614 replies to this topic

[lightningtiger]

Look at it a different way, at least with the 6 wide car it can seat two figures side-by-side !

[Meeeh]

They made it all good by anouncing the LOTR sets.

Frankly it is my opinion that Lego has made a lot of
very good AFOL and TFOL sets in the last years.

It is normal they try to expand their market.

[Lyichir]

I think the issue is that LEGO isn't going to be successful by creating girls sets that don't conform to the norm. The meme that girls prefer pink and pastels is constantly reinforced by western culture. LEGO is at its heart a business, and Friends is their attempt to break into the girls market. So should we really expect them to take a progressive stance when the greatest effect it could possibly have is to make the theme a failure?

I feel the Friends theme is a lot more progressive in general than its predecessor Belville. While there's a stereotypically girly salon set, there's also a robot lab (which encourages girls into STEM fields, where females are underrepresented).

[Jasper Joppe Geers]

Without having read the whole topic here, just my two cents:

I wonder how much help TLC gets from the community to come up
with a genuine girls theme. To see those puppets is a bit of a
dissappointment to be honest. It would work better i think if
TLC would keep it minifig style.

Overall the modular houses are the best bet so far when it
comes to the boy/girl thing. As far as i noticed, both seem to
love them. Perhaps TLC should find more ways to develop stories
around them, create a neighbourhood... Kids do that. They give
minifigs a name and create stories. Why not emphasize on that?

Like i said, just my two cents...

JJ.

[brickmack]

While I respect that LEGO is trying to attract more girls, I think there are other methods they could have used that the stereotypical pink sets and such. For example, the inclusion of more female minifigs, particularly in jobs traditionally considered "male", like firefighters and police. Also they could include girls into advertisements more, other than a Duplo commercial a few weeks ago, I haven't seen any that showed a girl playing with the sets. It would probably attract some to LEGO if they saw other girls their age playing with it.

Anyway, I'll probably get a few anyway, since there are some useful parts in odd colors. And Olivia's Workshop has the part with all of the physics/maths equations (Though the inclusion of a flower and heart may make it difficult to use for some purposes...)

[Nightshroud99]

Well I'd like to interject some personal information into this matter. I review LEGO on YouTube they have a feature called Insight, which gives information about who's watching my videos, their gender, their age etc.

Only around %15 of my viewers are female, whilst over %75 are male. So personally, I can see LEGO capitalizing on a niche that they have yet to fulfill, but at the same time why?? If these girl themes have failed before, why do them again?  

Personally I agree with what others have said, include more female figures!!

OR! Do something bold and make an actual theme with a female protagonist!   (in a good way)

This way boys would buy the theme and perhaps become more respectful of girls in turn; once they see how Action Suzie ( ) is a tough adventurer who fights pirates.   Couple in good marketing and commercials aimed at girls tv programs and they could possibly draw in more buyers.  

[Peppermint_M]

Right, ready.

If we get right down to it (and yes, I have read this about as well as I can) gender roles were laid out right back in the foundation of western society: The Bible. (ducks) Or if you prefer: "Ug, You make babies, stay here and be safe to keep having more babies. I go fetch food. I get back ,be tired from hunt, you make food good to eat." Yes, mass generalisation but there we go.

War forced progress at a rapid pace in the last century or so (Women got to do the work when the men were at war and did not want to relenquish this afterwards) and legislation has made it law for equality and even, dare I say it, further towards descrimination against men in some instances. We have to face that biological differences have forced a social difference (I don't know about anyone else, but once a month I spend a week going from weepy to "I AM RAGE I SHALL TEAR OFF YOUR FACE!!!" in the blink of an eye) and we all have to live with the social difference until such a time as, well, no one is anything?


After that potted explaination: A social difference, fair or unfair, means that people treat one gender differently to another.

Girls get "girl" toys and Boys get "boy" toys. My life has been slightly different, but there are seven kids in my family so we make a mini test study. However some factors to keep in mind: My mum loved Lego, but it took me becoming an engineer for her Dad to accept that women could a do jobs that were for men in his lifetime. Her younger brother had Lego galore but she did not have any.

