Gender in LEGO Themes

[x105Black]

Disclaimer: This is not an attempt to say that LEGO does not produce any gender neutral themes.

Architecture and Creator are consistently gender neutral. City and Collectible Minifigures are largely gender neutral. Such themes exist.

More themes should be as inclusive.

---

Question:

What do you think of the way LEGO markets their non-licensed themes to boys and girls?

My answer:

I don't like it. I think they are focusing too much on targeting girls and boys individually, rather than producing more gender neutral themes.

My example:

2 LEGO themes in the past 2 years that serve as 2 sides of the same coin. Take the concept of Medieval Fantasy.

Let's market "fantasy" to girls. We'll have cutesy woodland creatures with pretty designs on their faces, a bakery, a school, a pretty pegasus, and lots of bright pink and lavender colors. It will feature friendship and nature, and the characters will all be Elves. We'll use minidolls instead of minifigures. We'll call it "Elves."

Let's market "fantasy" to boys. We'll have scary wacky lava monsters with a creepy goofy jester, oversized weapons, a castle that's a tank, a robot horse, and lots of transparent neon red orange and baby blue colors. It will feature combat and technology, and the characters will all be Knights. We'll use large figures and various monsters. We'll call it "Nexo Knights."

Personally, I think that both are successful ideas within those narrow markets. I don't think LEGO would have made such sets if they hadn't done extensive market research on young girls (in the case of Elves) and young boys (in the case of Nexo Knights). But how many young girls would like Nexo Knights? How many young boys would like Elves? Did they have both genders in their focus groups?

There are lots of kids (and teens, and adults) who prefer gender neutral ideas. By splitting the concept of medieval fantasy into two diametrically opposed versions, each catering to a traditional gender role, they have lost anything that lies between. Things feel like they've been pushed in either direction, leaving very little overlap.

I would like to see LEGO create a new theme with sets that capture the best of the above, engaging both girls and boys at the same time. It could be a "fantasy" theme that lies between the Elves and Nexo Knights themes. So let's have woodland creatures and lava monsters, let's have Knights and Elves, all in one theme. Let's have Castles that aren't built with a single gender in mind, and let's have a good variety of colors that can appeal to a wide base of fans. I think that would be great, and I'm sure there are many others around the world who would love it as well.

Another Example:

I have young nieces within the age range of most LEGO products. The oldest niece is around 9, and was talking about how much she liked the cool ninjas in Ninjago sets. She specifically talked about how much she liked the Temple of Airjitzu. Then, she looked a bit sad and said "but it's for boys."

I don't think that LEGO should really be for boys or girls, it should be for boys and girls. I wish my niece, and other girls like her, didn't feel compelled to avoid what they see as sets 'for boys' and gravitate towards sets 'for girls.' Boy sets have lots of weapons, ninjas, and knights, while girl sets have juice bars, malls, and hotels.

In marketing and advertising, only girls are ever seen playing with Friends sets, while only boys are ever playing with Ninjago. It would be great to show girls playing with the ninja sets as well, and to help that, maybe there should be more female characters in those sets. And the same could be said about boys and sets like the recording studio.

There is a definite disparity in gender throughout the LEGO catalog. In sets geared towards boys, there are very few girls, and they are usually some sort of nobility, or peripheral and unimportant. Even when there is a female knight, she is a princess, and the only female on the team. In sets geared towards girls, there are very few boys, and they are usually fathers or romantic interests. Even when there is a male friend, he is focused on paying attention to the female characters as a photographer, worker, or nurturer. Also, the Collectible Minifigures (arguably one of the better themes in this regard) always have a skewed gender ratio that favors males over females.

I feel that their current marketing teaches a negative lesson to young children about gender norms and stereotypes.

I appreciate what they are trying to do in drawing in more female fans, but I feel that they are going too far in the opposite direction with their female themes. It would have been better to incorporate female characters and sensibilities into the themes they already had in order to cultivate more positive gender relations and images.

