How did Lego become a gender battleground

[grum64]

Hello Everyone

I've just come across this on the BBC News website and thought it might be interesting to some of you and maybe spark some interesting comments.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28660069

EDIT

It seemed that almost the same subject has been posted before but in an article from a different news source.

Sorry. I should've checked the content rater than just the topic title. Lesson learnt.

Edited August 6, 2014 by grum64

[TheLegGodt]

Lesson learnt? Sounds like the mob were after you ;-)

Anyway, whether the topic is in the right section or not, it remains a relevant and sometimes frustrating topic. I have 2 girls who love Lego Friends as well as other lines. I think LEGO offers a healthy selection for boys and girls to choose from. So let the kids choose and stop trying to over-control what they should like.

Having said this, I wonder why we haven't had a gay minifigure yet? Oh right, maybe we have but you don't see it on the surface. And i think that is exactly the point.

[HawkLord]

I agree that people/children should decide what they like and Lego will see what they like by how well a line does. Sure, Friends isn't for everyone and Lego does make some good female items in their regular, but the almighty dollar will be the deciding factor. Friends is doing well enough that it's on the market still.

Also, I'd add in that at least Lego is trying. Again, Friends may not be for everyone, but I give Lego credit for trying.

[CrazyDalton777]

That article was a load of nonsense, "The LEGO Friends line was criticised by some" - Hasn't every LEGO theme been criticised at some point for a range of many factors?

[Faefrost]

Read Dr. Robinsons quotes near the end of that article. It pretty much sums up the difference between the real world that actually exists and the ideological world that exists in people heads. Somehow Lego got dragged into the great debate about gender roles in toys. But nobody notices that Lego started out gender neutral, and only shifted to more boy toys when it became apparent that 90% of their customers were boys. They tried to entice or grow a female customer base for over 40 years. Friends was the first time they succeeded.

[jodawill]

I agree that people/children should decide what they like and Lego will see what they like by how well a line does. Sure, Friends isn't for everyone and Lego does make some good female items in their regular, but the almighty dollar will be the deciding factor. Friends is doing well enough that it's on the market still.

Also, I'd add in that at least Lego is trying. Again, Friends may not be for everyone, but I give Lego credit for trying.

You're right. Friends is not for everyone. It is for little girls, not feminists who want to turn other people's little girls into men.

[Wodanis]

Ever notice it's the feminists who have the problem with gender issues regarding lego toys? I, too, wish people would stop trying to control what children should think.

[Dorayaki]

My opinion...... do LEGO advertisings show 100% gender equality? No. Are LEGO still marketing sets like what they used to? Uh, no, either. LEGO Ideas is already a proof that LEGO have added many different ways of advertisings in order to add what the public want. The whole controversies are not totally wrong, but unfortunately what TLC have to do is to appeal massive children who naturally love some stereotypical toys.They've left some room for other further trying, which should be the part we notice and praise.

My criticism against LEGO is mainly Friends' marketing purpose, but it's not about whether Friends sets are too girly or against feminism. We've seen that the characters have got to do many non-stereotypical things, even though it hasn't reached its full potential.

I think LEGO offers a healthy selection for girls to choose from.

Friends may not be for everyone, but I give Lego credit for trying.

I'd agree with the article that the licensed and tie-ins are mostly action types for boys and off-putting to girls, who don't have other better choices beside Friends. Some former popular licenses for girls such as Avatar and Disney stories don't have much recent progress. This only leaves other Pixar films and the possible Despicable Me license in the future.

Edited August 7, 2014 by Dorayaki

[ummester]

I agree with the part of the article that suggests LEGO was better marketed to children of both sexes in the 70s & 80s - purely as a construction toy, where minifigs were just humanoid parts without any gender bias in their design.

People will always have something to say, one way or the other, when a product is sexualised in any way. Best for LEGO to avoid sexualisation of characters in all non licensed themes, IMO. It's sad that Dr Robinson (good surname, that one) believes he would have been out of a job if LEGO kept marketing sets like the old days.

Edited August 7, 2014 by ummester

[Tariq j]

Lego has offered a good variety of themes for Girls. I will agree that Lego does design most themes for boys in mind. Lego did try with the Lego movie by giving us a Unikitty cloud set.

[Jared]

Lego has offered a good variety of themes for Girls. I will agree that Lego does design most themes for boys in mind. Lego did try with the Lego movie by giving us a Unikitty cloud set.

And it was an amazing set. So good in fact, that I bought one for my little cousin, myself, and multiple friends both male and female!

It's such a shame that LEGO is getting dragged into this rediculous debate. The nice thing is their attitude. I love it when they just ignore the pissy, angry, so-called "gender equalists"'s remarks.