When I was born she bought plenty of Lego for me, loads of Duplo.
Sister of mine, 19 months younger than myself preferred her Polly and Barbie, I had Ken and Lego.
A few years later there was my first brother, who played with Lego and any of the other toys. One famous family story: When we were 8 and 4 we came into our parents room one weekend morning, there I was with my toy hard hat on and his toy tools on a "tool belt" (dressing gown tie around my waist) and he was nursing my baby doll with a toy bottle...
My next brother adopted one of my old baby dolls, named him Cry and would never ever be parted from him. No encouragement either way, the toys were just there and we would choose them.
My other sister was much more into Polly and Dolls, she is 13 now and is not the most creative with Lego but there was about a decades worth of Lego and Duplo around for her to play with if she wished. My third brother is exactly like me.
He adores Lego to the exclusion of all else, we play and talk and build together and enjoy it, him and his friends (they are all 10) love pink. They, for several years, decided that wearing pink proves you as super manly so t-shirts, socks etc are fine to be pink (I went in on a charity day and at least two of them were being sponsored to dress as faries to raise money) they are looking forward to the Space Gal and the sports car set from Friends.
My youngest brother is 9ish, he loves Spongebob, Playmobil and watching X-Factor. He has Spongebob Lego but more home style Playmobil. He makes small family units with biographies and jobs, somewhere to live and friendships. I bought him a rock star figure who has now got a wife who is a vet and a small child who likes go-karting... He was devestadted when one of his Mum figures was broken and went to the shop to select a replacement that would be kind to the baby and the Daddy.

So, nature, nurture who knows? We are seven very different people. We were lucky to have open minded parents and we have all developed our own way.

I want you all to think of Friends as a "gateway" theme. Smaller minded parents who go in for the (however lamentable) gender stereotypes, small girls who actually prefer the curvy figures and what-have-you will purchase all these girl sets and then, well, Heartlake needs a Toys'R'Us, and a police station and a pizza resturant and a fire station! So they get the City sets, maybe some other themes. They enjoy the toy and get it all thanks to one theme that signed itself as a toy for girls that their family would buy them.

And with that. Goodbye.

[Lord Admiral]

If TLG was serious about marketing to girls, changing the minifigure into some derivative of duplo's figures is not the answer. That just reinforces the idea that girls are not only different, but not as intelligent as the figure is more childish and doll-like. The pastels and pink isn't a problem, but making the sets build simplier and easier (as they did with Belville) is condescending in the same way. Young children don't separate "girl" from "boy" toys. Young children don't care. For the most part, the adults, and any older siblings, impose a particular worldview on young children that segregates the "boy" toys from the "girl" toys. Making a girl-specific line that is so vastly different from the other "boy" lines firstly reinforces that the other lines are for boys only, and secondly that the girl lines are inferior (by their very nature of being different and less numerous) to the boy lines.

But there is a problem with making female-oriented sets the same as every other set. In particular there is a problem with the majority of the female minifigures. To put it bluntly, female minifigures are lame. Most of them have a wedge brick for legs, and cannot sit down. Their hair gets in the way of their head turning. The minifigures who don't suffer these deficiencies mainly consist of a head with lipstick on the lips popped onto a regular body. Forget the generic body, but just the fact that the baseball cap or helmet completely replaces the hair makes it very difficult for minifigures to be feminine. It means that for a female minifigure (and for a girl playing with the female minifigure), the choice is to either look like a boy and be able to do everything the male minfigures can do, or look like a girl, but be severely hampered by the female-specific minifigure parts. This limitation makes it difficult for girls to be interested in playing with female-oriented minifigure sets.

The larger figure in the Friends line only solves one of these problems (they don't seem to be able to sit down still). This actually has a large bearing on set design. Now, the larger figure would have to stand up for everything (look at 3935). Or, it means if they're sitting, they won't be secured. It means they'll fall off easily, which limits playability for any vehicles that might be included in the set (and the very idea that vehicles is a boys thing is ridiculous). The larger figure also means everything else around the figure needs to be larger. This means they'll need larger pieces and larger sets to do the same things (see how big the car in 3183 is). That gives the entire theme a juniorized feel (like the 4+ sets--look how great those worked out), which will turn off many of the older girls, especially those in or nearing their preteens.