More questions:

• Can you think of other instances where LEGO has targeted a specific gender, and if so, how do you think it has had an impact (either positive or negative)?
  
• Obviously Friends is made specifically for girls, which introduced the minidoll seen in Disney Pricesses and Elves. Do you think that this approach is a good one?
  
• While targeting boys and girls specifically may be good for LEGO as a business, is it good for fostering positive gender images, or does it just reinforce the status quo of gender norms?
  
• Do you feel that LEGO has any kind of social responsibility in this area as the world's largest manufacturer of children's toys?
  
• Do you think that girls should be relegated to doing 'girly' things, and that boys should be relegated to doing 'boyish' things?
  
• Do you think I'm making a big deal out of nothing?
  

Anyways, I thought this might make for an interesting discussion. I don't think that anything said here will change the way LEGO does business, as they seem perfectly happy with their current approach, and they aren't likely to take the opinions of some AFOL's to heart. I hope I've expressed myself the way I had intended, and that I haven't rambled on and lost the attention of the readers. I just had some thoughts about this, and wanted to hear some of yours.

[Scubacarrot]

Interesting topic! A fact of the matter is that Lego at the moment is clearly making a lot of decisions based solely/mostly on profits, and I think this is a probable result of it.

Friends is a theme that is marketed to girls, as a (kinda) new thing Lego tried, and was overwhelmingly successful (thanks in great part to the minidoll), so much, that in a lot of places a lot of Friends sets were completely sold out when the theme was first released. Clearly marketing things to girls and boys mostly separately is working out financially, that's why Friends continues and there is even a second theme marketed mostly towards girls, in Elves. Another thing you have to keep in mind is that most Lego is bought by parents, and the parents decide what is bought. A parent wants to be sure they don't give the wrong thing to the child, and are often not so concerned about issues like gender norms.

The question if Lego has any social responsibility is bit difficult, I feel like they've made more questionable decisions fairly recently that may 'cheapen' the brand or the stellar reputation of Lego or what have you, but at the end of the day Lego is a business, with it's goal simply to make money, and not to hold up perceived 'social integrity' of the brand as perceived by probably a small number of people.

Something that is kind of interesting I think is that the Minidolls and normal minifigures are clearly not compatible, and most sets except Creator and Basic with minifigures are now mostly marketed towards boys, even city seems to have mostly police and construction nowadays. If I were a kid, I think I'd feel the difference between the figures jarring, and would prefer not to use them interchangeably. This might lead to the fact that Lego gets a perhaps more split customerbase, with one group buying only Girl-marketed sets with minidolls, and one group never buying sets with minidolls, instead of the sets with minidolls serving as a kind of introduction to Lego as a building toy.

All that said, as a guy, I still feel like Elves is one of the best themes Lego has had in a while.

[MAB]

Girls tend to favour minidolls over minifigs, but that doesn't mean Elves is girls only. I know of a few boys that have the Farran set. Similarly, Nexo Knights and similar series such as Ultra Agents may be primarily marketed to boys but girls can play too, and there are female figures in the sets. Personally. I think it is good that there are ranges for girly girls and boyish boys, along with ranges in the middle of two extremes such as city. City is getting better for male to female ratios, not perfect but better.

I think minidolls are a good thing. Personally, I don't like them and prefer minifigs, but I've seen my own daughter go from not playing with Lego as she doesn't really like minifigs to loving Lego as she likes the minidolls. Lego made a smart move introducing them.

Just introducing more female characters in mimifig form may not be the answer.

[ejred]

The "fiduciary responsibility" answer is that TLG is a company, and should do whatever will make the most money.

Now I often think that's a too-convenient corporate cop-out. And TLG seems to want to "do the right thing" as far as companies go (but then that is also part of their brand positioning, so it's hard to separate from the profit-motive).

