in pretty much every media format.

Well I'm divorced so no, but ex-Mrs. WHN and I are on the same page on this.  I don't know if my view is prevalent, but the thing is, marketers are doing their job.  Their job is to move units.  Which means you need to be able to advertise in a language those with the purse strings are going to understand.  In other words, they are filling a demand.  It's easy to blame the marketers, bit they aren't going to change so long as they are reaching parents and kids.  If parents didn't want to get things like Lego Friends for their kids, then that product and marketing would dry up fast.


So my point is that I think there are FAR more powerful elements at work that steer a kid to want gendered toys, and to make parents think it isn't a big deal.  So that is the shit you need to change,  Going after the marketers will do jack shit if those mindsets are still there.

Hmm. I'd hope marketers were open to all sorts of feedback, if only to better adjust to (hopefully) shifting market trends.

exactly. Lots of toy retailers in the UK are changing to the type of play rather than gender because of pressure from parents. shifts in culture come from media AND people.

Pink Legos are not the problem. Again, there's nothing wrong with gendered toys, on the condition that nobody's MAKING kids conform to that. THAT'S where the problems come in, assholes calling boys "sissies" and trying to limit girls to frou-frou.

Everything doesn't have to be "gender neutral". Some things just naturally ARE, like original Legos, but when you take it to the wall you get something like this:

(http://i524.photobucket.com/albums/cc322/fennario99/belly.jpg)

(http://i524.photobucket.com/albums/cc322/fennario99/freakout.jpg)

Then everybody looks fucking MORONIC.

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.

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 01:29:51 AM

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 01:22:17 AM



you are thinking in binary terms, for a star, and gender is a continuum for some trans* folks. Dude in a dress that wants to be called he? probably a crossdresser, still a dude.

Kids will tell you and there are plenty of cases of kids that will tell their parents before puberty. Making an assumption that this kid is definitely going to be gender non-conforming/ trans because they prefer certain toys is bullshit.

i HATED wearing makeup, dresses, skirts until I was about 14, and honestly, I only wear makeup when I can be arsed to and feel like it.

Definitely is the important word.  I never said the boy playing with the girly legos would definitely be trans, I said it increases the likelihood.  That's a hard talk to have and I'd want as much warning as possible.   If I didn't have to explain to the kid that it is ok too, and makes life easier, but that preparation wasn't wasted because I can use it to talk to him about how to treat trans folks (the way I would have wanted him treated if he had turned out to be trans)  It also is a binary as far as a parents concern goes.  Either the kid is normal enough, gender wise, that I don't need to worry about it, or the kid is different enough from standard gender norms that he or she is going to be given hell from his or her peers.

Some trans* children and teens overcompensate for gender identity confusion though, and go more stereotypically towards their birth assigned gender so why not read up on this shit anyway whatever the kid prefers?

Quote from: stelz on July 01, 2013, 01:41:32 AM
Pink Legos are not the problem. Again, there's nothing wrong with gendered toys, on the condition that nobody's MAKING kids conform to that. THAT'S where the problems come in, assholes calling boys "sissies" and trying to limit girls to frou-frou.

Everything doesn't have to be "gender neutral". Some things just naturally ARE, like original Legos, but when you take it to the wall you get something like this:

(http://i524.photobucket.com/albums/cc322/fennario99/belly.jpg)

(http://i524.photobucket.com/albums/cc322/fennario99/freakout.jpg)

Then everybody looks fucking MORONIC.

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.

I dunno, they look pretty stylin to me :P

i think the limiting kids to gendered toy assholes probably have some homophobia/ transphobia issues, personally. as i said much earlier upthread that the marketing and social gender roles thing is a cycle that feeds on itself.

a beauty parlour with a rugged pirate and gun turrets sounds glorious though.

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 01:35:46 AM

Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 01, 2013, 01:31:00 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 01:22:54 AM

Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 01, 2013, 01:16:34 AM

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 12:30:22 AM
not enough people are media savvy enough, and kids channels are CONSTANTLY bombarded with gendered marketing.

Turn off the TV.  My daughter sees very little of this because she sees very little TV.  But when she does see it, she has me to help her process it.  And she also gets constant reinforcement and encouragement to follow the paths she wants, regardless of what the TV tells her, or her friends, or anyone else. 


It's called parenting.  Marketers can only get to your kids if you let them.

Are you with your kids all the time? Is your view prevalent in the schools in your area? I agree that an involved parent has better odds of circumventing harmful media messages but societal stereotypes are subtly enforced in pretty much every media format.

Well I'm divorced so no, but ex-Mrs. WHN and I are on the same page on this.  I don't know if my view is prevalent, but the thing is, marketers are doing their job.  Their job is to move units.  Which means you need to be able to advertise in a language those with the purse strings are going to understand.  In other words, they are filling a demand.  It's easy to blame the marketers, bit they aren't going to change so long as they are reaching parents and kids.  If parents didn't want to get things like Lego Friends for their kids, then that product and marketing would dry up fast.


So my point is that I think there are FAR more powerful elements at work that steer a kid to want gendered toys, and to make parents think it isn't a big deal.  So that is the shit you need to change,  Going after the marketers will do jack shit if those mindsets are still there.

Hmm. I'd hope marketers were open to all sorts of feedback, if only to better adjust to (hopefully) shifting market trends.

Well sure, but the ultimate feedback for them is the feedback that comes in a shade of green.

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 01:36:45 AM

Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 01, 2013, 01:31:00 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 01:22:54 AM

Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 01, 2013, 01:16:34 AM

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 12:30:22 AM
not enough people are media savvy enough, and kids channels are CONSTANTLY bombarded with gendered marketing.

Turn off the TV.  My daughter sees very little of this because she sees very little TV.  But when she does see it, she has me to help her process it.  And she also gets constant reinforcement and encouragement to follow the paths she wants, regardless of what the TV tells her, or her friends, or anyone else. 


It's called parenting.  Marketers can only get to your kids if you let them.

Are you with your kids all the time? Is your view prevalent in the schools in your area? I agree that an involved parent has better odds of circumventing harmful media messages but societal stereotypes are subtly enforced in pretty much every media format.

Well I'm divorced so no, but ex-Mrs. WHN and I are on the same page on this.  I don't know if my view is prevalent, but the thing is, marketers are doing their job.  Their job is to move units.  Which means you need to be able to advertise in a language those with the purse strings are going to understand.  In other words, they are filling a demand.  It's easy to blame the marketers, bit they aren't going to change so long as they are reaching parents and kids.  If parents didn't want to get things like Lego Friends for their kids, then that product and marketing would dry up fast.


So my point is that I think there are FAR more powerful elements at work that steer a kid to want gendered toys, and to make parents think it isn't a big deal.  So that is the shit you need to change,  Going after the marketers will do jack shit if those mindsets are still there.

you go after both prongs of the fork.

I wasn't suggesting that this is an either/or solution.  However your kids don't live in a vacuum, other peoiple aren't as media savvy, or watch what their kids take in media wise because they don't see how it matters. Changing representation is one part of it, and educating parents on HOW different toys foster different brain development is the other side.

I doubt a single parent working way too many jobs has as much time to be involved with their kids.

But they have impact on the trusted adults who will be watching their kids while they work all of those jobs, AND can make a point to connect with their kids when they do have the time.

Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 01, 2013, 01:51:01 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 01:35:46 AM

Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 01, 2013, 01:31:00 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 01:22:54 AM

Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 01, 2013, 01:16:34 AM

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 12:30:22 AM
not enough people are media savvy enough, and kids channels are CONSTANTLY bombarded with gendered marketing.

Turn off the TV.  My daughter sees very little of this because she sees very little TV.  But when she does see it, she has me to help her process it.  And she also gets constant reinforcement and encouragement to follow the paths she wants, regardless of what the TV tells her, or her friends, or anyone else. 


It's called parenting.  Marketers can only get to your kids if you let them.

Are you with your kids all the time? Is your view prevalent in the schools in your area? I agree that an involved parent has better odds of circumventing harmful media messages but societal stereotypes are subtly enforced in pretty much every media format.

Well I'm divorced so no, but ex-Mrs. WHN and I are on the same page on this.  I don't know if my view is prevalent, but the thing is, marketers are doing their job.  Their job is to move units.  Which means you need to be able to advertise in a language those with the purse strings are going to understand.  In other words, they are filling a demand.  It's easy to blame the marketers, bit they aren't going to change so long as they are reaching parents and kids.  If parents didn't want to get things like Lego Friends for their kids, then that product and marketing would dry up fast.


So my point is that I think there are FAR more powerful elements at work that steer a kid to want gendered toys, and to make parents think it isn't a big deal.  So that is the shit you need to change,  Going after the marketers will do jack shit if those mindsets are still there.

Hmm. I'd hope marketers were open to all sorts of feedback, if only to better adjust to (hopefully) shifting market trends.

