Seven-Year-Old Girl Accuses LEGO of Sexism

[Smeatza]

That's not "ahead of the curve." That's Model T thinking. That's like saying there's no problem with a game that won't run because if you're a modder you can patch it yourself.

No no no that's not a fair comparison at all. This is a construction set we're talking about. Not a consistent, solid product. Lego is an SDK, not a game.

Not to mention Lego Friends, which are the ones that cover the "traditional gender roles" for girls, can't swap heads with the mainstream figures.

And if they were the only source of female characters that would be a problem but they're not so it's not.

That's deliberately moving behind the curve. Considering Lego used to be an androgynous toy and now is heavily gendered and concerned with "gender roles"

That's entirely untrue. I suggest you educate yourself on the history of Lego.
Lego was an androgynous toy for no more than a decade or two after first release. From the 1970's onwards Lego was thought of as an almost exclusively male toy and the marketing reflected that. This was mostly due to the renaissance of marketing that occurred around that time. If you take a look you'll realise that the "Lego Homemaker" sets were released in 1971.
This marketing trend endured right up until the early nineties, at which point they started incorporating token female characters into their male sets. And better embracing the gender-neutrality of their product in their marketing.

Notice how the word "marketing" keeps coming up here. I'll address why that's important below.

and makes statements about the fundamentally different way girls play, they actually went from progressive and moved backwards.

Well ignoring the fact such statements are pure perception. You're not taking into account history here. What was progressive 40 years ago is not progressive today. And what was regressive 40 years ago could be progressive today.

Why is this praiseworthy again? I mean, if you like gender disparity, fair enough and I can't really change your mind. But you're arguing they're a progressive company when theyvé done the opposite.

Because (and I'll copy and paste from my previous post) "Marketing is bullshit, it's all smoke and mirrors. Let's look at the actual product, rather than a field that's inherently exclusive by nature."

Lego allows young girls to be Ninja's, Astronauts, Queens, Warriors, Wizards, Scientists etc. It allows them to create and tailor whole worlds to their every whim. It shows them that their imagination is their only real limit and things like gender are nothing but a meaningless formality.

I don't give a shit if a 30 second TV spot or the picture on the box don't adequately represent this. And I certainly wont hold and entire company and its products responsible for the inherent flaws of marketing.


So yeah, if we want to ignore almost everything about Lego and it's core product and concentrate exclusively on the marketing we can make things seems much worse than they are.
But I don't think that kind of sensationalism and dishonesty is acceptable.

 

[Scorpid]

Are they boys? Or are they genderless?
Oooooh.

They're square framed,flat chested, and bald unless you put hair on them. Soooo all gender clues point to male. I understand her issue though, as kid and a huge lego fan I'd of been sad if all my Lego's (wo)men were modeled after female characteristics.

 

[blackrave]

We also need a little less pink in the girl sets. And normal LEGO figures in girl sets, not the unholy spawns that they have now.

How about we get rid of "girl sets" at all?
Because my assumption is that most girls who want to play with LEGO want to build vehicles and buildings too, not play with ponies and tiny kitchen utensils (or whatever themes of those pink sets are)
And if you want to play with dolls and domestic crap, maybe LEGO isn't for you
What we need is just more diverse minifig selection

If you disagree then I would like to hear what themes would you suggest for "girl sets"

Not all sets are compatible. especially when it comes to minifigs. for example you cannot interchange the heads of minifigs for most sets. there are plenty of "unique" parts in the sets, and you dont want to be forced to buy 20 sets of "unique to beach stuff" legos just to get the minifigs that you could cram into, say, a rocketship.
my little sister loves legos and its a natural birthday gift for her. she has something like 20 or more sets, and the amount of "interchangable ones" are always at 2/3 per type of blocks.
i too remember when in my childhood i could mix all the legos as i see fit, and she inherited my lego collection which is still the largest interchangible collection she has. sadly, interchangibility is no longer important to them.

That is the saddest thing I have read today

 

[sageoftruth]

If she was accusing them of being sexist, I don't think she was aware of it. I think she was just saying, "More girl legos please."

 

[Atmos Duality]

*glances at huge collection of LEGOs*
*notices the bevvy of male and female specific accessories*
*shakes head and sighs at how ridiculously political and knee-jerk the world has become*

This just looks like someone took a little girl's request and plastered it all over the internet tagged "SHE THINKS ITS SEXIST!"

Honestly, this is just shameful.

 

[Phasmal]

Jesus christ on a bike these comments can be depressing.