My one-person perspective is that the big struggle for LEGO was always to broaden their appeal to girls. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think it was mostly a boy-toy for most of its history. Not completely of course, and I think not with great intentionality, but boys just seemed to be the predominant market for them, whether it was City or Technic or even just building blocks. They tried a few girl-oriented initiatives from time to time, and as far as I know they failed pretty badly. Friends, et. al., appears a much better effort, in part because not "dumbed-down," and therefore much more successful to moving girls into the LEGO market. So is all this LEGO's fault, or a "fault" of the kids for wanting the wrong things?

In an ideal world I think you are right, we should not have these great gender divisions in toys, roles, and so much else in life. I suspect most of what we often think of as innate difference is socialized. But there's a lot of historical weight behind those social norms (as well as probably a pinch of physically-rooted difference), so they evolve only slowly. All of us will have to grind away together for a long time to get to a point of true egalitarianism--so while I guess LEGO should get their slice of that collective responsibility, it seems a bit unfair and probably futile to expect too much of them alone.

For the most part I think they are just providing what their customers want. I agree that there is more TLG could do around the edges to have a few more girl figures in the boy sets, etc. But I suspect the ugly truth is that NexoKnights + Elves just sells a lot better than NexoElves would.

[xboxtravis7992]

Well in products there can be divisions between boys and girls, and when kids play there can be divisions between boys and girls.

But sometimes the two things interact in wonderful charming ways. When I was a kid somehow my Toa Mata became husbands of my sister's Barbie collection. It was a weird synergy, Barbie cooking food and preparing to go see a movie, when suddenly her husband Tahu stomps in the front door tired from a long day of fighting Makuta. It was strange, and yes gender divisions were still present: but it was a heck of a lot of fun.

And I guess while my sister and I were still young I played with a lot of "girl" toys just by being with her. Heck, I played "Barbie Horse Adventure" in its entirety just so she could unlock all the levels...

Edited October 10, 2015 by xboxtravis7992

[Arigomi]

The issues surrounding gender and marketing are still complicated despite a gender neutral approach. For example, 21110 Research Institute was called Female Minifigure Set in the original proposal. Despite the gender neutral rebranding, many people still bought because it featured female minifigures in STEM fields. Whether people realized it or not, these decisions are based on gender even if it is a positive message.

[xboxtravis7992]

The issues surrounding gender and marketing are still complicated despite a gender neutral approach. For example, 21110 Research Institute was called Female Minifigure Set in the original proposal. Despite the gender neutral rebranding, many people still bought because it featured female minifigures in STEM fields. Whether people realized it or not, these decisions are based on gender even if it is a positive message.

Yeah, although the research institute was skewing traditional gender toys, it was still gender based. The only way Lego could be without gender bias is if themes were 50% split figure wise, but Lego doesn't seem to do that. Even Bionicle with it's strong female characters is a 80% dude to 20% gal ratio.

[Iria]

I appreciate what they are trying to do in drawing in more female fans, but I feel that they are going too far in the opposite direction with their female themes. It would have been better to incorporate female characters and sensibilities into the themes they already had in order to cultivate more positive gender relations and images.

I both agree and disagree with your sentiments. LEGO definitely still has work to do with targeting the female demographic and incorporating positive, strong female characters in there sets. But I find the vitriol for anything super girly is counterproductive for bringing females to LEGO and encouraging positive image. I’ll explain further in the answers below.

I think it’s kind of ironic how different people think of ‘neutral’ so differently. For example I always considered City geared much more towards males with its abundance of vehicles, and male-dominated careers (policeman, fire fighters, construction workers etc). Aside from the minidolls which are mostly female, Elves could almost be considered gender neutral.

Obviously Friends is made specifically for girls, which introduced the minidoll seen in Disney Princesses and Elves. Do you think that this approach is a good one?

Yes. Friends, and Disney Princesses have been very successful. Just because LEGO introduces something that obviously targets girls, doesn’t mean that they are trying to enforce negative stereotypes. These newer themes are simply targeting a different group of consumers whom LEGO has had difficulty getting in the past.