[AmperZand]

Hello Everyone

I've just come across this on the BBC News website and thought it might be interesting to some of you and maybe spark some interesting comments.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28660069

I saw that article too. Like many pieces on the BBC News site, it's well written but poorly argued. The author assumes that gender roles are socialised without considering the possibility that they may be wholly or partly biologically determined. An argument that rests on an unproven premise is devoid of merit.

[mccoyed]

An argument that rests on an unproven premise is devoid of merit.

That's a pretty wild misunderstanding of how argumentation works let alone the history of rational thought. Philosophy and other academic fields of inquiry typically rely on rational premises, rather than "proven" ones (whatever this means). The scientific method yields knowledge we tend to trust without much need for debate precisely because it's titular method is based on proving and disproving premises (hypotheses) but this is not a requirement for all forms of rationality, let alone debate. A premise's only necessary condition for the merit to argue it is that someone holds the premise. Bad premises will quickly be laid waste by better ones (and better argued ones) but the persistence of gender inequality as a foundational argument from and for feminism speaks to its solidity. There's also that the continued development of social science seems to support many claims about gender inequality that originated from feminist's rationalist observations and theories about gender. As the science and reason have developed, feminism has abandoned claims and made new ones, just as any social consciousness movement worth its salt evolves over time.

I didn't know EB had so many men willing to be so dismissive to an incredibly well established and valuable body of inquiry and social development. I'd have to guess that some of the other men here are feeling a bit threatened by the idea that one of their favored products might not always be very inclusive to all genders. I get it, guys, but let's at least pretend we understand that we're a group of mostly men (and boys) sitting here discussing this and we may actually not have a very clear idea what it feels like to be a woman (or girl) in many respects, let alone when looking around for an interlocking brick system to play with. One that doesn't occasionally represent us only in gender terms.

Edited August 7, 2014 by mccoyed

[mikaelsol]

Personally I've heard that half of the population of humans on this planet are female, so I would like to see that representation in the Lego sets I buy. I bought set 60003 and the female firefighter has a smile and lipstick on its face but the two male firefighters have faces with sweat and more gritty looking. Why couldn't the female figure have that to?

But in set 4432 it works really well.

I like the Friends sets also, but I would like to have a more realistic representation of gender in at least the creator and town sets. For the more violent themes it makes sense that it's mostly male minifigs since women aren't raised to be as violent.

Edited August 7, 2014 by mikaelsol

[mccoyed]

Personally I've heard that half of the population of humans on this planet are female, so I would like to see that representation in the Lego sets I buy. I bought set 60023-1 and the female firefighter has a smile and lipstick on its face but the two male firefighters have faces with sweat and more gritty looking. Why couldn't the female figure have that to?

I like the Friends sets also, but I would like to have a more realistic representation of gender in at least the creator and town sets. For the more violent themes it makes sense that it's mostly male minifigs since women aren't raised to be as violent.

Amen. Though I'd say there are more and more young women who have adopted the violent nerdy heroic fantasy (of all settings) preoccupation of their male contemporaries. I'd say that the more arbitrary gender norms are overturned or at least de-emphasized to promote choices and decrease shame for those choices, stuff like Ninjago might appeal just as much to girls if there was more female representation. I'd say CHIMA is operating with (current) ideal ratios, but I do hope for a day when the male to female ratio in even the most representational media (including Lego themes) is better than 2:1.

[Meatman]

I think problem is that some people have way too much time to just sit around and think up ways to cause controversy when none exists or needs to.

[mccoyed]

That's an incredibly ignorant statement. You should be more sensitive and careful about dismissing people's feelings like that. What controversy, in your opinion, needs to exist? Controversy can only happen if enough people feel strongly about something. Enough people feel strongly about TLG's gender representation and have for quite a while. The popularity of the product, for both men and women, puts a spotlight on this very well established issue.

[fred67]

Meh... I agree with meatman.

[ummester]

That's an incredibly ignorant statement. You should be more sensitive and careful about dismissing people's feelings like that. What controversy, in your opinion, needs to exist? Controversy can only happen if enough people feel strongly about something. Enough people feel strongly about TLG's gender representation and have for quite a while. The popularity of the product, for both men and women, puts a spotlight on this very well established issue.

I think there is a greater, silent majority that doesn't give a toss either way, though.

[AmperZand]

That's a pretty wild misunderstanding of how argumentation works let alone the history of rational thought. Philosophy and other academic fields of inquiry typically rely on rational premises, rather than "proven" ones (whatever this means). The scientific method yields knowledge we tend to trust without much need for debate precisely because it's titular method is based on proving and disproving premises (hypotheses) but this is not a requirement for all forms of rationality, let alone debate.