The only solution for this quagmire is to fix the female minifigure. Make it as versatile as the male minifigure. One thing to do is instead of using a wedge piece for the dress, use cloth (like the hula girl in series 1). Also put peg holes on the back of the cloth dress so they can sit down in a chair without having to take off or damage the dress. The next thing to do is fix the hair. Either keep the hair away from the shoulders (either above, or far apart) , or make it somehow malleable. The final thing to do is to have a female version of the helmets, caps, hats, etc. where a girl's longer hair is coming out of it or otherwise showing through. These will reinforce the femininity of the particular minifigure. Put out a female minifigure-only set in each theme, and this will help break down walls on what sets and themes are appropriate for girls, as well as what women can and cannot do (e.g. a racing set where one team is entirely female, with a female driver and female mechanics).

Of course, this comes from a more open mind growing up and living in a more open society. I hear Apple is having problems with Siri (and the 4S) in certain geographical locations because the people there didn't like a female voice telling them what to do. There's nothing TLG or anyone else can really do about that, except maybe not release these female minifigure-only products to those places.

[halfpenguinhalflego]

I think that nearly everytime we see LEGO girls, they have boring sets and jobs. The Space Girl (EDIT: Cave-Woman  ) in the new CMF is the closest we have got to a LEGO girl actually having something cool as a job.
Seriously, if LEGO gave girls a cool theme, like a space theme, I know many girls (and boys) that would buy those sets. Pink space would be awesome. I am just bored of girls sets being too girly, i.e. pink, bracelets, dolls...

I can see why some people are so offended by this.

[xtremegoogler]

Lord Admiral, on 18 December 2011 - 06:37 PM, said:

If TLG was serious about marketing to girls, changing the minifigure into some derivative of duplo's figures is not the answer. That just reinforces the idea that girls are not only different, but not as intelligent as the figure is more childish and doll-like. The pastels and pink isn't a problem, but making the sets build simplier and easier (as they did with Belville) is condescending in the same way.

Didn't they do the same with Toy Story, for example 7954? Very simple set, changed the minifigures.
Yet no one complained.

[Dan the Brickman]

I have 2 sisters, and, they both are very different. One of them, likes everything pink, and "girly". She is the kind who loves the princesses, and anything pink-the total stereotype that companies market too, when they market to GIRLS.

my other sister, is a complete tomboy, and wears jeans, plays sports, and hates anything cute.

They both actually like lego, and sometimes mess with my collection. But they each have their own tastes. I think its honestly stupid for people to make such a rediculous fuss over weather or not lego should make 'girly pink sets'.

If you dont LIKE them, just DONT BUY THEM.

sheesh. people these days......

autobrick, on 16 December 2011 - 08:57 PM, said:

The way I see it, TLC is damned if they do and damned if they don't when it comes to creating a theme catered to girls. Two scenarios:

The Lego company releases a theme that appeals to girls' stereotypical tastes (pastel colours, hair salons and bakeries, the things you would find in the girls' aisle in any toy shop and tend to sell well, why wouldn't the Lego company create a theme with subjects/colour scheme that have a proven track record?).
Response of critics: The Lego company is sexist; don't they know that girls like things that aren't pink and girly?

The Lego company doesn't release a theme for girls.
Response of critics: The Lego company is sexist; why else would they ignore 50% of the population?

Of course, there is the 'AFOL solution', which is to increase the number of female minifigs, create more civilian buildings and possibly create a theme similar to Paradisa.
Response of critics:

Some people need to stop making a big deal out of everything.

^This is exactly what I thought.

[badboytje88]

I think it's absurd. Why is Friends to stereotypical? Have you seen Barbie, Polly in my Pocket or Baby Born. No one complains about that.

[Hinckley]

Jasper Joppe Geers, on 18 December 2011 - 03:08 PM, said:

Without having read the whole topic here, just my two cents:

I wonder how much help TLC gets from the community to come up
with a genuine girls theme.