Females who don’t like super pink, ‘girly’ themes have always had the other options (unfortunately with few relatable minifigs though). *It would be nice to have more female minifigs in other neutral and boyish themes though. I can see this being an issue where a young girl will feel excluded from many of the themes, deem them to be boy sets and not want them, which is a shame. I also think it would be great to have more male minidolls as well. No Aladdin in Disney’s Aladdin?- lame!

While targeting boys and girls specifically may be good for LEGO as a business, is it good for fostering positive gender images, or does it just reinforce the status quo of gender norms?

I think LEGO is reflecting the status quo rather than enforcing it. That the Research Institute, showing female scientists, was hugely successful and sold out fairly quickly is an indicator that there is a desire for intelligent female minifigs in the spotlight. I don’t know whether these sets are as appealing to little girls as they are to AFOLs.

Do you feel that LEGO has any kind of social responsibility in this area as the world's largest manufacturer of children's toys?

Overall no. They are under no obligation, however it is likely in their best interest to consider gender and diversity.

Do you think that girls should be relegated to doing 'girly' things, and that boys should be relegated to doing 'boyish' things?

I feel that it’s best to let kids (and AFOLs) choose the sets that appeal to them and leave adult agendas out of that. That being said, there needs to be a variety of themes, sets and minifigs available, ie girly, boyish, mixed, neutral etc. In recent years we have gotten more females minifigs in sets that aren't simply filling a damsel in distress role, which has been awesome. LEGO needs to continue this trend.

Can you think of other instances where LEGO has targeted a specific gender, and if so, how do you think it has had an impact (either positive or negative)?

I recall reading backlash again the very pink Intergalactic Girl cmf. ‘Why did LEGO have to pinkify an otherwise cool female minifig?!’ ‘Ew pink. They ruined it,’ were some of the comments (paraphrased). I felt the same way at first but then ended up changing my mind. The fact that a character can be both super girly and intelligent + tough, is in itself empowering.-Because it’s not sending the message that to be successful as a woman, you have to be a man. Just do what you wanna do, well.

Do you think I'm making a big deal out of nothing?

Slightly, but it’s not a bad conversation to be had every once in a while since LEGO still has a ways to go. I think you’ve done a good job in framing issues and your opinion respectfully, so thank you for that! Edited October 10, 2015 by Iria

[rodiziorobs]

The fact that a character can be both super girly and intelligent + tough, is in itself empowering.-Because it’s not sending the message that to be successful as a woman, you have to be a man.

This exactly. I get a bit ruffled when people tout (for example) butt-kicking female superheroes as if it were the biggest step forward for gender equality; while there is definitely some good there, it also signals that in order to be successful, a woman has to act "like a man", thus reinforcing two unhealthy stereotypes.

But, to the matter at hand:

I think LEGO has done a pretty good job addressing gender balance. Obviously, their goal is profit first, yet they have chosen to include characters of the opposite gender in both their boy- and girl-oriented product lines*, and have done so since the beginning: Nya in Ninjago, Farran in Elves, Unikitty and Wyldstyle in TLM, and the female characters in Chima (I haven't paid much attention to that theme, so I don't know much other than that there are a few). There also seem to be more women minifigs in City and Police themes, where the fact that they are women is understated--they are just people (well, Lego people). Also, it seems like Ultra Agents has included both male and female characters as hero or villain on a fairly even balance, although I also haven't paid much attention to that theme either.

Did they have to include these characters? For profit's sake, no. Boys and girls tend to gravitate toward characters of their own gender, and so adding a female ninja or male elf doesn't make sense on a purely profit level. Yet they did.

Could they include more? Absolutely.

I feel like the most telling part is that (for the most part) these characters feel genuine, and not just check-the-box sort of quota-filling characters to appease those who worry about gender balance and to avoid backlash from consumer protection groups. Like they would have included those characters in their products anyway. And while they still have a way to go, I feel like they are getting better.