Well sure, but the ultimate feedback for them is the feedback that comes in a shade of green.

Sweden has banned ads marketed at the under 12's so the pester pressure wouldn't be such an issue there.

I once watched the Barbie movie with some kids I was babysitting, and I shit you not, barbie had magickal stripper heels.

MAJICKAL. STRIPPER. HEELS.

their mum wasn't that concerned with the media her girls consume really as it's "just kids stuff", and that worried me a little, she's a single mum with depression issues and to be honest, she is an awesome mum but not that media savvy, and gives into pestering by the kids. The girls thought I was odd and listened to "boy" music because I was listening to Pearl Jam and their thinking is already incredibly inclined towards a potentially stifling view of gender, and it saddens me that even at 11 one of them is more concerned with being pretty and thin and popular than smart.  I try and reinforce how smart and not being an asshole is more important when I'm around them which I know my mate appreciates, as well as challenging assumptions about changing names when people get married and various other things as they arise. i may not have kids, or want them but I do try and challenge negative tropes in the kids of people I know as an adult in their environment.

Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 01, 2013, 01:53:54 AM

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 01:36:45 AM

Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 01, 2013, 01:31:00 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 01:22:54 AM

Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 01, 2013, 01:16:34 AM

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 12:30:22 AM
not enough people are media savvy enough, and kids channels are CONSTANTLY bombarded with gendered marketing.

Turn off the TV.  My daughter sees very little of this because she sees very little TV.  But when she does see it, she has me to help her process it.  And she also gets constant reinforcement and encouragement to follow the paths she wants, regardless of what the TV tells her, or her friends, or anyone else. 


It's called parenting.  Marketers can only get to your kids if you let them.

Are you with your kids all the time? Is your view prevalent in the schools in your area? I agree that an involved parent has better odds of circumventing harmful media messages but societal stereotypes are subtly enforced in pretty much every media format.

Well I'm divorced so no, but ex-Mrs. WHN and I are on the same page on this.  I don't know if my view is prevalent, but the thing is, marketers are doing their job.  Their job is to move units.  Which means you need to be able to advertise in a language those with the purse strings are going to understand.  In other words, they are filling a demand.  It's easy to blame the marketers, bit they aren't going to change so long as they are reaching parents and kids.  If parents didn't want to get things like Lego Friends for their kids, then that product and marketing would dry up fast.


So my point is that I think there are FAR more powerful elements at work that steer a kid to want gendered toys, and to make parents think it isn't a big deal.  So that is the shit you need to change,  Going after the marketers will do jack shit if those mindsets are still there.

you go after both prongs of the fork.

I wasn't suggesting that this is an either/or solution.  However your kids don't live in a vacuum, other peoiple aren't as media savvy, or watch what their kids take in media wise because they don't see how it matters. Changing representation is one part of it, and educating parents on HOW different toys foster different brain development is the other side.

I doubt a single parent working way too many jobs has as much time to be involved with their kids.

But they have impact on the trusted adults who will be watching their kids while they work all of those jobs, AND can make a point to connect with their kids when they do have the time.

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

also lego was fun and wasn't broke, why the fuck did they have to try and "fix" it?

To get the kids who weren't buying and playing with Legos to buy and play with Legos.  The same reason any brand expands product lines.  To win more customers.

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 02:07:32 AM
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. 

Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 01, 2013, 02:13:11 AM
To get the kids who weren't buying and playing with Legos to buy and play with Legos.  The same reason any brand expands product lines.  To win more customers.

did you even listen to the NPR bit or the videos or other links i provided?

Lego was gender neutral in the 80's! 

No shit, I grew up in the 80s.  What does that have to do with wanting to expand their customer base?

what i am saying is that the toy market is becoming more and more gendered, and this is ultimately not a positive trend.

What is your take on banning adverts targeted at kids under 12 like in Sweden? in the video on marketing and learning gender I linked, the average american kid sees 25,000 toy adverts many of which are heavily enforcing gender roles.

I think it's a great idea. along with listing toys by the type of play rather than gender, Fast food would be less pestered for, kids of parents who haven't the time/aren't as media savvy or have health issues that make it harder wouldn't be disadvantaged over those parents that have the resources to explain and not limit their kids to outside pressure.

after all, if we are to make a positive shift towards actual equality and way from separate but equal, isn't childhood the best place to start?

ALSO YOU FUCKS NEED TO STOP PLURALISING LEGO.

LEGO, not LEGOS

Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 01, 2013, 02:25:42 AM
No shit, I grew up in the 80s.  What does that have to do with wanting to expand their customer base?

If they hadn't alienated part of their client base in the first place, they wouldn't have had to expand it. :P

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 02:43:47 AM

Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 01, 2013, 02:25:42 AM
No shit, I grew up in the 80s.  What does that have to do with wanting to expand their customer base?

If they hadn't alienated part of their client base in the first place, they wouldn't have had to expand it. :P

THIS.

That is where the marketing fucked up.

So the conversation I just had was kind of bizarre to me.  For me it went like this.

People that aren't me (that include Pixie): According to society girls acting like boys is ok but boys acting like girls isn't ok, and that is fucked up
Me: If I had a son who played with girl toys I'd start getting ready to protect him from society's bullshit
Pixie: But not a daughter who plays with boy toys?  You are sexist.  Oh, and acting in ways that defy gender norms is no sign that someone is likely to act in ways that define gender norms.

I'm assuming I either misunderstood somewhere along the way or else I didn't communicate clearly, because the conversation that I just summarized made very very little sense to me, and it was how it read to me.

I have to admit I pluralize Lego just to be irritating to the Lego fanatics I know. :P

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 02:53:48 AM
So the conversation I just had was kind of bizarre to me.  For me it went like this.

People that aren't me (that include Pixie): According to society girls acting like boys is ok but boys acting like girls isn't ok, and that is fucked up
Me: If I had a son who played with girl toys I'd start getting ready to protect him from society's bullshit
Pixie: But not a daughter who plays with boy toys?  You are sexist.  Oh, and acting in ways that defy gender norms is no sign that someone is likely to act in ways that define gender norms.

I'm assuming I either misunderstood somewhere along the way or else I didn't communicate clearly, because the conversation that I just summarized made very very little sense to me, and it was how it read to me.

it was the assumption that you could tell if a kid had gender identity that didn't match up to the contents of the kids pance because of the toys they preferred, or that there is this checklist for OMG 100% sure kid is trans or not hetero, and that you'd seemingly panic harder if it was a boy.

it might just be that (like me) that they were cisgendered and didn't give a shit about what they were supposed to like based on the contents of their pance.

it seemed to me

gender identity is self defined, and just because they dont stick to defined gender roles doesn't = kid being LGBT

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 03:49:59 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 02:53:48 AM
So the conversation I just had was kind of bizarre to me.  For me it went like this.

People that aren't me (that include Pixie): According to society girls acting like boys is ok but boys acting like girls isn't ok, and that is fucked up
Me: If I had a son who played with girl toys I'd start getting ready to protect him from society's bullshit
Pixie: But not a daughter who plays with boy toys?  You are sexist.  Oh, and acting in ways that defy gender norms is no sign that someone is likely to act in ways that define gender norms.

I'm assuming I either misunderstood somewhere along the way or else I didn't communicate clearly, because the conversation that I just summarized made very very little sense to me, and it was how it read to me.

it was the assumption that you could tell if a kid had gender identity that didn't match up to the contents of the kids pance because of the toys they preferred, or that there is this checklist for OMG 100% sure kid is trans or not hetero, and that you'd seemingly panic harder if it was a boy.

it might just be that (like me) that they were cisgendered and didn't give a shit about what they were supposed to like based on the contents of their pance.

it seemed to me

gender identity is self defined, and just because they dont stick to defined gender roles doesn't = kid being LGBT

I guess it was that you were ascribing absolutes to me, when I didn't mean anything absolute at all.  I would panic harder if it were a boy because, as has been pointed out, boys who act like girls have a much harder time than girls who act like boys. 

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 02:53:48 AM
So the conversation I just had was kind of bizarre to me.  For me it went like this.

People that aren't me (that include Pixie): According to society girls acting like boys is ok but boys acting like girls isn't ok, and that is fucked up
Me: If I had a son who played with girl toys I'd start getting ready to protect him from society's bullshit
Pixie: But not a daughter who plays with boy toys?  You are sexist.  Oh, and acting in ways that defy gender norms is no sign that someone is likely to act in ways that define gender norms.

I'm assuming I either misunderstood somewhere along the way or else I didn't communicate clearly, because the conversation that I just summarized made very very little sense to me, and it was how it read to me.

Hmm. That's okay. I think initially you came across as sounding like kids who play with opposite gender toys obviously have issues and need to be watched. But you clarified your point, so I understand what you were saying now.