1- Kids are not stupid. I am beginning to think that not a lot of people commenting here spend a lot of time around children as an adult and only remember children from when they were children. Children are not as dumb as many of you seem to think.

2- Kids learn very early on that girls and boys are treated differently and things are expected differently of them. They may not know about `gender roles` or `sexism`, but they can experience these things and feel they are unfair.

3- Bloody hell she just said she wanted girls to have adventures in Lego and people are invoking the ghost of the evil feminist mother brainwashing her child. Please get a grip on yourselves here. `I want girls to have adventures` is not a radical thing to say.

*Explodes*

 

[PirateRose]

I find it ironic that people are saying the parents are behind all this.

People provide evidence all the time that parents socialize their children into their genders so much so that, for example, girls fail at math and boys end up excelling. Well then that's just impossible. Girls just naturally suck at math compared to boys, parents and society have no influence on that at all.

Little girl says she wants more girl mini figs in the action and adventure sets, or in a video game, or in a book. Well it's terrible parents and a distorted society that is clearly behind all this.

Bravo on the parents for encouraging their daughter to do this. Hell, for even letting their little girl play with the "boys" Lego sets in the first place. Bravo on them for not dismissing her when she asked, why are there so few girls in all the adventure sets? Why are all the girls in the pink sets with cooking and fashion?

This is the same thing as the little girl that asked her father why she couldn't play the Princess and save Mario. This is the same thing as the little girl that told her mom that Bilbo Baggins was really a girl, not a boy.

When I was 7 year's old, I switched to hating Star Wars when I watched Return of the Jedi for the first time. Instead of Leia becoming a Jedi Knight alongside her brother as I had hoped, they completely destroyed her by making her fail saving her boyfriend, silenced, and chained up in that famous, degrading, sex slave outfit.

Children of both genders learn of this discrepancy, boys will try to play with dolls all the time after all, and parents either allow it or freak out about teh gayz and won't allow not. Children are like sponges, everything we do and say influences them, and they will ask questions when they don't understand things.

There is parental influence in this situation. The parents had the choice to either tell her to know her place because of her gender or encourage her to question the unnecessary gender role. They chose the latter.

 

[Something Amyss]

Well, thing is that no one can point out what the issue in this thread is, something I specifically asked you to take a stance on, which you didn't.

Really? Nobody has been able to talk about gender representation and gender roles? Are we reading the same thread?

You're more intent on somehow exposing me as a hypocrite, rather than explaining what the actual problem is, which says more about you than me.

That you provide material as a basis for hypocriosy speaks more about me than you?

How? Did I make you post contradictory arguments?

Who can blame them for being "set off" when it is bandied about so freely, so aggressively and with such preachy sanctimony? It a shame a serious topic is so devalued by cheap attempts to underline liberal credentials.

You're joking, right? A girl asking for more girls in Lego "sets you off" to the point you infer sanctimony? That can't be serious.

No no no that's not a fair comparison at all. This is a construction set we're talking about. Not a consistent, solid product. Lego is an SDK, not a game.

An SDK that provided extremely minimal options in some cases. You know, like this one.

And if they were the only source of female characters that would be a problem but they're not so it's not.

They are the primary source at this point. Girl minifigs are rather scarces.

That's entirely untrue.

No, that was entirely untrue.

Well ignoring the fact such statements are pure perception.

They haven't made statements like that? So the quotes with them saying that are just...What? Librul media conspiracy? Come now.

Because (and I'll copy and paste from my previous post) "Marketing is bullshit, it's all smoke and mirrors. Let's look at the actual product, rather than a field that's inherently exclusive by nature."

Sweet. It's a product with almost entirely male minifigs. How does that contradict the marketing?

Lego allows young girls to be Ninja's, Astronauts, Queens, Warriors, Wizards, Scientists etc. It allows them to create and tailor whole worlds to their every whim. It shows them that their imagination is their only real limit and things like gender are nothing but a meaningless formality.

Long as they don't mind pretending the minifigs are boys, or limiting themselves in ways boys don't have to.

Note that this is something asked of only one gender.

But I don't think that kind of sensationalism and dishonesty is acceptable.

Then stop resorting to it.

 

[Something Amyss]

Jesus christ on a bike these comments can be depressing.

1- Kids are not stupid. I am beginning to think that not a lot of people commenting here spend a lot of time around children as an adult and only remember children from when they were children. Children are not as dumb as many of you seem to think.

2- Kids learn very early on that girls and boys are treated differently and things are expected differently of them. They may not know about `gender roles` or `sexism`, but they can experience these things and feel they are unfair.