However, I take issue with their marketing. In commercials, it is always two boys who are excited to open their Airjitzu flyers, or two girls who are playing together with the Elves' treehouse. I feel like these sets themselves are intrinsically gender-neutral, yet by showing only boys or only girls playing with them, it shuts out the other gender. My sons think the Elves sets look neat, and my nieces like Ninjago. Yet what sets do they ask for as presents? The kind prescribed by Marketing.

Even though they would each privately enjoy the sets "designed" for the other gender, they don't want to be seen playing with a "boy's toy" or "girl's toy" because Marketing has branded them as such and made them taboo.

I would love to see commercials where both a boy and girl can play with these kind of sets and have it not be a big deal. Maybe these commercials are out there (?), but I just haven't seen them.

*I tend to dismiss licensed themes such as Disney Princess or Super Heroes, as what LEGO produces there is not completely in their control.

Edited October 10, 2015 by rodiziorobs

[x105Black]

Thanks for all of the thoughtful responses so far! There are a lot if interesting and thought-provoking perspectives on this issue.

[Karalora]

As both an AFOL and an ardent feminist, I hold this subject very dear. To me, the biggest issue with the girl-oriented themes is not the colors or the minidolls or even the more domesticated scenarios, but that the advertising downplays the building aspect. The most meritorious thing about LEGO as a toy is the way building with the bricks develops a child's skills in 3-D spatial reasoning, structural and mechanical design and engineering, and overall creativity...but the ads for the girls' sets tend to gloss that over and depict them as prefabricated dolly playsets like Polly Pocket. Then, too, the girls' sets seem to include fewer and larger parts, making them less build-intensive in fact. The sum effect is that girls are getting shortchanged with regard to what makes LEGO so great.

[CaptainToad]

Would you buy your sons a barbie doll?

Would you like to see commercials showing boys playing with barbies? Should every boy play with dolls at least for some time? :)

If lego hadnt brought out themes targeted at girls people would complain. Now people complain that lego produces/markets some themes with a feminine touch and some themes with a masculine touch.

It is natural to advertise sets which are primarily intended to be played with by girls with girls.

Think about it, if lego advertised those sets with boys AND girls wouldnt it distort reality in some way? It would imply that boys want to play with dolls!

Imagine you have a bunch of girls playing with dolls, how many boys will be eager to join the bunch?

Thats just reality!

We should keep in mind that its rather a minority of boys who is interested in playing with dolls - you cannot view the minority as a standard and this affects advertising. In real life, when you go to a construction site you will find mostly men who do the heavy lifting - I think the company owner would be in trouble if a law was passed that half of his workers need to be women :) there are certain tendencies in life which have nothing to do with discrimination or something, they just reflect life.

Edited October 10, 2015 by CaptainToad

[legoguy1984]

As a kid I wanted female figs too but didn't want to get a "girly" set to get them it seems to make sense how they are marketing things now but would prefer to have them more mixed. Elves does seem to be a great theme but the minidolls don't work for me. On a seperate note I did see an oven toy in store that had a boy "baking" on the box. So some companies aren't scared to try something new.

[xboxtravis7992]

As a kid I wanted female figs too but didn't want to get a "girly" set to get them it seems to make sense how they are marketing things now but would prefer to have them more mixed. Elves does seem to be a great theme but the minidolls don't work for me. On a seperate note I did see an oven toy in store that had a boy "baking" on the box. So some companies aren't scared to try something new.

Well, men like food so we should know how to cook to darn it!

I have been thinking though how these ideas on boy toy/girl toy still affect even AFOL's, I for example don't buy Friends sets since I see them as to girly (but then again I don't buy Ninjago either). However a lot of gender neutral themes are what AFOL's rave about, for example the modular buildings...

