Hikaro Takayama, on 17 December 2011 - 06:09 AM, said:
Obviously you missed this bit in my post:
Sorry, I prefer to skip any post that begins by mentioning extreme feminism or ^feminism bullcrap in its... first line.
Thing is that the line is not only stereotypical, but it others girls. It would be nice if we could say that without being called extremists. This is a problem LEGO is getting into by deciding that the rest of the themes, including Creator are for boys. You know, LEGO is flanderizing all of their themes into boys and making a little new theme for girls.
The business article does not make me hopeful. I got to be honest, is the business article calling me a girl? You know, besides the mandatory pink and the balkanized minifigs, and that 7/8 of the career choices are stereotypically "girly" the sets are great for the most part. I happen to like beauty and detail and it is getting into me that LEGO have been focusing on removing those values from all the other themes so that they can focus on "Mastery"? What? So that's the reason SNOT is becoming mandatory even if it doesn't make the set look good? Do you mean that if some boy told them five years ago that he also wanted to shrink and be inside a SW ship we would be getting colorful and detailed ships? It seems so random.
Wouldn't it be easier if all sets would be beautiful, detailed and also complicated? Can't town sets have modular rooms? So both kinds of roleplaying were allowed and that there were puppies and hedgehogs in the Town theme? Couldn't SW ships also be beautiful and detailed? Is this paragraph really feminist crap? Oh boy.
It is also not like LEGO is the only company getting this sort of criticism. It is probably the only company you heard of getting this criticism, because you are AFOLs. I remember this recently:
http://blogs.discove...ience-to-girls/
And of course girls like pink. But can't boys like pink too? Can't girls like other colors too?
Edited by vexorian, 17 December 2011 - 02:02 PM.