You're conflating premises and hypotheses. Presuming that gender roles have no biological basis as the author of the BBC News article tacitly does isn't a rational premise. Feminists and other Leftists often take their positions as apodictic in the hope (or knowledge) that audiences aren't well intellectually equipped to suspect - let alone doubt - the assumptions underlying their arguments.

Bad premises will quickly be laid waste by better ones (and better argued ones)...

That's false. Plenty of poor premises persist because those holding them have an ideological, philosophical or economic interest in their perpetuation.

...but the persistence of gender inequality as a foundational argument from and for feminism speaks to its solidity.

You mean like income disparities between the sexes for the same kind of work? For years that has been trotted out as proof that gender inequality persists. The media repeat it frequently. What the media fail to grasp and what ideologically motivated academics hide is that in the US and UK those differences disappear when you account for qualifications, experience and employee commitment (whether measured by the employer or the employee).

There's also that the continued development of social science seems to support many claims about gender inequality that originated from feminist's rationalist observations and theories about gender.

Those same social scientists disregard compelling counter-evidence when it doesn't suit them ideologically.

Edited August 8, 2014 by AmperZand

[mccoyed]

Meh... I agree with meatman.

Yeah and you clearly put a lot of thought into it.

I think there is a greater, silent majority that doesn't give a toss either way, though.

Interesting thought but how can we tell, really? They're silent. Let them stay silent if that's what they want to do. The rest of us can have discussions and try to sort stuff out.

You're conflating premises and hypotheses. Presuming that gender roles have no biological basis as the author of the BBC News article tacitly does isn't a rational premise. Feminists and other Leftists often take their positions as apodictic in the hope (or knowledge) that audiences aren't well intellectually equipped to suspect - let alone doubt - the assumptions underlying their arguments.

I'm not at all. A hypothesis is a kind of premise that is testable in scientific conditions. A premise might be something like "Heated water will turn to vapour". No one would say that this isn't a premise. What makes it a hypothesis is at the point where we're declaring it as a scientific fact or theory and then testing it scientifically. Words, man. They are versatile like that.

"Feminists and other Leftists", eh? So I see what kind of discussion this is going to be. As for the assumptions... well, the nature vs. nurture debate is by no means solved either psychologically or neurologically so it seems like all we've got are premises and rationally/obvservationally derived evidence, all "unproven" I guess, on which to debate the rational merits of each. It was said that unproven premises have no argumentative merit. I think this would be sensible if you'd said "unsupported premises" but you didn't, did you? Now your premise, that underlying assumptions are false on the other side due to an agenda, which is unproven also and based only on what rational merit and evidence you might conjure for the argument, is similarly without merit? Do you see how circular that is?

Well, you must not, given the rest of your post.

That's false. Plenty of poor premises persist because those holding them have an ideological, philosophical or economic interest in their perpetuation.

You're right. I should have narrowed my point there to what occurs between two rational, honest agents in a perfect world. There is plenty of misinformation and bad ideas out there, I can't deny that.

You mean like income disparities between the sexes for the same kind of work? For years that has been trotted out as proof that gender inequality persists. The media repeat it frequently. What the media fail to grasp and what ideologically motivated academics hide is that in the US and UK those differences disappear when you account for qualifications, experience and employee commitment (whether measured by the employer or the employee).

Actually, there's still plenty of evidence for this but it's far from the only thing feminists still point out as a problem. I'm not going to get into this argument, though. It's way too specific for our scope here. I can just imagine how you'll take that, but tough.

Those same social scientists disregard compelling counter-evidence when it doesn't suit them ideologically.

Oh sure, and it's them who are ideologically blocked. You must see that anyone can claim this about anything they don't agree with, right? And it seems like someone who does this may also have ideological reasons. You see this all the time with various camps like climate change deniers. Now I'm not saying you're a climate change denialist or anything like that, but you're definitely denying feminism its claims and casting aspersions on the credibility of its proponents and, seemingly, anyone who argues that a baseline feminist premise is useless simply because it's predicated on rational inquiry and social science than on something a microscope can detect. Too bad for history, philosophy, literature, etc then because all the "knowledge" of those fields is similarly not based on premises you can "prove" in any way that would seem to satisfy you (I'm not sure though because you've yet to define "proven" as you use it). If I try to use solid sources, you'll just say I'm ideologically compromised or something. If we stay on general ideas as we have, you can basically say whatever and never really acknowledge that the same can be said to you.

Edited August 8, 2014 by mccoyed

[Slobey]

Look, I'm going preempt my comments by acknowlenthat there are people here who feel strongly one way or the other and I respect that...