[OriginalJK555]

_{I'm going to play devil's advocate and say that LEGO should have the attitude of "If you don't like it, don't buy it. It's our toy and we will do what we want". This subject has been beatin to death and growing rather tiresome to see pop up in the forum discussions of the AFOL community.the sooner people just accept that LEGO is a toy and nothing more, this discussion will end. The only thing a LEGO product teaches children is tactile hand eye skills, not gender equality. Parents teach that plain and simple. The only reason LEGO shows a particular gender playing with a specific line in their marketing campaigns, is due to research. That research is generated from placing multiple toys in front of children and watching what they gravitate towards. A child that has never been reared to focus on a particular gender ased toy, will play with anything. So parents are ultimately responsible for what their children play with. I see no pictures of children on a LEGO box, only the product. The girl thinks it's a boy's toy because she has been raised to believe that. So stop blaming LEGO and start taking a good hard look in the mirror.}

_{As for AFOL's that want a more gender equal distribution of female to male minifigs, or gender neutral figures that can double as both in off the shelf sets. I will just be brutally honest and say get over yourself.The joy of LEGO is you can tear it down and make it whatever you want. You want a gender neutral army of people in your MOC? Make your own from all your parts. You want more female torsos to throw in your city? Go to Bricklink and buy some. Quit taking all of the fun out of the hobby with discussions like this one and go back to the times when LEGO was just a toy to have fun with.}

[Bricksnaps]

I have a 9 year old son and 6 year old daughter.

I am delighted at the offerings, both sets and on the pick a brick walls. Thank you Lego.

Girls in general play differently than boys. Boys in general are good guy bad guy. Girls are not. Some cross sides.

We have friends- home based. Princesses- movie tv based, now pop star and then best of all the Elves sets.

The elves are great, they allow the girls to enter a fantasy world and play. Again thank you Lego.

What would I like more of? More sets. Equality in the toy aisle. The sets together rather than different aisles.

In the Lego catalogue, 80-90% of sets are boy related and girls at back. I would like to see a change here.

Do Lego have a social responsibility? No. However in the last 5 years they have taken great strides. More sets please. 'Any more.

[Lego Dino 500]

OriginalJK555 pretty much covered the gist of what I wanted to say already, but I'll say it anyways. Lego is a product, produced independently by a brand, that we as the consumers hold no power to control. If you don't like the direction Lego is heading, you can jump ship and join Megabloks/Kreo/Enlighten or any other clone brand you choose. The reason Lego markets its toys this way is because due to psychological differences between the male and female brain and the way chemicals affect them, boys are naturally drawn to building toys that facilitate action and muscle control. I should know, I'm a guy who's been collecting Lego sets since I was three. Lego already has all of the themes that boys like, and occasionally girls like too. Lego already has all of their customers in that demographic. They're trying to attract the rest of the girls who don't like building toys and love Barbie by releasing the Friends series. There's no exclusivity or exclusion of girls going on, sometimes a duck is just a duck.

[CaptainToad]

OriginalJK555 pretty much covered the gist of what I wanted to say already, but I'll say it anyways. Lego is a product, produced independently by a brand, that we as the consumers hold no power to control. If you don't like the direction Lego is heading, you can jump ship and join Megabloks/Kreo/Enlighten or any other clone brand you choose. The reason Lego markets its toys this way is because due to psychological differences between the male and female brain and the way chemicals affect them, boys are naturally drawn to building toys that facilitate action and muscle control. I should know, I'm a guy who's been collecting Lego sets since I was three. Lego already has all of the themes that boys like, and occasionally girls like too. Lego already has all of their customers in that demographic. They're trying to attract the rest of the girls who don't like building toys and love Barbie by releasing the Friends series. There's no exclusivity or exclusion of girls going on, sometimes a duck is just a duck.

well said!!!

[MAB]

It would be a really sad day if lego only made sets / ranges that appealed to both girls and boys.

