Friends "Controversy"

[CorneliusMurdock]

I cant vote in that poll...

Just kidding. I did. Although you did force me to decide whether I actually like the theme or not. I went with not liking the theme mainly because the sets don't really appeal to me (except for that little robot in the science-y set. ). So really what this theme needs is more robots.

It's funny what becomes "controversial" on the internet. I really don't think Lego hasn't reinforced gender roles any more than any other toy company. The saving grace of Lego is that these Friends sets still contain a good deal of building. They at least admit that girls can enjoy constructing things, and are just as capable of building with Lego as boys. To the pastel color palette, I say "meh". They're still bricks.

As for the arguments here, let's let the Nazi talk die. Comparing things to Nazis is a lazy and weak argument. And the more they are brought up in arguments like this, the more it trivializes all the atrocities Nazis committed. If you want to argue, argue. Just keep things in perspective.

[M'Kyuun]

So Def, what is wrong with girls playing with bulldozers?

Just kidding, sir. I know you're both articulate and fervent about the topic.

I never imagined this theme would generate so much debate when first announced. Secretly, I've been hoping for years that TLG would make a midi-figure..similar dimensions to the original, but maybe a bit taller with ball jointed hips and shoulders, as well as elbows and knees...something with more poseability. I daresay, I found one of MegaBlocks' Halo figs and found it interestingly close to what I've wished for from LEGO for quite some time. I'm curious what kind of discussions such a figure would generate. And no, Jack Stone in no way qualifies in this, or any other theoretical, reality.

[Hinckley]

Read the comments section, that is what I was referring to!

Aha! Now it makes sense. Never read those comments. They get really ridiculous. It gets even worse on YouTube. People who comment, especially if they register, make one comment and then never come back, take full advantage of internet anonymity and say crazy ridiculous things.

[CorneliusMurdock]

Aha! Now it makes sense. Never read those comments. They get really ridiculous. It gets even worse on YouTube. People who comment, especially if they register, make one comment and then never come back, take full advantage of internet anonymity and say crazy ridiculous things.

I agree. Comments on news articles on the internet make me weep for humanity. It's best to pretend they aren't there.

[Laura Beinbrech]

Aha! Now it makes sense. Never read those comments. They get really ridiculous. It gets even worse on YouTube. People who comment, especially if they register, make one comment and then never come back, take full advantage of internet anonymity and say crazy ridiculous things.

Yes, now that I have had time to calm down a bit, I've been reciting the Great Internet F---wad Theory so that I don't fall into that trap again, but I wasn't in the best condition mentally or physically when I read that stuff and flew off the handle.

The Great Internet F---wad Theory is thus: Normal Person + Relative Anonymity + Large Audience = Total F---wad

This phenomenon has a fancy technical name that sociologists use in publications and papers, but many of them even use this term or its acronym (GIFT) among themselves....

EDIT:

I agree. Comments on news articles on the internet make me weep for humanity. It's best to pretend they aren't there.

They just make you weep for humanity? On a GOOD day, they make me wish I had a giant kill-sat and the commentor's coordinates...

So, to summarize, without dragging in any violations of Godwin's Law, this is my stance:

- The fact that most Retailers will be adding this to the pink girly ghetto instead of the LEGO aisle = BOO! (-10 points) for LEGO, but with the provisio that this is probably the only way that they'll stand a chance against Barbie{sup]tm[/sup] Polly Pocket^tm or other girls' toy lines. Unfortunately I don't see this changing anytime soon.

- The new, incompatible Polly Pocket^tm-style minifigs also = -1 for LEGO, but at least they're better than the Belleville and Scala figures.

- The lack of any boys or men, aside from Olivia's father, = +/-0 for LEGO with the fact that what's been leaked thus far is only the first wave and that they might be adding more boys to the line and the other fact that this is one of the few themes that could pass the Blechdel Test.

- The fact that the figures and sets are, more or less, at the standard minifig scale = +1 for LEGO: for the first time since Paradisia, you can combine sets from the girl theme with other themes.