I don't think kids doing something that defies gender norms equals adults that will defy gender norms. But I don't think there should be gender norms in the first place simply because of the negative connotation stereotypical girl 'norms' have.

Girls are weak and stupid and only like pink and if a boy comes within range of girlie stuff then he is weak and stupid and might as well be wearing a pink dress because clearly he's queer. And a girl will never get a good job or a husband acting boyish. She'll grow up to be a lonely dyke. Her proper place is in the cafe or decorating her house or primping her pets while the boys fight pirates and fires and aliens.

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 03:55:34 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 02:53:48 AM
So the conversation I just had was kind of bizarre to me.  For me it went like this.

People that aren't me (that include Pixie): According to society girls acting like boys is ok but boys acting like girls isn't ok, and that is fucked up
Me: If I had a son who played with girl toys I'd start getting ready to protect him from society's bullshit
Pixie: But not a daughter who plays with boy toys?  You are sexist.  Oh, and acting in ways that defy gender norms is no sign that someone is likely to act in ways that define gender norms.

I'm assuming I either misunderstood somewhere along the way or else I didn't communicate clearly, because the conversation that I just summarized made very very little sense to me, and it was how it read to me.

Hmm. That's okay. I think initially you came across as sounding like kids who play with opposite gender toys obviously have issues and need to be watched. But you clarified your point, so I understand what you were saying now.

I don't think kids doing something that defies gender norms equals adults that will defy gender norms. But I don't think there should be gender norms in the first place simply because of the negative connotation stereotypical girl 'norms' have.

Girls are weak and stupid and only like pink and if a boy comes within range of girlie stuff then he is weak and stupid and might as well be wearing a pink dress because clearly he's queer. And a girl will never get a good job or a husband acting boyish. She'll grow up to be a lonely dyke. Her proper place is in the cafe or decorating her house or primping her pets while the boys fight pirates and fires and aliens.

Hey, how about the one that says men can't cry, can't be sad or hurt, can't be anything considered "girly" and cannot at all costs be "weak?"
...Female people do tend to get away with gender-blurring a LOT easier than guys.
...Either way, people are limited and hurt by these things.

(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_me9l10f5971qzy0kyo1_500.jpg)

Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 01, 2013, 02:16:44 AM

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 02:07:32 AM
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.  :whack:

Quote from: stelz on July 01, 2013, 04:45:26 AM

Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 01, 2013, 02:16:44 AM

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 02:07:32 AM
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.  :whack:

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

Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 01, 2013, 04:51:08 AM

Quote from: stelz on July 01, 2013, 04:45:26 AM

Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 01, 2013, 02:16:44 AM

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 02:07:32 AM
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.  :whack:

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

Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym, 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.

He's run parenting classes.    :lulz:

Quote from: Mome Papess Trivial on July 01, 2013, 04:43:36 AM
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_me9l10f5971qzy0kyo1_500.jpg)

hahahah!  :noodledance:

Quote from: stelz on July 01, 2013, 04:59:08 AM

Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 01, 2013, 04:51:08 AM

Quote from: stelz on July 01, 2013, 04:45:26 AM

Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on July 01, 2013, 02:16:44 AM

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 02:07:32 AM
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.  :whack:

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

Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym, 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.

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

Quote from: Pixie on June 30, 2013, 11:22:20 PM

Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on June 30, 2013, 11:17:24 PM
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.

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.

Quote from: V3X on July 01, 2013, 12:01:57 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on June 30, 2013, 11:51:46 PM
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?

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 01:01:17 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 12:56:09 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:48:34 AM

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 12:45:51 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:42:01 AM

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 12:29:34 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:25:21 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 12:20:09 AM
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.

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 01, 2013, 06:28:06 AM

Quote from: Pixie on June 30, 2013, 11:22:20 PM

Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on June 30, 2013, 11:17:24 PM
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:

(http://resources.news.com.au/files/2011/12/23/1226229/323829-lego-ad-1.jpg)

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.

Quote from: stelz on July 01, 2013, 01:41:32 AM
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.

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.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 01, 2013, 05:07:22 AM
He's run parenting classes.    :lulz:

It's FOR THE CHILRIN, Dok.  :lulz:

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 01, 2013, 06:48:01 AM

Quote from: V3X on July 01, 2013, 12:01:57 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on June 30, 2013, 11:51:46 PM
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.

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 01, 2013, 07:13:24 AM
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.

Gotcha.  I see where you're coming from.  And my conclusions are pretty fluid anyway so it's all good.  Although I'm not sure if we totally disagree...maybe closer to sorta/kinda disagree.  I think the place you're coming from is probably more hashed out than the place I'm coming from so I'll just keep reading along.

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 01, 2013, 07:00:58 AM

Quote from: stelz on July 01, 2013, 01:41:32 AM
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.

Then the girl Legos ARE dumbed down. It sounds like it's essentially "Where can I put the little table and chairs this time?"  :x

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 01, 2013, 06:52:37 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 01:01:17 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 12:56:09 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:48:34 AM

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 12:45:51 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:42:01 AM

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 12:29:34 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:25:21 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 12:20:09 AM
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.

I try, but every time I ask for help people call me sexist or an asshole, so it makes it kind of difficult.

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 07:24:58 AM

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 01, 2013, 06:52:37 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 01:01:17 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 12:56:09 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:48:34 AM

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 12:45:51 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:42:01 AM

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 12:29:34 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:25:21 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 12:20:09 AM
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.

I try, but every time I ask for help people call me sexist or an asshole, so it makes it kind of difficult.

Maybe you are confusing "society says you must have gender identity issues because of the way you act" with "you actually have gender identity issues" ?

Quote from: V3X on July 01, 2013, 07:27:43 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 07:24:58 AM

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 01, 2013, 06:52:37 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 01:01:17 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 12:56:09 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:48:34 AM

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 12:45:51 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:42:01 AM

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 12:29:34 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:25:21 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 12:20:09 AM
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.

I try, but every time I ask for help people call me sexist or an asshole, so it makes it kind of difficult.

Maybe you are confusing "society says you must have gender identity issues because of the way you act" with "you actually have gender identity issues" ?

How did "I like pink" get confused with "in 6-10 years I will like gay sex"?

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 07:24:58 AM

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 01, 2013, 06:52:37 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 01:01:17 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 12:56:09 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:48:34 AM

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 12:45:51 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:42:01 AM

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 12:29:34 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:25:21 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 12:20:09 AM
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.

I try, but every time I ask for help people call me sexist or an asshole, so it makes it kind of difficult.

"Talking about it on the internet" =/= "getting an education". I mean, do some research, read some articles, maybe even read some books. There's absolutely no way to have a meaningful conversation with you about it at your current level of understanding of child gender development.

Quote from: stelz on July 01, 2013, 07:32:37 AM

Quote from: V3X on July 01, 2013, 07:27:43 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 07:24:58 AM

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 01, 2013, 06:52:37 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 01:01:17 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 12:56:09 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:48:34 AM

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 12:45:51 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:42:01 AM

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 12:29:34 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:25:21 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 12:20:09 AM
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.

I try, but every time I ask for help people call me sexist or an asshole, so it makes it kind of difficult.

Maybe you are confusing "society says you must have gender identity issues because of the way you act" with "you actually have gender identity issues" ?

How did "I like pink" get confused with "in 6-10 years I will like gay sex"?

Gay and trans aren't the same thing and I never said that a trans person is more (or less) likely to be gay.

Quote from: V3X on July 01, 2013, 07:18:07 AM

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 01, 2013, 06:48:01 AM

Quote from: V3X on July 01, 2013, 12:01:57 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on June 30, 2013, 11:51:46 PM
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.

I think the outrage is because people love Lego, and essentially want/expect better of them.

And they could have made pink/flowery/girly all they wanted with much less outrage, had they simply integrated the pink/flowery/girly into currently existing Lego themes such as City rather than segregating it into a separate world.

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 01, 2013, 07:39:15 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 07:24:58 AM

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 01, 2013, 06:52:37 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 01:01:17 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 12:56:09 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:48:34 AM

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 12:45:51 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:42:01 AM

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 12:29:34 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:25:21 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 12:20:09 AM
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.

I try, but every time I ask for help people call me sexist or an asshole, so it makes it kind of difficult.

"Talking about it on the internet" =/= "getting an education". I mean, do some research, read some articles, maybe even read some books. There's absolutely no way to have a meaningful conversation with you about it at your current level of understanding of child gender development.

Just so I can have a conversation on a forum?  I mean, you are fun to talk with and all, but I have more valuable uses for my time.  My real life trans friends seem to feel I'm educated enough to have a conversation with about this sort of thing so I'm afraid if that is your standard I'll just have to be content to be ignored.

Quote from: Bu☆ns on July 01, 2013, 07:22:29 AM

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 01, 2013, 07:13:24 AM
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.