They need to have "boy" ranges and "girl" ranges and "boy and girl" ranges. "Boy" ranges will still appeal to some girls and "girl" ranges to some boys. "Boy" ranges will not appeal to all boys, same as "girl" ranges will not appeal to all girls. Similarly "boy and girl" ranges will appeal to some boys and girls, but not all.

Not all boys like the same thing. Not all girls like the same thing.

For the city style sets, it would be good if lego could use more double sided heads with male faces on one side and female on the other. When someone is wearing a fire helmet, for example, it is easy to make the character male or female by twisting the head. Where they have hair, it cannot be that expensive to include one extra hairpiece so that child can decide. Of course, that only works where a neutral torso makes sense too. Of course often to distinguish between male and female faces it needs make-up or lipstick, otherwise people assume they are male if there is no make-up.

[Sarah]

I have a 9 year old son and 6 year old daughter.

Agreed. I've got a 8 year old son and 4 year old daughter. And between my husband and myself, I'm the bigger Lego fan. DH played with Lego as a kid and moved on. I still have much of my childhood Lego and have gone through two phases of "LOVING" Lego again as an adult.

My son loves Star Wars, Ninjago, Mixels, Minecraft. Probably Mixels the most.

My daughter loves Juniors (She chose the Castle as her last set). Friends and Elves (The sets and the animals, not so much the figures -- she likes taking the minifigs apart and putting them back together in different combinations. In fact, we've got a box of minifigs that she plays with all by themselves, to do this). She makes "houses" with bricks, to play with a few minifigs in. And vehicles (generally some sort of plane/boat thing) to carry her favorite horse "minifig" around. She also loves the animals of all shapes and sizes. She is just as likely to use a plate as a hat for a figure as using it as a plate.

Both kids are getting Airjitzus for Christmas after we saw them at the Lego store and my daughter just fell in LOVE with the spinning part of them (And I was convinced she was able to do it HERSELF)

[Sarah]

. They're trying to attract the rest of the girls who don't like building toys and love Barbie by releasing the Friends series. There's no exclusivity or exclusion of girls going on, sometimes a duck is just a duck.

I wouldn't say girls don't like building toys -- more. They don't like building for the sake of building. Being able to build your own backdrop for the stories you want to play? And modify it to be EXACTLY what you want? That's FUN.

Edited October 12, 2015 by Sarah

[Iria]

For the city style sets, it would be good if lego could use more double sided heads with male faces on one side and female on the other. When someone is wearing a fire helmet, for example, it is easy to make the character male or female by twisting the head. Where they have hair, it cannot be that expensive to include one extra hairpiece so that child can decide. Of course, that only works where a neutral torso makes sense too. Of course often to distinguish between male and female faces it needs make-up or lipstick, otherwise people assume they are male if there is no make-up.

A male-female double sided head is such simple and obvious solution now that you suggest it. It would of course, as you mentioned, only work with neutral torsos. Lego likes to add curves and breasts to female minifigs. In some cases it seems pointless, for example the arctic explorer which could have easily avoided a female torso printing. A heavy parka will look the same on men as it will on women- bulky. It's not really an issue in the grand scheme of things, but it does make me roll my eyes a little bit.

Which are the men and which are the women?

Who cares? Science is awesome.

Overall though, I am happy to have females represented in sets, so I shouldn't complain.

Interesting to note that having both male and female option to a single minifig may be coming in a 2016 set: The 40221 Seasonal set (Scenic scene) appears to have two hair styles on the water fountain statue, presumably the extra is female one (it has a hole common to hairpieces that can have bows/flowers/crowns stuck on) All you need to do is remove the helmet and beard to transform the statue. . I think in this case it's a really neat idea and makes the minifig much more versatile.

Edited October 12, 2015 by Iria

[Lind Whisperer]

For example I always considered City geared much more towards males with its abundance of vehicles,

"Sorry honey, you can't drive a vehicle! That's a man's job!"

and male-dominated careers (policeman, fire fighters, construction workers etc).