3- Bloody hell she just said she wanted girls to have adventures in Lego and people are invoking the ghost of the evil feminist mother brainwashing her child. Please get a grip on yourselves here. `I want girls to have adventures` is not a radical thing to say.

*Explodes*

Girls should just use their imaginations, apparently.

...Ignore that the same logic really isn't required for boys, because they have the majority of the minifigs and playsets.

They're square framed,flat chested, and bald unless you put hair on them. Soooo all gender clues point to male. I understand her issue though, as kid and a huge lego fan I'd of been sad if all my Lego's (wo)men were modeled after female characteristics.

Not to mention a good number of them have masculine features, up to and including facial hair. TOTALLY ANDROGYNOUS

If she was accusing them of being sexist, I don't think she was aware of it. I think she was just saying, "More girl legos please."

A rose by any other name....

...I forget how that ends

I find it ironic that people are saying the parents are behind all this.

You mean like rain on your wedding day? Because this is exactly what I expect from society. Both in the sense that anyone not trained to fit into gender roles is being "brainwashed" or "forced" AND that people will look to any reason to dismiss someone who wants to join in with the majority.

 

[00slash00]

I always thought LEGO was pretty gender neutral. If any LEGO products are sexist it's those fucking LEGO Friends things. The products targeted toward girls by making everything big and pink, with minimal assembly. Basically just pseudo LEGO versions of Barbie's Dream House

 

[clippen05]

Children of both genders learn of this discrepancy, boys will try to play with dolls all the time after all, and parents either allow it or freak out about teh gayz and won't allow not. Children are like sponges, everything we do and say influences them, and they will ask questions when they don't understand things.

How can you back this up, or are you just regarding everything that comes out of your mouth as pure fact? You can't just make a blanket statement for male human nature like that. Just because you have a fantasy world where all boys want play with Strawberry Shortcake dolls does not make it true.

If this was true, then why would businesses not have caught onto it? If all boys REALLY wanted to play with girl's toys, then LEGO and all the other toys manufacturers would be selling pink, girly, dolls marketed towards boys. Corporations don't have some sexist agenda that they try to enforce; all they are interested in is profit. If ALL boys secreted desired to play with dolls, then they would have noticed.

You assume that most parents are 'repressing' a boy's desire to play with Barbie and whatnot, out of fear that they will turn gay. How can this make any sense if the majority of the Western World'd population supports gay rights and gay marriage?

So, instead of your crazy dystopian society where boys are forced by the Police State parents to not play with dolls, here is how I see things: MOST boys are not interested in playing with dolls. Not because their parents told them not to, but simply because they are more interested in playing with other toys. Therefore, toy companies market manly, action-y toys towards them, rather than dolls, so they can make the largest amount of money.

Until you can back up your blanket statement about why children choose the toys they do, I'd reckon my view is a bit more accurate.

 

[Smeatza]

An SDK that provided extremely minimal options in some cases. You know, like this one.

Completely untrue. It has a massive host of resoucres that are fully interchangable. Resources that mean the only limitation is the child's imagination.

They are the primary source at this point. Girl minifigs are rather scarces.

Again, completely untrue.
Complete female minifigs are rarely included in full Lego sets would be a more accurate way to put it. There is a shitload of difference between that and "girl minifigs are scarce."
You exaggerate greatly.

No, that was entirely untrue.

And yet you are unable to say why it might be untrue, or even posture your version of the truth.
History doesn't lie when it's been documented by thousands of lasting pieces of marketing.

They haven't made statements like that? So the quotes with them saying that are just...What? Librul media conspiracy? Come now.

It's a bit semantic really.
I'm not doubting that people have said that the Lego product range makes statements about how children of different genders should play, but that doesn't mean the statements are actually actually being made by the Lego company or their product range..
The higher echelons of Lego aren't saying to themselves "boys should create and girls should play and our products should represent that."

Could the products and the company be inadvertently pushing such messages? Possibly, but if that's the case then the company specifically isn't making a statement and that's the problem.
And this isn't even taking into account how the core gimmick of Lego is counter to this message, and how different individuals will draw different messages from the same thing.
It's not conspiracy, but sensationalism.

Sweet. It's a product with almost entirely male minifigs. How does that contradict the marketing?

Because it's untrue. Type in Lego Minifigures into google.
First image has 16 minifigures, 8 male, 5 female, 3 genderless. Is that almost entirely male?
Second image has 15 minifigures, 12 male, 3 female. That is 20% and I wouldn't call that almost entirely male.
Third image are customs and fourth image has 17 minifigures, 12 male and 5 female, 30 % this time.
And on top of that every one of heads, legs and arms (if you're prepared to fiddle) can be mixed with the others.
Now I realise this is a highly casual and informal look at things but you get my point.