Gotcha.  I see where you're coming from.  And my conclusions are pretty fluid anyway so it's all good.  Although I'm not sure if we totally disagree...maybe closer to sorta/kinda disagree.  I think the place you're coming from is probably more hashed out than the place I'm coming from so I'll just keep reading along.

Keep talking, even when people disagree; as long as we're arguing honestly, with the intention to understand or to authentically persuade, argument is productive, IMO.

Quote from: stelz on July 01, 2013, 07:24:48 AM

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 01, 2013, 07:00:58 AM

Quote from: stelz on July 01, 2013, 01:41:32 AM
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.

Then the girl Legos ARE dumbed down. It sounds like it's essentially "Where can I put the little table and chairs this time?"  :x

Yep

plus the little figures are stupid and too big and don't come apart or have movable legs and wrists like normal min figs.

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 07:24:58 AM

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 01, 2013, 06:52:37 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 01:01:17 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 12:56:09 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:48:34 AM

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 12:45:51 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:42:01 AM

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 12:29:34 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:25:21 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 12:20:09 AM
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.

I try, but every time I ask for help people call me sexist or an asshole, so it makes it kind of difficult.

FWIW, I didn't think you were being sexist or an asshole but then my pov isn't very specific with these kinds of issues.  Some folks around these parts tend to have some pretty strong feelings with these ideas and are rather unforgiving with their expectations :P. 

From where I'm sitting it looks like your generality clashed with some specific ideas. 

Up your game, son or fuhgeddaboudit

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 07:43:22 AM

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 01, 2013, 07:39:15 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 07:24:58 AM

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 01, 2013, 06:52:37 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 01:01:17 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 12:56:09 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:48:34 AM

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 12:45:51 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:42:01 AM

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 12:29:34 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:25:21 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 12:20:09 AM
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.

I try, but every time I ask for help people call me sexist or an asshole, so it makes it kind of difficult.

"Talking about it on the internet" =/= "getting an education". I mean, do some research, read some articles, maybe even read some books. There's absolutely no way to have a meaningful conversation with you about it at your current level of understanding of child gender development.

Just so I can have a conversation on a forum?  I mean, you are fun to talk with and all, but I have more valuable uses for my time.  My real life trans friends seem to feel I'm educated enough to have a conversation with about this sort of thing so I'm afraid if that is your standard I'll just have to be content to be ignored.

Done, and done!

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 01, 2013, 07:47:09 AM

Quote from: stelz on July 01, 2013, 07:24:48 AM

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 01, 2013, 07:00:58 AM

Quote from: stelz on July 01, 2013, 01:41:32 AM
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.

Then the girl Legos ARE dumbed down. It sounds like it's essentially "Where can I put the little table and chairs this time?"  :x

Yep

plus the little figures are stupid and too big and don't come apart or have movable legs and wrists like normal min figs.

Yeah, that part totally sucks.  The only characters you can incorporate from the standard sets are Hagrid, the Hulk or the Hogwart's troll...so much for a traditional marriage(!)

(http://www.uncletonystoys.com.au/assets/images/lego%20harry%20potter/p1280208.jpg)(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_qa13GlKvkqY/TNAWuSmNqJI/AAAAAAAAB78/-kEaLSVc0HM/s1600/lego-harry-potter-hagrid.jpg)(http://www.themarysue.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/58821-580x435.jpg)(https://www.thedailybrick.co.uk/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/700x700/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/b/0/b008dtuqng.jpg)

Quote from: Bu☆ns on July 01, 2013, 08:04:09 AM

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 01, 2013, 07:47:09 AM

Quote from: stelz on July 01, 2013, 07:24:48 AM

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 01, 2013, 07:00:58 AM

Quote from: stelz on July 01, 2013, 01:41:32 AM
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.

Then the girl Legos ARE dumbed down. It sounds like it's essentially "Where can I put the little table and chairs this time?"  :x

Yep

plus the little figures are stupid and too big and don't come apart or have movable legs and wrists like normal min figs.

Yeah, that part totally sucks.  The only characters you can incorporate from the standard sets are Hagrid, the Hulk or the Hogwart's troll...so much for a traditional marriage(!)

(http://www.uncletonystoys.com.au/assets/images/lego%20harry%20potter/p1280208.jpg)(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_qa13GlKvkqY/TNAWuSmNqJI/AAAAAAAAB78/-kEaLSVc0HM/s1600/lego-harry-potter-hagrid.jpg)(http://www.themarysue.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/58821-580x435.jpg)(https://www.thedailybrick.co.uk/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/700x700/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/b/0/b008dtuqng.jpg)

Hagrid?

B-b-b-bestiality!!!!

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 07:41:05 AM

Quote from: stelz on July 01, 2013, 07:32:37 AM

Quote from: V3X on July 01, 2013, 07:27:43 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 07:24:58 AM

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 01, 2013, 06:52:37 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 01:01:17 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 12:56:09 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:48:34 AM

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 12:45:51 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:42:01 AM

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 12:29:34 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:25:21 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 12:20:09 AM
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.

I try, but every time I ask for help people call me sexist or an asshole, so it makes it kind of difficult.

Maybe you are confusing "society says you must have gender identity issues because of the way you act" with "you actually have gender identity issues" ?

How did "I like pink" get confused with "in 6-10 years I will like gay sex"?

Gay and trans aren't the same thing and I never said that a trans person is more (or less) likely to be gay.

"I like pink" = "trans" now?

I call :troll:

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 01, 2013, 07:43:00 AM
I think the outrage is because people love Lego, and essentially want/expect better of them.

And they could have made pink/flowery/girly all they wanted with much less outrage, had they simply integrated the pink/flowery/girly into currently existing Lego themes such as City rather than segregating it into a separate world.

Exactly.

It doesn't look even look like Lego any more—it looks like they hired some cold, calculating Barbie marketers.

And it's worked insofar as to make the company money, at least in the short-term.

I started scrolling once the blocks of quoting took over the page but did someone really say they would assume their little girl had a gender identity issue if she liked guns?

Jesus fucking Christ, I accidentally scrolled back up to figure out if I read that all right.

I REFUSE TO EDUCATE MYSELF ON WHETHER LIKING PINK MAKES YOU TRANS BECAUSE MY REAL LIFE TRANS FRIENDS ARE ALL GOOD WITH ME.

MY GAY FRIEND HAS ASSURED ME THAT I AM CLUED IN ON THE SITUATION WITH THE GAYS.

Yeah it appears to be basically I WANT TO SPOUT AN UNINFORMED OPINION FUCK YOU I AIN'T GONNA LARN SHIT. So, ok, that's a valid worldview. Just not one I care about having a conversation with.

Quote from: stelz on July 01, 2013, 08:08:43 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 07:41:05 AM

Quote from: stelz on July 01, 2013, 07:32:37 AM

Quote from: V3X on July 01, 2013, 07:27:43 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 07:24:58 AM

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 01, 2013, 06:52:37 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 01:01:17 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 12:56:09 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:48:34 AM

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 12:45:51 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:42:01 AM

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 12:29:34 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:25:21 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 12:20:09 AM
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.

I try, but every time I ask for help people call me sexist or an asshole, so it makes it kind of difficult.

Maybe you are confusing "society says you must have gender identity issues because of the way you act" with "you actually have gender identity issues" ?

How did "I like pink" get confused with "in 6-10 years I will like gay sex"?

Gay and trans aren't the same thing and I never said that a trans person is more (or less) likely to be gay.

"I like pink" = "trans" now?

I call :troll:

Yes, you do seem to like to troll.  Thanks for admitting it. 

Pixie read my slightly leaning toward as absolute certainty, you seem to just be reading different posts entirely, or maybe making things up.

Quote from: V3X on July 01, 2013, 07:18:07 AM

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 01, 2013, 06:48:01 AM

Quote from: V3X on July 01, 2013, 12:01:57 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on June 30, 2013, 11:51:46 PM
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.

no. I am saying that YOU MARKET SHIT ON THE TYPE OF FECKING PLAY NOT BY CONTENTS OF PANCE. YOU DON'T SPEND (AS A COMPANY), ALMOST THE LAST 30 FUCKING YEARS MAKING YOUR AWESOME CREATIVE GENDER NEUTRAL BRAND A FUCKING BOYS CLUB THROUGH MARKETING AND WONDER WHY GIRLS CANNOT DIG IT ANYMOAR.

fuck, watch the vids.

girls deserve MORE than aisles and aisles and aisles of pink shit.. don't like pink, wee lassie? oh, have some lilac. more than shit that gives them shitty body image at increasingly younger and younger ages,  tells them that they are just the supporting role in other peoples lives rather than the lead character in their own epic adventure and reinforces the bullshit of I HAVE TO BE PRETTY OR I AM WORTHLESS.