Which community do you think they would seek help from? The LEGO fan community is hardly their target market. They test-market their product to children and parents in the USA and Germany. According to the designers I've spoken to, the challenge is pleasing the children in the States, where parents buy the kids whatever they want and to the parents in Germany, where the parents are very opinionated and don't consider what the children want as much as they buy things that they, the parents, deem appropriate for the children.

[lightningtiger]

Has anyone seriously talked to a stack of boys and GIRL'S ?
Ask them out right.....what do they think ?
Because it's children that Lego really aim most of their product at, we are jumping up and down debating this topic....if a boy and girl want to play house and put the baby to bed they do so and if a boy and a girl want to build a monster truck together....they do so. And if they want to do the same things on their own, they can and should....it's called being a child, it's called development.
Yes, development....imagination, reasoning, motor skills, problem solving....that's what Lego among other toys support in their lives.
Lets have a poll, moderators....a poll on how good or bad this theme is or is it too stereotypical ?
Now how do I understand all this.....I'm a parent and I'm approaching this topic from the angle of a parent.

[Hinckley]

Poll added.

[Legocrazy81]

brickmack, on 18 December 2011 - 03:12 PM, said:

While I respect that LEGO is trying to attract more girls, I think there are other methods they could have used that the stereotypical pink sets and such. For example, the inclusion of more female minifigs, particularly in jobs traditionally considered "male", like firefighters and police. Also they could include girls into advertisements more, other than a Duplo commercial a few weeks ago, I haven't seen any that showed a girl playing with the sets. It would probably attract some to LEGO if they saw other girls their age playing with it.

Anyway, I'll probably get a few anyway, since there are some useful parts in odd colors. And Olivia's Workshop has the part with all of the physics/maths equations (Though the inclusion of a flower and heart may make it difficult to use for some purposes...)

In regards to commercials, I could be wrong, but I don't remember ever seeing kids(aside from hands)in System commercials... That right there even says, in a way, that these toys aren't just for boys.

And, I'm not sure of the relevance and it's off topic. I saw a commercial for Chevy trucks. A little boy was on the floor roleplaying with a silver truck. He had his action figures, of course. Truck was towing a boat, then, among everything was a doll and a two story white house with pink trim. I may be talking to myself with stating this, but I thought it pretty good.

[Haltiamieli]

vexorian, on 18 December 2011 - 03:35 AM, said:

To me it is clear that sets in both ways are getting full of gender stereotypes. After TLG decided all themes but friends/belvile are for boys, we have been getting sets that are stereotypically heared towards boys. Most creator sets nowadays are cars or helicopters. Town alternates between Cops and Firefighters every second wave and every set needs flicker missiles. I think that it is pretty clear to me that gender stereotypes are getting worse in TLG than years ago.

Is it really so? Admittedly I've been in the AFOL scene only for a year and a half and I don't have that good picture of the preceding decade or so, but to me it doesn't seem very clear that the stereotypes would have been getting worse. Certainly they have made bad steps and wrong turns, but the general direction seems to be slowly for the better. City sets have had an increasing amount of female figs, police officers and firefighters included. The latest Dino line is far less oriented on guns, machines and mutated monsters than the earlier one seems to have been (though personally I wish they would have made at least one Dino set without an ugly useless vehicle eating all the parts ). The latest Castle line had the first civilian retail sets since the '80s (though even then included some raiders). Creator houses nowadays include minifigs for added playability, maybe some day they will have furniture too? Collectable minifigures have included an increasing amount of female figs, some of which have been slightly against most strict stereotypes like the surgeon, surfer, skater and space heroine, though many of them are quite pink.

[def]

Dan the Brickman, on 18 December 2011 - 07:45 PM, said:

I have 2 sisters, and, they both are very different. One of them, likes everything pink, and "girly". She is the kind who loves the princesses, and anything pink-the total stereotype that companies market too, when they market to GIRLS.

my other sister, is a complete tomboy, and wears jeans, plays sports, and hates anything cute.

They both actually like lego, and sometimes mess with my collection. But they each have their own tastes. I think its honestly stupid for people to make such a rediculous fuss over weather or not lego should make 'girly pink sets'.

If you dont LIKE them, just DONT BUY THEM.

sheesh. people these days......