- Hair piece and other accessory compatibility with standard LEGO minifigs = +5 for LEGO, but mainly because I'm always on the lookout for more types of female hair and accessories.

- The new animal molds = +2 for LEGO: I just can't wait to get the new ladybugs, cats, dogs, hedgehogs and butterflies for my collection.

- The fact that the sets have the same level of detail and complexity as regular LEGO theme sets = +10 for LEGO, since building stuff out of plastic bricks is what it's all REALLY about, in the end.

- New and more colors and interesting set designs = +1 for LEGO.

...So, as you can see, while I'm not 100% happy with this theme and some of its implications, I feel that it is a positive step in the right direction, overall, and that I hope it eventually leads to further integration of "boy" and "girl" elements in ALL themes to make LEGO more accessible to everyone.

Edited December 19, 2011 by Hikaro Takayama

[posades]

I have no daughter (or son for that matter), but I'm speaking on behalf of my niece who is 7. I got her hooked on LEGO from an early age, first with DUPLO and then regular sets. While I did buy her the pink tub of LEGO, I also got her various city sets and generic brick sets. I don't see why girls have to be marketed specifically to with a different product -- what they have now can work if they choose to include more gender neutral scenarios in some of their themes like city. In fact, her favorite set was the Safari birck building set (even after me showing her pictures of the new Friends line).

[Fallenangel]

I don't have much to add, but I would like to commend def for being one of the most mature and interesting voices in this thread.

About the gender-stereotype worries, I can tell an anecdote about when I worked at Toys R Us. It was during the time Sailor Moon was a big fad. Obviously, between the majority women characters, and 'girl' colors, it was aimed at girls. But, the anime was anime, and not overtly feminine (compared to something like Jem or She-ra, from my childhood). On more than one Christmas, I had dad's sincerely asking me if they should be worried that their son asked for something from the Sailor Moon line, usually one of the weapon type things, rather than the dolls.

It was a serious worry for dads, that their kid could be asking for something kept in the aisle next to Barbie. Gender roles are still quite prominent.

No shame in wanting one of these.

EDIT: Def, again you misunderstood my point by picking on one single statement. Even if this won't amount to much in the SHORT run, it is at least a start, but I think that flooding LEGO's mailbox with complaints before the theme even hits the shelves is a bit, I don't know, churlish?

..and for that matter, I did not go out of my way to insult YOU, so I ask you to do the same, thank you very much! If you cannot, then I'm afraid I must add you to my ignore list until you can learn some manners.

Read the comments section, that is what I was referring to!

...And on that note, I don't think this conversation is going anywhere, what with you twisting everything I say to suit your purposes , so all I have to say is that it's been real, and it's been fun, but it ain't been real fun, so I'm outta here!

[lisqr]

On the question whether Lego is unisex toy in the poll, I'd say again that individual bricks are unisex. But the final product is not. Some models appeal to girls more and some to boys more. So generic brick bucket can be unisex, but themes should not be. As I learned in the only business class I took, you need different products to satisfy different groups.

[lorax]

The interesting thing about this discussion is that we all agree (that I can see) on the most fundamental things (correct me if I am wrong).

We all agree that Lego is really a great (and beneficial) toy for children in encouraging cognitive and fine motor skills.

We all agree that currently the Lego target audience is largely male (based both on available products and social conditioning).

We all agree that some girls like stereotypically 'girly' toys and other girls don't.

We all agree that there is nothing wrong with girls liking 'girly' toys, and that there should be a choice for children(so not forcing 'girly' toys on girls and not assuming girls who play with 'girly' toys are vapid).

So it turns out, the objection appears to be that the toy will be located in the pink aisle of the store and the further segregating of the genders (and therefore reinforcing any social conditioning). Which is a valid concern and I am not sure how that can be resolved, but I also don't think that the Friends Lego range started the issues with Lego changing from being generally a 'unisex' toy, in my opinion it has been happening since homemaker 40 years ago and has continued since. I also don't think that getting a girl who was going to spend her pocket money on a Barbie, spend it on Lego instead is a bad thing.