THAT CULTURE CAN GO FUCK ITSELF.

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 07:24:58 AM

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 01, 2013, 06:52:37 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 01:01:17 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 12:56:09 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:48:34 AM

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 12:45:51 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:42:01 AM

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 12:29:34 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:25:21 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 12:20:09 AM
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.

I try, but every time I ask for help people call me sexist or an asshole, so it makes it kind of difficult.

HOW ABOUT OUTLANDISH, AND HOW ABOUT YOU ACTUALLY READ SOME NARRATIVES WRITTEN BY ACTUAL TRANS* PEOPLE THAN ASSUME A KID IS DEFECTIVE FOR WANTING TO USE GIRLS TOYS.

I am not saying YOU are sexist. Your assumption and default narrative is. Keep reading.

Everyone knows that girls only want to play with toys related to raising chillins, looking pretty for the boys or working in the kitchen (commercial or otherwise; lots of cafe legosets).

Quote from: Pæs on July 01, 2013, 11:55:46 AM
Everyone knows that girls only want to play with toys related to raising chillins, looking pretty for the boys or working in the kitchen (commercial or otherwise; lots of cafe legosets).

omg i must be  queeer.

oh wait.

nope.

http://www.seejane.org/downloads/FullStudy_GenderRoles.pdf

this is an interesting study of film and tv media and how they are by and large male-centric.


only 3% of kids shows are heavily female centric, 39% are heavily male centric.

Our default narratives are not apolitical, dudes.

I will preface this with saying that I only read the first and last page of this thread. But wanted to throw my feeling about gender marketed toys.
It absolutely sucks! There were a great many toys I wanted as a kid, but because my parents couldn't afford them I had to rely on grandparents giving for birthday or Christmas. And if it was 'clearly' a boys toy (Castle Greyskull is an example I still remember wanting very much) there was no way I was getting it.

But oh they had no problem getting me all kinds of dolls and Barbie and makeup and clothes...

(skipping most of the thread)

Lego used to be one of the best toy companies at making toys for kids, regardless of gender. They still at least care about it, which is nice.

I remember seeing an old Lego ad somewhere (couldn't find it after 5 min of searching, gave up) which showed a little kid holding a bunch of random blocks stuck together. Caption was something along the lines of "To her, this is beautiful." and some sentences about how very young children enjoy just sticking blocks on top of each other and using lots of colors, as opposed to slightly older kids who wanted to build specific things out of Legos. Basically trying to say that even kids who just build randomly are still exercising all the their creativity bits and not too young for Legos, but their model was a four year old girl in (IIRC) overalls.

Found this old TV ad while searching. Their ads were a lot more gender-neutral when they primarily sold to the parents vs. the children, I think.
http://www.themarysue.com/old-lego-tv-advertisement/
Brother and sister playing with the same set, boy builds a really simple plane, girl builds a much more sophisticated house.

Quote from: Sita on July 01, 2013, 02:07:05 PM
I will preface this with saying that I only read the first and last page of this thread. But wanted to throw my feeling about gender marketed toys.
It absolutely sucks! There were a great many toys I wanted as a kid, but because my parents couldn't afford them I had to rely on grandparents giving for birthday or Christmas. And if it was 'clearly' a boys toy (Castle Greyskull is an example I still remember wanting very much) there was no way I was getting it.

But oh they had no problem getting me all kinds of dolls and Barbie and makeup and clothes...

i was lucky in that respect, all my dolls were action figure type toys,  but when they were based from cartoon (he-man, Thundercats, Ghostbusters ect) it seems cruel to deny kids the merch

Can we talk about how the "girl" lego figures have bobble heads and tiny waists for a minute?

We HAD female lego people when I was a kid. They were exactly the same as the male ones, you just slapped some "girl" hair on them and called it a day. Sometimes you had a head that had makeup, or (in the case of the pirates) some cleavage painted on, but they were all the same shape, totally interchangeable, and could use all the same equipment. When you're a kid THAT'S WHAT BOYS AND GIRLS ARE LIKE. YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT WHAT'S IN THEIR PANTS BEYOND WISHING THE BOYS ACROSS THE STREET WOULD STOP THINKING IT'S FUNNY TO PEE IN THE ROAD LIKE THAT. Excessive differences in appearance between boy and girl characters are unrealistic and totally not helping.

Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on July 01, 2013, 03:38:30 PM
Can we talk about how the "girl" lego figures have bobble heads and tiny waists for a minute?

We HAD female lego people when I was a kid. They were exactly the same as the male ones, you just slapped some "girl" hair on them and called it a day. Sometimes you had a head that had makeup, or (in the case of the pirates) some cleavage painted on, but they were all the same shape, totally interchangeable, and could use all the same equipment. When you're a kid THAT'S WHAT BOYS AND GIRLS ARE LIKE. YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT WHAT'S IN THEIR PANTS BEYOND WISHING THE BOYS ACROSS THE STREET WOULD STOP THINKING IT'S FUNNY TO PEE IN THE ROAD LIKE THAT. Excessive differences in appearance between boy and girl characters are unrealistic and totally not helping.

fucking THIS.

Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on July 01, 2013, 03:38:30 PM
Can we talk about how the "girl" lego figures have bobble heads and tiny waists for a minute?

We HAD female lego people when I was a kid. They were exactly the same as the male ones, you just slapped some "girl" hair on them and called it a day. Sometimes you had a head that had makeup, or (in the case of the pirates) some cleavage painted on, but they were all the same shape, totally interchangeable, and could use all the same equipment. When you're a kid THAT'S WHAT BOYS AND GIRLS ARE LIKE. YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT WHAT'S IN THEIR PANTS BEYOND WISHING THE BOYS ACROSS THE STREET WOULD STOP THINKING IT'S FUNNY TO PEE IN THE ROAD LIKE THAT. Excessive differences in appearance between boy and girl characters are unrealistic and totally not helping.

Absolutely

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 12:08:41 PM
http://www.seejane.org/downloads/FullStudy_GenderRoles.pdf

this is an interesting study of film and tv media and how they are by and large male-centric.


only 3% of kids shows are heavily female centric, 39% are heavily male centric.

Our default narratives are not apolitical, dudes.

I was hoping you were going to go into this or at least touch on it.  Thanks for the PDF, I'll sit down with that when I have more time.

Quote from: Sita on July 01, 2013, 02:07:05 PM
I will preface this with saying that I only read the first and last page of this thread. But wanted to throw my feeling about gender marketed toys.
It absolutely sucks! There were a great many toys I wanted as a kid, but because my parents couldn't afford them I had to rely on grandparents giving for birthday or Christmas. And if it was 'clearly' a boys toy (Castle Greyskull is an example I still remember wanting very much) there was no way I was getting it.

But oh they had no problem getting me all kinds of dolls and Barbie and makeup and clothes...

FTR I had the castle greyskull and totally would have played along with you.  :)

ETA: I wanted to also mention I recall that, as kids, we would play along with the girls only they preferred to use their barbies and we preferred to use are HE-Man action figures.  The divide was still there but the playing itself wasn't.

Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 01, 2013, 02:49:51 PM
(skipping most of the thread)

Lego used to be one of the best toy companies at making toys for kids, regardless of gender. They still at least care about it, which is nice.

I remember seeing an old Lego ad somewhere (couldn't find it after 5 min of searching, gave up) which showed a little kid holding a bunch of random blocks stuck together. Caption was something along the lines of "To her, this is beautiful." and some sentences about how very young children enjoy just sticking blocks on top of each other and using lots of colors, as opposed to slightly older kids who wanted to build specific things out of Legos. Basically trying to say that even kids who just build randomly are still exercising all the their creativity bits and not too young for Legos, but their model was a four year old girl in (IIRC) overalls.

Found this old TV ad while searching. Their ads were a lot more gender-neutral when they primarily sold to the parents vs. the children, I think.
http://www.themarysue.com/old-lego-tv-advertisement/
Brother and sister playing with the same set, boy builds a really simple plane, girl builds a much more sophisticated house.

http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,34884.msg1274085.html#msg1274085  I know EXACTLY what you're talking about ;)

Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on July 01, 2013, 03:38:30 PM
Can we talk about how the "girl" lego figures have bobble heads and tiny waists for a minute?

We HAD female lego people when I was a kid. They were exactly the same as the male ones, you just slapped some "girl" hair on them and called it a day. Sometimes you had a head that had makeup, or (in the case of the pirates) some cleavage painted on, but they were all the same shape, totally interchangeable, and could use all the same equipment. When you're a kid THAT'S WHAT BOYS AND GIRLS ARE LIKE. YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT WHAT'S IN THEIR PANTS BEYOND WISHING THE BOYS ACROSS THE STREET WOULD STOP THINKING IT'S FUNNY TO PEE IN THE ROAD LIKE THAT. Excessive differences in appearance between boy and girl characters are unrealistic and totally not helping.