I say this to you, but it could be to a lot of other people in this thread.  Who is making "such a rediculous fuss" over this?  The people not caring for it have all expressed moderate opinions on the matter, while a number of people have joined in the thread to say they are "so" upset, crazy feminists and whatnot.  

I challenge anyone else making this sort of statement (and there have been lots) to, at the least, quote examples of what they think is so ridiculous rather than make sweeping statements.  I find this type of 'discussion' pretty ridiculous, all these people ridiculing the other sides position and how they're expressing it without paying any attention to the points made, much less the degree they've been made.  Frankly, all it's doing is making me think this is a thread full of TFOL opinions with a (very) few adult ones peppered in.

lightningtiger, on 18 December 2011 - 09:04 PM, said:

Has anyone seriously talked to a stack of boys and GIRL'S ?
Ask them out right.....what do they think ?
Because it's children that Lego really aim most of their product at, we are jumping up and down debating this topic....if a boy and girl want to play house and put the baby to bed they do so and if a boy and a girl want to build a monster truck together....they do so. And if they want to do the same things on their own, they can and should....it's called being a child, it's called development.

Has anybody said girls shouldn't play with pink houses?  Anybody?  A single person?  One?  Your argument here is that if girls want to play with that, it's okay.  Who is on the other side saying that's not true?  

That's not aimed at you specifically either, but it seems like most of the Friends supporters are proudly arguing against an opponent that doesn't exist.

[lightningtiger]

A good point is that so in the poll minus one (guess) have no children, I cannot say what my son thinks of this theme as I haven't showed him the pictures or TV adverts yet.
An AFOL in their twenties will have a different opinion to someone who is or has been a parent, the most important thing to bare in mind is that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
Once I have shown the images to my son I can re-do my voting in the poll to include him in it.
If I get the chance I will try and poll girls of all ages to see if this theme has or has not hit the mark.....I can judge what a ten or eleven year old boy would say with his friends around......

[Legocrazy81]

Haltiamieli, on 18 December 2011 - 11:12 PM, said:

Is it really so? Admittedly I've been in the AFOL scene only for a year and a half and I don't have that good picture of the preceding decade or so, but to me it doesn't seem very clear that the stereotypes would have been getting worse. Certainly they have made bad steps and wrong turns, but the general direction seems to be slowly for the better. City sets have had an increasing amount of female figs, police officers and firefighters included. The latest Dino line is far less oriented on guns, machines and mutated monsters than the earlier one seems to have been (though personally I wish they would have made at least one Dino set without an ugly useless vehicle eating all the parts ). The latest Castle line had the first civilian retail sets since the '80s (though even then included some raiders). Creator houses nowadays include minifigs for added playability, maybe some day they will have furniture too? Collectable minifigures have included an increasing amount of female figs, some of which have been slightly against most strict stereotypes like the surgeon, surfer, skater and space heroine, though many of them are quite pink.

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.

[def]

Hinckley, on 18 December 2011 - 10:03 PM, said:

Poll added.

I can't vote in that poll.  

It frames the issue way too much.  I really don't think the "controversy", if it's really that, is that it's effeminate in appearance.  It's that by making a "girls" LEGO, they are de facto calling the rest of LEGO a boys toy, and also being stereotypical in its marketing.  This is emphasized by the LEGO website, which has a massive variety of sections, and one called Girls.  The meaning of this is that all others are meant boys.  Or the fact that Target will not stock Friends in the LEGO section.  It might work as a gateway to LEGO, but it's as likely to make Friends be a girls ghetto, where they are uncomfortable with non-girl LEGO. I never considered LEGO a tom-boy toy, but these sets reinforce that idea, as did Paradiso and Belville.  LEGO has developed a lot of 'boy' themes, so I understand that the company has shifted its own demographic to boys somewhat, but series like City, Toy Story or Harry Potter are a lot more gender neutral (though City can be boyish, for sure).

Your poll solutions seem more about sarcasm than anything that anybody would implement.  (Yes, pink monster trucks is the way to go )

A question like this: Do you think keeping the Friends promoted only among girls toys in store and not with LEGO will reinforce the impression that LEGO is a boys toy in general?

Do you consider LEGO to be a unisex toy?
-Yes
-No
-It used to be
-Was always for boys
etc etc

If your answer was yes, do "girl" sets take away from the idea they are uni-sex toys?