I must say though... I consider myself a feminist, and I will buy Lego Friends for myself and my daughter.

[Haltiamieli]

One thing to remember is that while some big American company will be putting the Friends line away from the other Lego sets in the pink-y princess-y girl section of the store, that may very well not be true for most of the shops in the world, at least not after the initial launch and marketing push. Sooner or later a shop manager will look at the sets, notice that they look suspiciously like Lego and decide to put them among the rest of them (or maybe I'm a bit naïve, that remains to be seen). Admittedly I would be more upset with the thing if the closest Target store wasn't half a world away from me - I'm still waiting to see where Finnish retailers choose to put these products. I don't remember if Belville sets were originally placed elsewhere, but at least nowadays in the stores I visit the diminished line has been put in the same shelf as other Lego.

[Lyichir]

I was going to vote in the poll, but I felt some of the questions were too weighted in one direction or another. For instance, I have no background in marketing, child development, etcetera. But I know that LEGO does have experts in this field, and did a lot of research before putting out this theme. As the recent BusinessWeek article described, LEGO's research showed that girls wanted a fig they could identify with, and the minifigure was not effective in this regard. If regular sets and minifigs would work for this market, LEGO would have used them; after all, it's a lot cheaper to work female minifigs into standard sets than it is to create molds for entirely new figures and build a line around them. I don't understand why many AFOLs fail to give LEGO the benefit of the doubt in cases like these: LEGO has more than enough resources to study the market before making decisions like these, and I think it's quite presumptuous of us to assume we have all the solutions despite having a much smaller reference pool to draw conclusions from.

[lightningtiger]

Yesterday, I spoke to a retailer.....he said he welcomes Friends into his store, constant requests by customers for Lego for girls....near sighted/narrow minded parents/grandparents who by-pass City or even Creator and were stuck with Belville to buy from. Now they'll have pink boxes for girl's to chose from.....wait until some girls cry saying no they wanted the forest police station for the female police chief.

Interesting footnote....in the promo adverts you see Creator houses in the foreground and background.

Edited December 19, 2011 by lightningtiger

[fred67]

Too late! I already have two of them, and no matter how hard I tried to get them to like Star Wars, etc, they pick 'girly' stuff every time.

And when my daughter is with me while at the LEGO store, she goes crazy and needs a PAB cup of pink and purple bricks when they have them.

She also doesn't play with dolls (hates them) and likes video games...

Yet she still likes pink and purple bricks (but then again, so do I).

[UsernameMDM]

And when my daughter is with me while at the LEGO store, she goes crazy and needs a PAB cup of pink and purple bricks when they have them.

She also doesn't play with dolls (hates them) and likes video games...

Yet she still likes pink and purple bricks (but then again, so do I).

Mine (3 & 5) are pink and purple if they have the choice. Mine love dolls (polly pockets mainly) and Lego, so they are super excited about this theme. I really enjoy building with them and watching them build.

[vexorian]

Your CMF point is a great one, IMO. Sure, the female skater, surfer, astronaut, etc, have either pink and/or purple, TLG made them. Sure, skateboarding is male dominated(professionally, in the least)but hey, a girl can skateboard too. More or less, if there's a male "whatever" there's going to be a female "whatever" in an upcoming series.

And there's a 80% chance her suit will be pink.

[Laura Beinbrech]

I was going to vote in the poll, but I felt some of the questions were too weighted in one direction or another.

Yes, I agree with this (although I did vote in the poll)... I didn't think that the sets were too sterotypically girly, but I also felt that there was room for improvement, and would have preferred some kind of "sorta" option for most of the "Yes/No" questions...

Also, I think Lorax pretty much sums up the general drift of opinions here, but could add the overall consensus that most of us aren't particularly thrilled with the new girl-figs, but are willing to concede that they are at least better than the Bellville and Scala figs.

While my niece is too young for the target group, indications are that she might go for the regular LEGO over this: Granted, she's only almost two years old, but she really likes trains, playing with Tonka Toys (toy dump trucks and bulldozers) and such, but we'll have to see in another two or three years.... Granted, the uproar will have died down by then, but it will still be interesting to see how her interests shape up.