Also this!  The fact that they felt the NEED to reimagine the lego figurine goes right in to how girls toys focus on appearance.

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 03:49:09 PM

Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on July 01, 2013, 03:38:30 PM
Can we talk about how the "girl" lego figures have bobble heads and tiny waists for a minute?

We HAD female lego people when I was a kid. They were exactly the same as the male ones, you just slapped some "girl" hair on them and called it a day. Sometimes you had a head that had makeup, or (in the case of the pirates) some cleavage painted on, but they were all the same shape, totally interchangeable, and could use all the same equipment. When you're a kid THAT'S WHAT BOYS AND GIRLS ARE LIKE. YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT WHAT'S IN THEIR PANTS BEYOND WISHING THE BOYS ACROSS THE STREET WOULD STOP THINKING IT'S FUNNY TO PEE IN THE ROAD LIKE THAT. Excessive differences in appearance between boy and girl characters are unrealistic and totally not helping.

fucking THIS.

That's deliberate, obviously.  If the kids won't play with barbies, then they have to make the engineering toys reflect the impossible standard that the female children are expected to live up to.

It's The American Way™.

(http://static.portent.com/images/2013/02/Angry-Old-Lady1-650x498.jpg)

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 09:16:54 AM

Quote from: stelz on July 01, 2013, 08:08:43 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 07:41:05 AM

Quote from: stelz on July 01, 2013, 07:32:37 AM

Quote from: V3X on July 01, 2013, 07:27:43 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 07:24:58 AM

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 01, 2013, 06:52:37 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 01:01:17 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 12:56:09 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:48:34 AM

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 12:45:51 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:42:01 AM

Quote from: Pixie on July 01, 2013, 12:29:34 AM

Quote from: Pergamos on July 01, 2013, 12:25:21 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 01, 2013, 12:20:09 AM
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.

I try, but every time I ask for help people call me sexist or an asshole, so it makes it kind of difficult.

Maybe you are confusing "society says you must have gender identity issues because of the way you act" with "you actually have gender identity issues" ?

How did "I like pink" get confused with "in 6-10 years I will like gay sex"?

Gay and trans aren't the same thing and I never said that a trans person is more (or less) likely to be gay.[/b]

"I like pink" = "trans" now?

I call :troll:

Yes, you do seem to like to troll.  Thanks for admitting it. 

Pixie read my slightly leaning toward as absolute certainty, you seem to just be reading different posts entirely, or maybe making things up.

No, Perg, see above.

I was referring to boys playing with pink, girly toys and you came out of deep, DEEP left field with the trans thing.

Kids are attracted to certain toys for a LOT of different reasons of their own. Maybe pink reminds them of grandma's house and they miss grandma, maybe they want a Bratz so GI Joe can have a girlfriend. (Kids never have enough opposite sexed toys, I've seen girls use Mighty Joe Young as Barbie's ugly boyfriend, lol). You're feeding RIGHT into the "boys playing with girl toys must be gay/trans/SOMETHING".

I am trying to figure out exactly what Permagos was arguing.  It isn't very clear.

Okay, I just went and re-read the whole thread.

Permagos has managed to piss everyone off while in the act of not actually stating anything.

Which is a skill I must learn.

Sometimes boys play with girly pink sparkly toys because boys like things that are pretty and nice. They are enculturated not to, but that's TRAINING, not NATURE.

Sometimes a pink sparkley thing is just a pink sparkley thing, agree.

And, in hindsight, THIS:

Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 01, 2013, 08:49:05 PM
Okay, I just went and re-read the whole thread.

Permagos has managed to piss everyone off while in the act of not actually stating anything.

Which is a skill I must learn.

Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on July 01, 2013, 03:38:30 PM
Can we talk about how the "girl" lego figures have bobble heads and tiny waists for a minute?

We HAD female lego people when I was a kid. They were exactly the same as the male ones, you just slapped some "girl" hair on them and called it a day. Sometimes you had a head that had makeup, or (in the case of the pirates) some cleavage painted on, but they were all the same shape, totally interchangeable, and could use all the same equipment. When you're a kid THAT'S WHAT BOYS AND GIRLS ARE LIKE. YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT WHAT'S IN THEIR PANTS BEYOND WISHING THE BOYS ACROSS THE STREET WOULD STOP THINKING IT'S FUNNY TO PEE IN THE ROAD LIKE THAT. Excessive differences in appearance between boy and girl characters are unrealistic and totally not helping.

I blame the rise of the SF oriented sets. I had a ton of little Lego people, but almost none of them were girls. Maybe partially because I saw the generic Lego face as male (because I'm male? Because male is the cultural default?) but mostly because all of the sets I had were from one or another space or underwater themed thingy. The primary gendering characteristic of a minifig is its hair, and you physically can't fit Lego hair under a spacesuit or underwater hardsuit or racecar helmet. So they were all male by default.

I think the various space themed things were marketed more at boys, though. Usually the new faction they phased in would be in conflict, storywise, towards the old faction while they coexisted on shelves, so you could build both kits and have a space war over the little fossil tiles between the Spyrius and the Explorians. After that they really amped up the story/theme aspects of Lego, starting with Bionicle, where the individual characters had names & personalities... which were (almost?) all male. At that point, you were really playing alien robot monster ninja frisbee war except you got to build your own vehicles.

Oddly, now all the Lego sets I see in stores are Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Harry Potter, and more Star Wars. I'd have thought that Harry Potter Legos could be marketed to girls pretty well.

Quote from: Bu☆ns on July 01, 2013, 04:48:47 PM

Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 01, 2013, 02:49:51 PM
(skipping most of the thread)

Lego used to be one of the best toy companies at making toys for kids, regardless of gender. They still at least care about it, which is nice.

I remember seeing an old Lego ad somewhere (couldn't find it after 5 min of searching, gave up) which showed a little kid holding a bunch of random blocks stuck together. Caption was something along the lines of "To her, this is beautiful." and some sentences about how very young children enjoy just sticking blocks on top of each other and using lots of colors, as opposed to slightly older kids who wanted to build specific things out of Legos. Basically trying to say that even kids who just build randomly are still exercising all the their creativity bits and not too young for Legos, but their model was a four year old girl in (IIRC) overalls.

Found this old TV ad while searching. Their ads were a lot more gender-neutral when they primarily sold to the parents vs. the children, I think.
http://www.themarysue.com/old-lego-tv-advertisement/
Brother and sister playing with the same set, boy builds a really simple plane, girl builds a much more sophisticated house.

http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,34884.msg1274085.html#msg1274085  I know EXACTLY what you're talking about ;)

I was looking all over for that image! Thanks for going back in time and finding it for me. That'll learn me to skip threads.

Quote from: stelz on July 01, 2013, 01:41:32 AM
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.

That's happened. My sister got pissed at me for putting sticking laser cannons onto the flowers. :lol:

Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 01, 2013, 08:49:05 PM
Okay, I just went and re-read the whole thread.

Permagos has managed to piss everyone off while in the act of not actually stating anything.

Which is a skill I must learn.

I think it either comes naturally or not at all.

I'm not really sure what I was trying to say myself to be honest, I just felt jumped upon and acted like an ape and screeched louder.

I'm still working on not doing that.

Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 02, 2013, 01:38:24 AM

Quote from: stelz on July 01, 2013, 01:41:32 AM
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.

That's happened. My sister got pissed at me for putting sticking laser cannons onto the flowers. :lol:

But that makes them better.  :?

is Eris the adventuring warrior from the eagle tribe a boy or a girl Lego. I'm only asking because I want to buy the set he or she comes in but I don't want someone to see me buy it if its a girl Lego. I'm a boy and I don't need any more flack I got enough shit as a kid when i got the bunnybee doll from cabbage patch, it was blue much like this Eris figure but apparently that does not make it manly enough. oh well I'm just going to get back to playing super street fighter, I'm no good at using Guile but I'd rather get my ass beat in the game than have my cousin beat me in real life for getting a perfect on him using Chun-lee (also blue... just sayin).

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 01, 2013, 07:43:00 AM

Quote from: V3X on July 01, 2013, 07:18:07 AM

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 01, 2013, 06:48:01 AM

Quote from: V3X on July 01, 2013, 12:01:57 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on June 30, 2013, 11:51:46 PM
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.

I think the outrage is because people love Lego, and essentially want/expect better of them.

And they could have made pink/flowery/girly all they wanted with much less outrage, had they simply integrated the pink/flowery/girly into currently existing Lego themes such as City rather than segregating it into a separate world.

That, plus this:

Quote from: Bu☆ns on July 01, 2013, 06:46:20 AM
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.