However...l I am of the opinion that there are some people out there who will never be happy and need an outlet to express their outrage. The whole lego debate is a case in point.

Phase one of the outrage- not enough female representation in Lego

Phase two- we have more females but they only have stereotypical gender roles (shop keeper etc)

Phase three- okay they have no stereotypical gender roles but the males are gritty and dirty and the female has makeup and is clean (fire station) or the females have hourglass and breast printing (new ideas set).

I am a father of 9 and 7year old girls I feel mildly qualified in knowing the opinions of this demographic in regards to gender in Lego and they couldn't give two hoots!! If they want a female doctor, policewoman, firewoman all they do is change the head and hair........

[ummester]

Phase one of the outrage- not enough female representation in Lego

Phase two- we have more females but they only have stereotypical gender roles (shop keeper etc)

Phase three- okay they have no stereotypical gender roles but the males are gritty and dirty and the female has makeup and is clean (fire station) or the females have hourglass and breast printing (new ideas set).

Phase 4 - all sexuality is removed, we go back to the 70s minifigs where the only hint that a minifig was a girl was longer hair (but it could also have been a boy with long hair).

I appreciate how your daughters play Slobey and think that that is how it should be with LEGO - the child's imagination and creativity should be utilized.

Interesting thought but how can we tell, really? They're silent. Let them stay silent if that's what they want to do. The rest of us can have discussions and try to sort stuff out.

Eventually they will stop being silent - when the outspoken become too ludicrous for them. NB, I can be outspoken so don't consider myself fully part of the silent majority, though I know people who definitely are, both men and women.

Eventually the silent majority of men and women will go - We've had enough! Men are men and women are women - we can respect and appreciate our differences without having to be precious about it and we don't need to involve our offspring by projecting our insecurity onto a toy.

The minifig is not meant to be some kind of reflection of social values - it is meant to be a collection of humanoid parts for a construction toy, so that human elements can be included in a build. The licensed minifig is a representation of a character from a given franchise, the sexuality of which is determined by the characterizations in that franchise.

There is something really sad about adult humans imposing their political values onto little plastic figures. On a personal note with this, I find it bad form when LEGO Ideas is being used as a platform to pander to it. I could put up a project in which the disabled, lesbian astronaut from an ethnic minority conducts a peace mission for NASA and get support - this upsets me because it means the supporters are thinking more on social values than project build quality or idea potential.

Edited August 9, 2014 by ummester

[AmperZand]

As for the assumptions... well, the nature vs. nurture debate is by no means solved either psychologically or neurologically...

Exactly, hence my original objection to the author of the BBC piece's implicit presumption that the nurture argument was entirely correct.

...your premise, that underlying assumptions are false on the other side due to an agenda, which is unproven...

I don't know how many academic papers in English language social science journals are a "Feminist critique of [x]" or a "Marxist reinterpretation of [y]", how many professors and departments of gender studies there are, how strictly Political "Correctness" is enforced on university campuses these days and so on, but if anyone believes that there isn't a Left-wing agenda pervading much of academia in the English-speaking world, they're delusional. I do know that academic social scientists are further Left than most other professional occupations (that's proven), that they influence (indoctrinate) their students to become more Left wing (that's also proven) and at US universities that they ostracise colleagues who don't share their political beliefs (that's documented).

Oh sure, and it's them who are ideologically blocked. You must see that anyone can claim this about anything they don't agree with, right?

Theoretically, yes, but in practice far from shying away from debate, the relatively few social scientists who are on the Right delight in engaging the arguments of their Left-wing colleagues. They're happy to do so because, by and large, Right-wing social scientists have been shown to be correct. It isn't always obvious at the time because social, economic, demographic, political etc events that are the acid tests of their predictions can take generations or lifetimes to play out. It's only once they have that the Left concedes defeat. Examples include the prediction of political scientists and economists that the Soviet block would collapse (it has), the contention by International Relations specialists that unilateral nuclear disarmament would not deter a Soviet nuclear attack (since proven correct by declassified Soviet military files and Western intelligence reports), the argument by economists that China would eventually adopt a form of free market economics (it has), and the prediction of economic sociologists that Feminism wouldn't make women happier (which has lead Feminists in the last 10-15 years to question the achievements of previous generations of Feminists).

[bjorn77]

And the prediction of economic sociologists that Feminism wouldn't make women happier (which has lead Feminists in the last 10-15 years to question the achievements of previous generations of Feminists).

Yup, women's right to vote sure was a regretable feminist achievement. Every woman I know feel very unhappy about that. Amongst other things.

Edited August 9, 2014 by bjorn77