EDIT: I just came across this blog on The Brick Blogger that seems to agree with the majority of views expressed here, with an actually CIVILIZED comments section for once! (Yes, I know a genuine miracle on the internet....)

Edited December 20, 2011 by Hikaro Takayama

[Ardelon]

I don't want to get too deep into this debate (I got pretty lost trying to follow it anyway), suffice to say I dont see a problem with the color scheme or concept behind the sets. As my points would be the the same as those of other posters before me, there's no point in repeating them.

However, I do think LEGO took a pro-action and pro-conflict (and thus, stereotypically pro-boy) turn somewhere in the 90s. Sets like the 80s civilian houses (nice article about those here), or civilian sets in general, were extremely rare to nonexistent this last decade. Not to mention the Pradisa line, which I saw as fully integreted with Town. I guess that's my answer to the problem of attracting girls to LEGO - more civilian sets like the houses and Paradisa, with more female minifgs (and kid figs, with short legs). Friends seems to me the best step yet in this direction, and I'm willing to put up with the polly-figs for that, if the targeted girls don't like regular minifigs. If they really don't like minifigs, it does raise the question of whether they will move on to "mainstream" themes, but the input here from AFFOLs and daughters/nieces of AF(F)OLs has been encouraging. If the whole thing fails, the new parts and colors will have made it worth it anyway.

I don't know if the builds are simpler than in other lines, but even if so, I wouldn't see it as condescending. the Businessweek article stated the girls valued role-play more than the building experience, so TLG is catering to their tastes, and doing it without compromising the basic principle of actually building the play set first.

Incidentally, I had some Paradisa sets as a kid, and I never considered them a girls theme. I took the pink for granted as just another color, and I never noticed any relevance in the pastel scheme or that there were more female minifigs.

BTW, completely beside the point, but the color scheme seems heavier on purple and pastel blue than pink!

EDIT: link inserted

Edited December 20, 2011 by Ardelon

[Peppermint_M]

Okay, I am going to have to wade back in here and fish out something from earlier, sorry y'all.

There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth from certain areas by the fact that Lego has a specific catagory named "Girls" and illustrated with the pop star CMF with the aerobics pink stereo.

Well, I just went and looked at this ever-so offensive part of the site to discover... Exactly what I owuld expect. All the creator sets, Castle themed sets, PotC, Harry Potter, Spongebob, Toy Story, CMFs, Community Minifigures, brick boxes of all colours...

You know, many of the exciting products Lego sells to a wide range of ages, both male and female. It was at the bottom of the page before Belville turned up and the pink brick boxes were on page 2.

Considering that Themes is in fact the first tab on Shop@Home, anyone browsing would probably go there first, only moving along to the Girls section if they could not find what they were looking for. Although it is lamentable that TLG has to indicate a Girls section with pink, it is the colour shorthand for Female for decades, yes they are re-inforcing stereotypes but they are not forcing girls into only pink toys and such. The Architechture sets are not pink, but they are in the girl's section. These sets are more about building than many of the others. In fact, the only thing missing was the Hero Factory sets, something much more appealing to boys anyway.

Ah, but there we are. As you all were.

[lightningtiger]

The simple reason why there is a 'Girls' heading on the S@H page is for parents who are Lego-Blind, and think that everything is boyish unless it said 'Girly' !

[PhoBWanKenobi]

I hope you guys don't mind, but I joined the eurobricks forums just to participate in this thread. I was really, really disappointed by the quality of the discussion about the new line elsewhere on the internet.

I was a huge lego fan as a girl--back in the 90s, I split my time between playing with Paradisa sets and castle sets pretty equally. I'm also a feminist. I've been really bummed by the "feminist" reaction to this set across the internet. There's a lot of assumptions on places like Jezebel and the Hairpin, and I think there's a lot of latent sexism in those responses. SO many people are dismissing this as pink, barbie-fied lego.