The reaction to
"Didn't we use to sell a ton of toys to both boys *and* girls, like, 30-40 years ago? What happened to that?"
"We used to focus marketing on the intellectual benefits of creative play directly, but recently we've shifted over to story telling and immersive worlds."
"What's that got to do with gender? Girls love telling stories!"
"Turns out all of our story telling was at best reinforcing prevailing gender stereotypes, and at worse completely omitted female characters from, for instance, space exploration."
"But we had-"
"Slave Princess Leia does not count."

should have been:

"Oh. Let's tell better stories with our collections then. Stories that don't exclude half of our potential customers."

but it was

"Make some of the implicit sexism violently pink and reverse exclusionary, so all of our customers can be stereotyped equally."

There's nothing inherently wrong with making violently pink toys, it's the assumption that making violently pink toys somehow solves a gender imbalance. Making pink toys solves a very specific color spectrum imbalance. (I know I never had enough pink pieces to construct a giant, fleshy, organic alien spacecraft. Black/grey/white/blue/red with translucent blue & green highlights I had more then enough of, though.) Thinking you can extrapolate violent pink to gender is indicative of not knowing what the hell you're talking about. Which would be expected from any other company, except that Lego used to be best in the business for putting construction toys into the hands of kids without caring what gender they were.

(Related: for my seventh birthday cake I wanted strawberry icing, because strawberry is the best flavor. I asked my mom if she could find strawberry icing that didn't have any food coloring in it, because I didn't want any of the other boys at my party to think I was being girly with a pink cake.)

Me and my brother had a lot of space sets, I claimed the one in the white suit with a white helmet was the girl and we just ran with it.

That said, it's kinda weird that even with that it was "THE girl" like you can only have one girl in the group if it's going to be a fun game.

Related, in that it involves Lego.
http://lego.gizmodo.com/lego-prosthetic-leg-is-yet-another-proof-of-lego-fans-a-641918255

My daughter was a big fan of the Aliens franchise.  Because the hero was a woman, and she succeeded by USING HER BRAINS.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 02, 2013, 04:05:51 PM
My daughter was a big fan of the Aliens franchise.  Because the hero was a woman, and she succeeded by USING HER BRAINS.

Yet another marketing opportunity Lego completely ignored.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 02, 2013, 04:05:51 PM
My daughter was a big fan of the Aliens franchise.  Because the hero was a woman, and she succeeded by USING HER BRAINS.

When my daughter was about four and five, she went through a long, intense Xena phase. Because Xena could OPEN A CAN OF WHUPASS.  :lulz:

Lego missed that one, too.

Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 02, 2013, 02:31:26 AM
The reaction to
"Didn't we use to sell a ton of toys to both boys *and* girls, like, 30-40 years ago? What happened to that?"
"We used to focus marketing on the intellectual benefits of creative play directly, but recently we've shifted over to story telling and immersive worlds."
"What's that got to do with gender? Girls love telling stories!"
"Turns out all of our story telling was at best reinforcing prevailing gender stereotypes, and at worse completely omitted female characters from, for instance, space exploration."
"But we had-"
"Slave Princess Leia does not count."

should have been:

"Oh. Let's tell better stories with our collections then. Stories that don't exclude half of our potential customers."

but it was

"Make some of the implicit sexism violently pink and reverse exclusionary, so all of our customers can be stereotyped equally."

There's nothing inherently wrong with making violently pink toys, it's the assumption that making violently pink toys somehow solves a gender imbalance. Making pink toys solves a very specific color spectrum imbalance. (I know I never had enough pink pieces to construct a giant, fleshy, organic alien spacecraft. Black/grey/white/blue/red with translucent blue & green highlights I had more then enough of, though.) Thinking you can extrapolate violent pink to gender is indicative of not knowing what the hell you're talking about. Which would be expected from any other company, except that Lego used to be best in the business for putting construction toys into the hands of kids without caring what gender they were.

(Related: for my seventh birthday cake I wanted strawberry icing, because strawberry is the best flavor. I asked my mom if she could find strawberry icing that didn't have any food coloring in it, because I didn't want any of the other boys at my party to think I was being girly with a pink cake.)

Holy crap, I hadn't seen it from that angle. Now I think I understand the outrage.

It isn't that Lego is simply making "another product" that happens to be pink and happens to sell, as I was seeing it. It's that this product is their attempt at solving the "We don't have enough options for girls" problem. And it's a flatly insulting "solution" to that problem.

Quote from: V3X on July 02, 2013, 04:26:25 PM

Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 02, 2013, 02:31:26 AM
The reaction to
"Didn't we use to sell a ton of toys to both boys *and* girls, like, 30-40 years ago? What happened to that?"
"We used to focus marketing on the intellectual benefits of creative play directly, but recently we've shifted over to story telling and immersive worlds."
"What's that got to do with gender? Girls love telling stories!"
"Turns out all of our story telling was at best reinforcing prevailing gender stereotypes, and at worse completely omitted female characters from, for instance, space exploration."
"But we had-"
"Slave Princess Leia does not count."

should have been:

"Oh. Let's tell better stories with our collections then. Stories that don't exclude half of our potential customers."

but it was

"Make some of the implicit sexism violently pink and reverse exclusionary, so all of our customers can be stereotyped equally."

There's nothing inherently wrong with making violently pink toys, it's the assumption that making violently pink toys somehow solves a gender imbalance. Making pink toys solves a very specific color spectrum imbalance. (I know I never had enough pink pieces to construct a giant, fleshy, organic alien spacecraft. Black/grey/white/blue/red with translucent blue & green highlights I had more then enough of, though.) Thinking you can extrapolate violent pink to gender is indicative of not knowing what the hell you're talking about. Which would be expected from any other company, except that Lego used to be best in the business for putting construction toys into the hands of kids without caring what gender they were.

(Related: for my seventh birthday cake I wanted strawberry icing, because strawberry is the best flavor. I asked my mom if she could find strawberry icing that didn't have any food coloring in it, because I didn't want any of the other boys at my party to think I was being girly with a pink cake.)

Holy crap, I hadn't seen it from that angle. Now I think I understand the outrage.

It isn't that Lego is simply making "another product" that happens to be pink and happens to sell, as I was seeing it. It's that this product is their attempt at solving the "We don't have enough options for girls" problem. And it's a flatly insulting "solution" to that problem.

Yeah, this thread opened my eyes, too.

At first I was kind of "So what? Is this some kind of hyperfeminist thing trying to force everybody into that unisex crap? Fuck that, we like our makeup and pretty stuff."

But the girl Legos (yeah, I put an "s" on it, fuck them) are DUMBED DOWN. You arrange the furniture and play dollies in it, you don't create anything. It's a Polly Pocket set without the portability.

"Make a plastic dollhouse that snaps together and use a lot of pink. That's good enough for THOSE PEOPLE."

Quote from: V3X on July 02, 2013, 04:26:25 PM

Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 02, 2013, 02:31:26 AM
The reaction to
"Didn't we use to sell a ton of toys to both boys *and* girls, like, 30-40 years ago? What happened to that?"
"We used to focus marketing on the intellectual benefits of creative play directly, but recently we've shifted over to story telling and immersive worlds."
"What's that got to do with gender? Girls love telling stories!"
"Turns out all of our story telling was at best reinforcing prevailing gender stereotypes, and at worse completely omitted female characters from, for instance, space exploration."
"But we had-"
"Slave Princess Leia does not count."

should have been:

"Oh. Let's tell better stories with our collections then. Stories that don't exclude half of our potential customers."

but it was

"Make some of the implicit sexism violently pink and reverse exclusionary, so all of our customers can be stereotyped equally."

There's nothing inherently wrong with making violently pink toys, it's the assumption that making violently pink toys somehow solves a gender imbalance. Making pink toys solves a very specific color spectrum imbalance. (I know I never had enough pink pieces to construct a giant, fleshy, organic alien spacecraft. Black/grey/white/blue/red with translucent blue & green highlights I had more then enough of, though.) Thinking you can extrapolate violent pink to gender is indicative of not knowing what the hell you're talking about. Which would be expected from any other company, except that Lego used to be best in the business for putting construction toys into the hands of kids without caring what gender they were.

(Related: for my seventh birthday cake I wanted strawberry icing, because strawberry is the best flavor. I asked my mom if she could find strawberry icing that didn't have any food coloring in it, because I didn't want any of the other boys at my party to think I was being girly with a pink cake.)

Holy crap, I hadn't seen it from that angle. Now I think I understand the outrage.

It isn't that Lego is simply making "another product" that happens to be pink and happens to sell, as I was seeing it. It's that this product is their attempt at solving the "We don't have enough options for girls" problem. And it's a flatly insulting "solution" to that problem.

Nailed it.

W00t! Thread delivers!

So--considering the price of legos, would it be terribly expensive to print a male face on the front of a minifig head and a female face on the back?  Possibly throw in an extra hairpiece so Jane isn't restricted to wearing John's pompadour (although Jane could totally rock a pomp). 