I read a few of the articles linked to in the first post, and none of the ones I read were complaining that pink is girly.  So I don't know why that's the notion taken with this poll  

As I wrote to a number of people here, it's easy to win an argument if you make up what the opposing side is saying.  I don't know why I've spent so much time writing in this thread, since nobody seems to care what's being said at all, and just write off the cuff comments based on their gut.

[Hinckley]

def, on 18 December 2011 - 11:34 PM, said:

I can't vote in that poll.  

It frames the issue way too much.  I really don't think the "controversy", if it's really that, is that it's effeminate in appearance.  It's that by making a "girls" LEGO, they are de facto calling the rest of LEGO a boys toy, and also being stereotypical in its marketing.  This is emphasized by the LEGO website, which has a massive variety of sections, and one called Girls.  The meaning of this is that all others are meant boys.  Or the fact that Target will not stock Friends in the LEGO section.  

Your poll solutions seem more about sarcasm than anything that anybody would implement.  (Yes, pink monster trucks is the way to go )

A question like this: Do you think keeping the Friends promoted only among girls toys in store and not with LEGO will reinforce the impression that LEGO is a boys toy in general?

Do you consider LEGO to be a unisex toy?
-Yes
-No
-It used to be
-Was always for boys
etc etc

If your answer was yes, do "girl" sets take away from the idea they are uni-sex toys?


I read a few of the articles linked to in the first post, and none of the ones I read were complaining that pink is girly.  So I don't know why that's the notion taken with this poll  

I'll add your questions, but I don't think the poll I created was sarcastic. As usual, I'm open to changes and discussion. No need to at me. And the pink monster trucks answer was bumped by someone else, not me. Anyway, my interest is to created the best poll possible. Thanks for your suggestions. They are excellent suggestions and the best way to get a consensus on what's being discussed. I do wish you could make suggestions without being so and towards others...

[def]

Hinckley, on 18 December 2011 - 11:47 PM, said:

I'll add your questions, but I don't think the poll I created was sarcastic. As usual, I'm open to changes and discussion. No need to at me. And the pink monster trucks answer was bumped by someone else, not me. Anyway, my interest is to created the best poll possible. Thanks for your suggestions. They are excellent suggestions and the best way to get a consensus on what's being discussed. I do wish you could make suggestions without being so and towards others...

My apologies, it was some frustration over the direction of the thread in general.  Realistically, I don't think a single person would genuinely choose the option that pink monster trucks are the way to go to make things more egalitarian for LEGO.

The use of a   and a   were at those points they were attached to, and hopefully the rest of my post, which was done respectfully and in depth show the extent of my   for you      I appreciate the support you're offering this topic.

[Haltiamieli]

Hinckley, on 18 December 2011 - 11:47 PM, said:

As usual, I'm open to changes and discussion.

Maybe there could be a middle answer or two for "Do you think the LEGO Friends line is too "effeminite" in appearance?"
I find it a bit hard to answer either one of the opposites, as I think the theme does go overboard in some things but overall achieves acceptably well.

[def]

I still can't vote in the poll though, I literally have no answer to questions three and four.

My idea of a better solution is creating more variety in existing lines, like have variety in City and Town mean more than Fireman/Policeman/Construction Worker.  Perhaps have some of the ideas of Friends be integrated into the Town and City lines, like a greater variety of diversity and color.  And the use of narrative in the characters is quite fine with me.  There's a lot of ideas to like in the Friends line.

The part about narrative in that business article was a real puzzling one; the claim that boys play in the third person and girls in the first.  If that's the case, why does LEGO go out of it's way to create narrative's for the boy-targeted Ninjago line?  Anyway, I think it would be quite nice to create a suburb for Town, which could have families with stories, or something like that, rather than the general focus they have now on action professions and vehicles.

The only part of the Friends line which is really incongruous with the rest of LEGO is the focus on nine ethnicities of people, since the yellow mini-fig has always been race-less.  For personal reasons, I prefer that to fleshies, but it would be an interesting shift if the company decided to give mini-figs their own race.  It would deeply change their international appeal.