But to me, it looks like TLC put a lot of care into NOT making this set another faux-Disney-Princess toy. The problem with Disney Princess stuff has always been, to me, the limited interests and the passivity of female characters. You sit around waiting for your prince to come, that sort of thing. But that was much more true for the old Paradisa sets than for these. Other than the different minifigs, I really struggle to see how the Paradisa sets were any LESS sexist. The boxes all showed girls sitting around on poolsides being served drinks. The only other activity that seemed acceptable was horseback riding. Most of the minifigs had heavy make-up and wore bathing suits (it always killed me as a kid that the women didn't come with pants!).

There's pretty much one set/character here that seems to do that. The rest of the sets are all centered around gender-neutral activities, from baking to inventing to playing in tree houses. In the house set, it's the mom that mows the lawn! Even the beautician character is shown with a *drafting* table. Sure, these are domestic sets, with lots of animals--but there's nothing wrong with domestic play, or cute animals, for either boys OR girls.

You wouldn't know that from the way people are talking about this line, though. It's all about how dolls are lame and social play is lame and legos are just for building. Strange . . . if that were the case it would seem to me that minifigs aren't necessary at all. There's also a bizarre assumption that all of these sets are completely prefab, and that doesn't seem to be the case, either. In fact, these sets aren't even very PINK. The primary colors seem to be purple and blue.

I'd love if there were more female minifigs generally, and I'd love if there were more boy ladyfigs here, but the figures in the friends line look pretty much like real little girls. They're not overly sexualized; just as many wear pants as skirts. I can see these really appealing to modern girls with a wide range of interests. Heck, it has me shopping for lego for the first time in fifteen years.

[assassin124]

To be honest I'm completely baffled why there even is a controversy surrounding this theme. If Lego is appealing to both boys AND girls what's the problem? It just shows that they appeal to all audiences.

[sharky]

One thing I would like to mention is that this is one 'girls' Lego theme I wouldn't mind getting for her and even for myself for some of the parts etc. I saw little value in the Belville theme as it didn't seem to offer any kind of build experience and they frankly were of zero interest to my daughter. Every time we go to the Lego store she totally ignores the Belville stuff. I've been sticking to Creator houses, some City (like the camper set), and even some Star Wars sets because that's really the things she seems interested in from Lego. It's been rather hard to find just the right sets for her. Finally, there are good sets coming that appeal directly to her and appeal to a parent's sensibility in why they think Lego is a good toy. I hope she will enjoy all the sets in this theme. I'll also be looking to get Friends sets for birthday gifts for her friends as well.

[snefroe]

well i was really surprised to see these sets. at first i thought some pirate company was stealing lego parts again, but as far as I understand, they're genuine Lego sets.

first, isn't it a bit too late to use a '90s series? all you got, these days, are reruns and endless discussions on whether there will ever be an actual film... i can only assume that this is a desperate move by Lego to get more girls into Lego. yes, to me, this looks like a theme for girls.

Second, it reminds me of Paradisa sets, even though those sets were a lot better, in my opinion. I don't really like the colours, nor do i find the sets, as such, really interesting. they're ok, but nothing that would excite a boy, i think...

let's not get started on the figures. to keep a long description short, they're ugly, they don't fit into the minifig world. however, i can see that the minifigs wouldn't work in a "Friends" theme, for some reason... in any case, in my view, they belong to the category: "waisted plastic"

regards,

sne

[lorax]

I am glad you joined to add to the discussion PhoBWanKenobi because your post provides such a clear and logical perspective.

And on the issue about Lego just being for building, I have a teenage son who only ever played with Lego structures if I built them for him; however, he played a lot with minifigures (customising them and playing with them).

[lightningtiger]

Wasted plastic....that's a little harsh.

Seriously, lets look at the style of the sets, again it's a fusion, a meet in the middle of Lego System and Pocket Polly. True, there is little pink, pastels rule the theme and most places that girls live or visit are pastel coloured.....of course there is the direct opposite sometimes too....everyone can be and are different, just like everyone having their own opinion on this theme.

I wonder if we will see other structures in this theme, a department store would do well and to really set the bar, a service station with a workshop, yep....female motor mechanic.....and why, not ?