Maybe that's being too progressive ...but...I DO see a huge opportunity for MegaBlocks despite being a lego purist.

Quote from: Bu☆ns on July 02, 2013, 04:49:36 PM
W00t! Thread delivers!

So--considering the price of legos, would it be terribly expensive to print a male face on the front of a minifig head and a female face on the back?  Possibly throw in an extra hairpiece so Jane isn't restricted to wearing John's pompadour (although Jane could totally rock a pomp). 

Maybe that's being too progressive ...but...I DO see a huge opportunity for MegaBlocks despite being a lego purist.

They could do that, or they could just print more female faces on the heads and include more female characters in their narratives. It's a 1/4" piece of molded plastic that they're already producing, and they already have the infrastructure to do it. They just... aren't doing it.

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 02, 2013, 04:54:27 PM

Quote from: Bu☆ns on July 02, 2013, 04:49:36 PM
W00t! Thread delivers!

So--considering the price of legos, would it be terribly expensive to print a male face on the front of a minifig head and a female face on the back?  Possibly throw in an extra hairpiece so Jane isn't restricted to wearing John's pompadour (although Jane could totally rock a pomp). 

Maybe that's being too progressive ...but...I DO see a huge opportunity for MegaBlocks despite being a lego purist.

They could do that, or they could just print more female faces on the heads and include more female characters in their narratives. It's a 1/4" piece of molded plastic that they're already producing, and they already have the infrastructure to do it. They just... aren't doing it.

I know :) i just like the idea of having a ...what would you call it...an intersex minifig? 

Quote from: Bu☆ns on July 02, 2013, 04:49:36 PM
W00t! Thread delivers!

So--considering the price of legos, would it be terribly expensive to print a male face on the front of a minifig head and a female face on the back?  Possibly throw in an extra hairpiece so Jane isn't restricted to wearing John's pompadour (although Jane could totally rock a pomp). 

Maybe that's being too progressive ...but...I DO see a huge opportunity for MegaBlocks despite being a lego purist.

There's no extra cost to making normal female figs, in fact it's cheaper because they wouldn't have had to do all these new molds. Here's some from the pirate set, one male and one female:

(http://craphound.com/images/lego15.png.jpg)

There's no reason not to include more female figs in the city sets, can you imagine how much fun it would be to have an awesome female robber fig like the male one? Some extra chick hair in one of the astronaut sets?

Quote from: Bu☆ns on July 02, 2013, 04:56:20 PM

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 02, 2013, 04:54:27 PM

Quote from: Bu☆ns on July 02, 2013, 04:49:36 PM
W00t! Thread delivers!

So--considering the price of legos, would it be terribly expensive to print a male face on the front of a minifig head and a female face on the back?  Possibly throw in an extra hairpiece so Jane isn't restricted to wearing John's pompadour (although Jane could totally rock a pomp). 

Maybe that's being too progressive ...but...I DO see a huge opportunity for MegaBlocks despite being a lego purist.

They could do that, or they could just print more female faces on the heads and include more female characters in their narratives. It's a 1/4" piece of molded plastic that they're already producing, and they already have the infrastructure to do it. They just... aren't doing it.

I know :) i just like the idea of having a ...what would you call it...an intersex minifig?

You can't really cover up the back of the heads all the time, I think it would bug kids. It would have bugged the shit out of me. The heads are interchangeable anyway.

There's really just no conceivable reason they couldn't have just added more female characters and maybe a few pink-foofy theme sets to their regular line. Other than gender segregation, which is a social problem that's getting worse, not better, in the US.

More of these:
(http://blogs.crikey.com.au/crikey/files/2008/11/lego-man-woman.jpg)

Plus, the timing is perfect for them to have introduced a new "FABULOUS!" unisex line that's all rainbows and glitter.

Look at the Brony phenomenon

Boys LOVE fabulous.

(http://www.bricksandbloks.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/LEGO-Minifigures-Series-11-Photos-Yeti-Welder-Evil-Robot-Female-Robot-Clockwork-Scientist1-e1370957345493.jpg)

LADY SCIENTIST AND YETI

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 02, 2013, 05:11:05 PM
Plus, the timing is perfect for them to have introduced a new "FABULOUS!" unisex line that's all rainbows and glitter.

Look at the Brony phenomenon

Boys LOVE fabulous.

HAHA YES!

Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on July 02, 2013, 05:13:41 PM
(http://www.bricksandbloks.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/LEGO-Minifigures-Series-11-Photos-Yeti-Welder-Evil-Robot-Female-Robot-Clockwork-Scientist1-e1370957345493.jpg)

LADY SCIENTIST AND YETI

I love the lady scientist!  That alone kills two birds with one sto--er..minifig.

Another opportunity LEGO has is in the minifig series...you know, the surprise packs containing collectible lego minifigs. 

GoldieBlox are megablox's girls line, this is their new ad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyTQDX-ItiM

they manage to celebrate girls engaging with engineering based play without denigrating being girly, they are totally celebrating princesses, faeries and ballerinas, also they gave them tool belts.

it's fucking beautiful.

Quote from: Pixie on July 03, 2013, 12:48:41 PM
GoldieBlox are megablox's girls line, this is their new ad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyTQDX-ItiM

they manage to celebrate girls engaging with engineering based play without denigrating being girly, they are totally celebrating princesses, faeries and ballerinas, also they gave them tool belts.

it's fucking beautiful.

That's BRILLIANT!  http://www.goldieblox.com/

Their homepage has all kinds of good info...thanks PIXIE!!!

Also their mission: http://vimeo.com/59876490#at=162

It's really too bad that Mega Bloks, like pretty much every Lego clone, have terrible quality. The plastic is too soft, the alignment is bad, the colors look cheap, etc.

Also worth mentioning, this is from Mega Bloks' site:
http://www.megabloks.com/shop/construction-toys/barbie/build-n-style-fashion-stand-80211/

Which is even less creativity-driven than the Lego thing from the OP. The mini figure isn't just the wrong scale from normal figures, it's a Barbie doll that happens to be able to stand on a Mega Bloks platform.

Quote from: Bu☆ns on July 03, 2013, 05:16:13 PM

Quote from: Pixie on July 03, 2013, 12:48:41 PM
GoldieBlox are megablox's girls line, this is their new ad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyTQDX-ItiM

they manage to celebrate girls engaging with engineering based play without denigrating being girly, they are totally celebrating princesses, faeries and ballerinas, also they gave them tool belts.

it's fucking beautiful.

That's BRILLIANT!  http://www.goldieblox.com/

Their homepage has all kinds of good info...thanks PIXIE!!!

Also their mission: http://vimeo.com/59876490#at=162

WHAT TOOK SO LONG?????  :) :) :) THISxINFINITY

Bonus points for the Freddie song, too.

Actually I think megabloks and goldieblox are separate entities.

but the goldieblox line looks awesome.

Quote from: Pixie on July 03, 2013, 09:54:22 PM
Actually I think megabloks and goldieblox are separate entities.

but the goldieblox line looks awesome.

Yes, Goldieblox is a separate start-up. It's also really cool because it appears to be a completely different concept than Lego or Tinkertoy or really anything else, and it's narrative-driven which helps attract girls. I'm hoping that the line will grow to include toys for older kids, as well.

That said, I still have issues with gender-segregated toys, and Goldieblox is STILL a gender-segregated toy.

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 03, 2013, 11:01:10 PM

Quote from: Pixie on July 03, 2013, 09:54:22 PM
Actually I think megabloks and goldieblox are separate entities.

but the goldieblox line looks awesome.

Yes, Goldieblox is a separate start-up. It's also really cool because it appears to be a completely different concept than Lego or Tinkertoy or really anything else, and it's narrative-driven which helps attract girls. I'm hoping that the line will grow to include toys for older kids, as well.

That said, I still have issues with gender-segregated toys, and Goldieblox is STILL a gender-segregated toy.

me too, but fuck, it's a stepping stone in the right direction for girls whose parents still see these things as rigid.

Quote from: Pixie on July 03, 2013, 11:07:17 PM

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 03, 2013, 11:01:10 PM

Quote from: Pixie on July 03, 2013, 09:54:22 PM
Actually I think megabloks and goldieblox are separate entities.

but the goldieblox line looks awesome.

Yes, Goldieblox is a separate start-up. It's also really cool because it appears to be a completely different concept than Lego or Tinkertoy or really anything else, and it's narrative-driven which helps attract girls. I'm hoping that the line will grow to include toys for older kids, as well.

That said, I still have issues with gender-segregated toys, and Goldieblox is STILL a gender-segregated toy.

me too, but fuck, it's a stepping stone in the right direction for girls whose parents still see these things as rigid.

Yeah, it's better than it NOT existing, and I hope it's very successful and popular.