Instead of making outlandish statements like "the minifigures are almost entirely male" and lashing out at the product as a whole, you should be focusing your attention of the areas that actually are lacking.
Like the fact that your female minifig whims are entirely catered to, but usually at an additional price and/or effort.
Like the fact that some of the highly stylised sets have a lack of female presence (the ones that can't feasibly be mixed and matched with others).
And of course like the fact there could be more of a male presence in the Lego Friends and other highly stylised female dominated sets.
I'm not saying there's no room for improvement, but let's not just call "RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE" on all things Lego.

Long as they don't mind pretending the minifigs are boys, or limiting themselves in ways boys don't have to.

What? Pretending the minifigs are boys? So the minifigs are girls but they have to pretend they're boys? What?
Are you saying that if they try to put a female head on a male body the Lego will melt in their hands? Is that how they're limited?
I'm not exactly seeing where the limitation is here.
The only limitations are the highly stylised sets I mentioned above. Lego Chima and that. And they are a relatively small slice of the full Lego product range.

Then stop resorting to it.

This genuinely made me laugh.
Oh you.

 

[PirateRose]

Children of both genders learn of this discrepancy, boys will try to play with dolls all the time after all, and parents either allow it or freak out about teh gayz and won't allow not. Children are like sponges, everything we do and say influences them, and they will ask questions when they don't understand things.

How can you back this up, or are you just regarding everything that comes out of your mouth as pure fact? You can't just make a blanket statement for male human nature like that. Just because you have a fantasy world where all boys want play with Strawberry Shortcake dolls does not make it true.

If this was true, then why would businesses not have caught onto it? If all boys REALLY wanted to play with girl's toys, then LEGO and all the other toys manufacturers would be selling pink, girly, dolls marketed towards boys. Corporations don't have some sexist agenda that they try to enforce; all they are interested in is profit. If ALL boys secreted desired to play with dolls, then they would have noticed.

You assume that most parents are 'repressing' a boy's desire to play with Barbie and whatnot, out of fear that they will turn gay. How can this make any sense if the majority of the Western World'd population supports gay rights and gay marriage?

So, instead of your crazy dystopian society where boys are forced by the Police State parents to not play with dolls, here is how I see things: MOST boys are not interested in playing with dolls. Not because their parents told them not to, but simply because they are more interested in playing with other toys. Therefore, toy companies market manly, action-y toys towards them, rather than dolls, so they can make the largest amount of money.

Until you can back up your blanket statement about why children choose the toys they do, I'd reckon my view is a bit more accurate.

1: I worked in day care centers for 3 years. I've dealt with parents warning me about their 2 year old son's curiosity about girls toys and to make sure he does not play with them. Edit: I let the boys play with the dolls and girl toys anyways.

2: I worked in a toy department for a year and I frequently heard adults yell at little boys for daring to go into the pink aisle. "Dolls are for girls, not boys!" One time a woman told me her daughter love Pokemon, but had all the games already and couldn't make up her mind what to get her daughter now. I offered Skylanders, this woman flipped her shit on me in a heartbeat, "That's a boy's toy, how dare you suggest that for my daughter! She's a girl, not a boy! She's a girl, not a boy! What's so hard to understand about that." I told her girls collect Skylanders all the time and being a lover of Pokemon, it's an easy jump between these two monster collecting games. This woman stormed off to complain to my manager that I was suggesting she was a bad parent.

3.Parents have the purchasing power. Children do not make money and half the time can't even reach the shelves a lot of toys are on. If the child wants a toy that belongs to the opposite gender and the parent doesn't approve, they won't buy it. If the child wants something the parents approve of, they will of course buy it. Parents ultimately make the final decision on what children can and can not have.

 

[Phasmal]

Snip

Another childcare worker here, backin' this up.
SOME parents get really arsey if their kid steps outside the gender line.
Other parents are cool about it though and their kids are happy playing with what they want to play with.

We always let all our* kids play with what they wanted to play with, thankfully.

*In the nursery- not a parent yet lol.

 

[Raikas]

For some reason I remember legos being genderless bodies and all it took was a hair swap to make it a boy or girl. Am I missing something or have legos changed? .

They have changed - I think there was even an article about it making the rounds a few years ago (I'm on my phone, but I'll try to find it later) that detailed how Lego was originally marketed as a gender-neutral creative toy, but that in the late 1980s made a move toward boy-exclusive marketing, followed by the launch of a separate pastel -coloured line. If you ever come across the housewife- type magazines from say, 1981 and compare the toy ads to the ones from today, it is really noticeable.