They're "male-dominated" because men typically have stronger upper body strength, and because those careers are typically more dangerous, so men are the ones who are more typically interested in pursuing them. Not all men. Not all women. But "male-dominated" carries certain meanings, and it doesn't apply to the examples you listed.

I think LEGO is reflecting the status quo rather than enforcing it. That the Research Institute, showing female scientists, was hugely successful and sold out fairly quickly is an indicator that there is a desire for intelligent female minifigs in the spotlight. I don’t know whether these sets are as appealing to little girls as they are to AFOLs.

We can all agree that they were most appealing to the resalers.

The fact that a character can be both super girly and intelligent + tough, is in itself empowering.-Because it’s not sending the message that to be successful as a woman, you have to be a man. Just do what you wanna do, well.

To be successful as a member of either gender, do what will make you succeed to succeed.*

As both an AFOL and an ardent feminist, I hold this subject very dear. To me, the biggest issue with the girl-oriented themes is not the colors or the minidolls or even the more domesticated scenarios, but that the advertising downplays the building aspect. The most meritorious thing about LEGO as a toy is the way building with the bricks develops a child's skills in 3-D spatial reasoning, structural and mechanical design and engineering, and overall creativity...but the ads for the girls' sets tend to gloss that over and depict them as prefabricated dolly playsets like Polly Pocket. Then, too, the girls' sets seem to include fewer and larger parts, making them less build-intensive in fact. The sum effect is that girls are getting shortchanged with regard to what makes LEGO so great.

They used to. Now, it's the boys sets that are becoming less focused on "taking things apart" - see every major theme in stores - while "girls sets" keep getting more and more detailed building, while still not being focused on "taking things apart". Neither one is on a good trajectory.

For the city style sets, it would be good if lego could use more double sided heads with male faces on one side and female on the other. When someone is wearing a fire helmet, for example, it is easy to make the character male or female by twisting the head. Where they have hair, it cannot be that expensive to include one extra hairpiece so that child can decide. Of course, that only works where a neutral torso makes sense too. Of course often to distinguish between male and female faces it needs make-up or lipstick, otherwise people assume they are male if there is no make-up.

Yes...let's introduce even more confusion about gender.

*Were I in a sarcastic turn of mind, I'd finish the sentence with "-and then, after having worked your hardest, find out that they're hiring someone else with lower grades because of quotas." - but that wouldn't be politically correct, so I won't.

Edited October 12, 2015 by Lind Whisperer

[MAB]

^ Women are allowed to drive cars. They have to be, otherwise what's the point of a recovery truck if not for a mechanic to rescue a damsel in distress? :-)

[Iria]

"Sorry honey, you can't drive a vehicle! That's a man's job!"

Huh? Oops, I didn't really explain myself well. Obviously women can drive and vehicles are driven my female minifigs. I was arguing that I believe the City theme is geared towards males more as there tends to be a lot of vehicles (the original poster stated City was gender neutral). I see more vehicles in City than in Disney/Friends/Elves. This is definitely not a bad thing in anyway. Boys have a different play style than girls. Again, not complaining that there are more boyish sets (IMO) in City or other themes as males are a far larger consumer of Lego, so their interests should have a higher representation in sets.

They're "male-dominated" because men typically have stronger upper body strength, and because those careers are typically more dangerous, so men are the ones who are more typically interested in pursuing them. Not all men. Not all women. But "male-dominated" carries certain meanings, and it doesn't apply to the examples you listed.

Of course there are more males tin physically demanding jobs. Those careers are the ones I most frequently see within the City theme. Sorry, I don't quite understand your last sentence. You don't think the examples (police/firefighter) are male dominated? I consider a 'male-dominated' field to be one with a larger % of males involved in roles and decision making.

To be successful as a member of either gender, do what will make you succeed to succeed.*

Yes, very true and better phrased than what I wrote!