sgyreju:

blech:

Last week, the internet sat up and took notice of Bloomberg Businessweek’s cover story about the launch of Lego Friends, its new “for girls” line. There was much wailing of gnashing of teeth on Twitter, with a common and much-retweeted line being “Lego is launching a product line for girls. Someone should tell them that they already have one; its called Lego.”

Well, yes and no. As the article points out, much of Lego’s growth since its nadir in the early 2000s has been on the back of boy-oriented franchises: the biggest is Star Wars, but also Bionicle (fighting robots), Ninjago (fighting ninjas) and so on. Of course, culture isn’t as good at noticing when a line is aimed at males, since they’re the default market, so nobody’s really saying anything, but it is a change since the Lego of the 1980s.

Compare Lego Town circa 1981, with a “house with garden” and minifigs gendered merely by hairstyle (all the faces were the same smiling face) with City in 2011, dominated by fire, police and aeroplanes. (There is at least the City Corner set, with a female pizza chef, and it’s gratifyingly sold out at the moment.) Is it any wonder parents say things like “The last time I was in a Lego store, there was this little pink ghetto over in one corner”?

(Speaking of pink, Lego’s had that colour in its palette since at least the early 1990s, although it is somewhat rare. Lego Friends “introduces six new Lego colors—including Easter-egg-like shades of azure and lavender”, but pink was already there, including an entire pink brick box.)

Meanwhile, I’ve also seen people reacting against the idea that Lego Friends have backstories printed on the boxes, as if it’s assuming a lack of imagination on the part of girls. Well, perhaps, but if you’re playing with Star Wars, Harry Potter, or DC Superheroes sets, aren’t you also tapping into someone else’s narratives and creations?

Reading the article, it’s clear this isn’t something Lego rushed headlong into. They’ve talked to their potential customers, attempted to understand them, and dealt with their own core beliefs (including the previously-near-sacred minifig) to create something to sell - which, for better or worse, is what as a company they have to do. If we’re going to place blame somewhere, perhaps it should it be the external society?

Oh, and one last thing. If you really hate the idea of Lego Friends, why not ignore it and instead by Lego Creator sets? Apple Tree House looks particularly good, and there’s not much gendered about it at all.

Very well put.

I don’t think there’s anything that wrong with LEGO doing it, so much as there is with the people quoted in the article- and frankly, the person writing the post I’m reblogging- assuming that girls won’t want to play with the legos that are there, the aliens and fire fighters and police. And while it is true that there are more lego face that have gender now, with beards or pronounced lips, there are still a LOT that don’t, and that I have made into females with hairstyle or simply story (if they’re wearing a helmet) on many occasions. It is true that LEGO has in the past been guilty of some token female syndrome on their team sets (like Bionicle), but at least the token female was always equally important and tough as the other members of the team. And even if it is a gendered face, like the ‘princess’ from knight-related sets, you know what? You can always stick that face right in a suit of armor. So I’m not so much mad at LEGO for making this new product as I am for people defending it by assuming LEGO was ever ‘boy’ gendered in the first place.

I think what’s more the problem is we need new labels. These new toys are aiming for a demographic that likes cutesier things and pink and purple. There is that demographic out there, and there’s nothing wrong with that. But they aren’t all girls, just like the demographic that likes firefighters and robots isn’t all boys.

Allllllllso? Anyone complaining about the stories on the back of the box can stuff it so hard. Bionicle had a COMIC BOOK. Most of the themed sets that aren’t based on fiction have little comics or blurbs on their boxes if not even more of a storyline. They started releasing the Creator sets because people were getting tired of the storylines all over the place and just wanted to build with legos. I very much doubt that the Friends storyline is any more involved than the previous sets. No, they are not particularly assuming a lack of imagination on the part of the girls. They are, as they have done for many of their other sets, providing a setting, some vague plot, and characters. The kids who get the sets are, as always, free to tap into and expand on these characters/ideas or to completely ignore them and name their girl something totally different and make her the mayor of the city (or- heaven forbid- a policewoman! or a robot!).