This should read : "7 year old girl's PARENTS accuse lego of being sexist." Kids don't see these distinctions unless their parents put those thoughts into their heads. Every modern theme has male and female minifigs. This whole thing smacks of a busy-body parent with time on their hands and their nose out of joint.

You know what? I'm with you on this. At seven years old, if your kid even understands what something being sexist MEANS, you are raising your kid wrong. I can understand teaching racism to curb racism at that age in case there's a problem with other kids, but seven is not the age in which you go accusing a TOY COMPANY of being sexist with its largely interchangeable-parts people! Yeah, that sounds like parents TELLING the kid what to write AND helping with the spelling out of some misplaced venture into equality that is unimportant insofar as Lego is concerned.

Actually, this smacks of feminist mom. You know the kind. The one who's also a soccer mom with the minivan who takes the kids in a minivan, gets overwhelmingly protective, and then overwhelmingly defensive over every action she does, and then gets really bitchy and violent whenever a perceived threat is nearby. I hate bad parents, but god damn the overzealous soccer mom and all the horrid behavior that comes from them and maybe gets transferred into their kids!

Meh, the kid didn't say "sexist" - that came from the person posting the article. And c'mon, you really think kids don't see the distinctions? My sister-in-law is a kindergarten teacher and the wife of a friend of mine runs a daycare, and I've heard both of them talk about even younger kids wanting to punish the boys who want to play with dolls and the girls who want to play with trucks. I can totally see a little kid noticing that difference.

 

[Something Amyss]

At any point when you want to take a stance and explain in your own words what you think the issue is, let me know.[/.quote]

Are you editing my posts out specifically so you can make those claims?

You have a talent for skirting issues and avoiding saying anything that others can question, as well as distracting with provocation.

Such as? Give me a concrete example rather than doing exactly what you're accusing me of.

Feel free to stay on topic. Or not. It's up to you.

If you keep editing away my posts and then saying "you're not on topic because it's inconvenient to me," then it's really not up to me.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

Chances of finding a female cop, pirate or astronaut are practically zero.

I'm about 90% sure that one of my first astronaut themed Lego sets had a female astronaut.

In fact, I'm sure about it, because I remembered being really annoyed that it was a girl astronaut.

...Gimme a break, I was seven! XD

 

[scw55]

This girl speaks the truth. What Lego girl figures exist are mostly sold in sets that resemble hideous pastiches of Barbie and Bratz, where you get to enjoy such exciting things as brushing their hair or riding ponies.

Outside of that, the only time you see them are as housewives in the city sets, or as licensed characters in the various trademarks Lego is milking. Chances of finding a female cop, pirate or astronaut are practically zero.

At least you can make yourself female astronauts.
It's not fair gender representation if all astronauts are male however.

I think there's a bigger issue with Children's craft kits almost exclusively being aimed at girls (use of pink/purple with photographs of girls enjoying using the kit).
If I bought a Candle Making Kit, and then sellotaped pictures of boys on the box over the girls it would look rubbish and I might be convicted of being a pervert.
-
The Lego sets that seem to conform to stereotypes are the Pink Legos and Lego Technic (Metallic Grey Legos).
Then again, it's social colour associations to blame, not Lego. Society says girls like Pink, and boys like Death.

Unrelated Lego comment: BRING BACK BIONICLE SERIES.

 

[Lionsfan]

Nope, I don't see it.

Y'know what, I had a long, 4 paragraph response to this. I've decided, however, that you don't want to see it, and nothing I say will change your mind (plus 2 of those paragraphs were sarcastic basic English lessons and probably would've been construed as a personal attack).

So I'll leave you with a metaphor.

You've missed the point. I've tried to bring you on target, you refused to change your point of aim. So fuck it. You win. Who cares.

Ah, the "I'm taking my ball and leaving" way of arguing. I didn't people used that past elementary school, but whatever works man.

snip.

snip

snip

Backing up Phasmal and PirateRose.

I've had parents ask me why Little Johnny is always playing with the girls, and that we should encourage him to go play in the Gym, or play with other boys. I've had kids tell me that according to their parents, pink is a girls color and stuff like that.

 

[Do4600]

(in overloud expressionless robot voice) "And how many "girl people" will slake the master's thirst for "more girl people"?

Slow news day, huh?

The only gender definitive things on most mini-figs is their hair and face. Some have breasts, but bringing those into the discussion is just opening another tin of worms.

You mean the graphic of breasts on the "mini torso"? Or did they actually include minifigures with 3d breasts? have I been away that long?