Removing gender bias

[astral brick]

https://www.lego.com/en-us/aboutus/news/2021/september/lego-ready-for-girls-campaign

The thin line between a praiseworthy idea and profits. 

[Alexandrina]

I'm confused - what about that article isn't praiseworthy from Lego? They've conducted a study and set out an action plan to improve gender equality.

Beyond the simple fact that Lego sells a product for money and thus makes profit, I'm struggling to see what profits have to do with this.

[TeriXeri]

I wonder how this will affect the balance between Minidolls and Minifig sets ( Mainly Friends vs City ) , and the overall color schemes of such themes.

Also wonder if it would mean another minidoll focused theme like Elves could appear, or maybe a minifigure version with the pastel colors etc. (think of paradisa-like subtheme)

I don't think it would mean the end of minidolls (moreso because of Disney princesses, and not Friends).

Edited October 11, 2021 by TeriXeri

[MAB]

LEGO can do little to change society aside from the way it designs and advertises their products. There have been big changes in gender bias in City, with many more female figures overall, as well as female figures in what were traditional male roles. There are already a lot of images of women and girls playing with sets on the website / advertising. We'll know that LEGO believe what they have written when some of the main advertising photos for Friends show boys playing with it. If they don't do that, then they are not challenging the societal bias that boys should not play with "girls' toys". 

[timemail]

14 hours ago, Alexandrina said:

I'm confused - what about that article isn't praiseworthy from Lego? They've conducted a study and set out an action plan to improve gender equality.

Beyond the simple fact that Lego sells a product for money and thus makes profit, I'm struggling to see what profits have to do with this.

From a commercial point of view "This view became more pronounced when parents were asked to complete an implicit bias assessment and 76% said they would encourage LEGO play to a son vs. 24% who would recommend it to a daughter." That is a large market segment that is being missed by Lego as parents are not recommending it for their daughters and likely not buying it for them. By "overcoming gender bias" they are potentially increasing their profits significantly. Is the motivation from Lego to remove gender bias or to increase profits? Likely it is somewhere in between.

Lego have "developed a fun 10-step guide and invite parents to share photos of their child’s LEGO creations against a pre-defined AR backdrop featuring the words ‘Get the World Ready for Me’."  In other words they are using parents and children to advertise their brand on social media. Note: I have not seen the backdrop (I tried to find it but couldn't - I am not a social media person) but I would be surprised if there was not something on it to advertise Lego. The campaign is also not about using other STEM type activities but using Lego creations. At the end of the day any company who runs a campaign where people advertise their product for them looks suspicious to me.

I would note that I buy Lego for my daughter and try to teach her she can play what she wants and be who she wants to be. My son also gets all the hand-me-down dolls, cars, and dress-ups from my daughter. But not being a social media user this campaign would not be aimed at me and not something I would see anyway. I am probably too old to understand how the younger generation's use of social media works so that may also be part of the disconnect.

Edited October 12, 2021 by timemail

[JaBaCaDaBra]

yes LEGO
We really need this.
And offcourse also sooth striped folklore caracters, lbthi minifigures and vegan bricks.

what else (what more)

[Mylenium]

15 hours ago, Alexandrina said:

I'm confused - what about that article isn't praiseworthy from Lego?

The old gag of a bunch of LGBRQI+ themed sets not representing diversity or at best that "corporate pride" thing?! Unless LEGO show true commitment to their words, I remain skeptical. And let's face it - they are and long have been part of the problem and even exacerbated it with in particular the overboarding "teenage girl fantasy" stereotypes in Friends and some other stuff. I guess that is the point on some level - it wouldn't have taken an expensive study to see what's problematic with some LEGO themes and series.

14 hours ago, MAB said:

We'll know that LEGO believe what they have written when some of the main advertising photos for Friends show boys playing with it. If they don't do that, then they are not challenging the societal bias that boys should not play with "girls' toys". 

Well said! The mechanics work both ways.

Mylenium

[teljesnegyzet]

14 hours ago, MAB said:

We'll know that LEGO believe what they have written when some of the main advertising photos for Friends show boys playing with it.

There are boys in the promotional photos and videos of multiple Friends sets.

Here are some examples:
https://www.lego.com/en-us/product/heartlake-city-movie-theater-41448
https://www.lego.com/en-si/product/magical-funfair-roller-coaster-41685
https://www.lego.com/en-au/product/heartlake-city-amusement-pier-41375
https://www.lego.com/en-us/product/friendship-bus-41395
https://www.lego.com/en-us/product/heartlake-city-vet-clinic-41446
https://www.lego.com/en-us/product/tiger-hot-air-balloon-jungle-rescue-41423

At the moment, the very first image at https://www.lego.com/en-us/themes/friends/about features both a boy and a girl.

[williejm]

1 hour ago, JaBaCaDaBra said:

yes LEGO
We really need this.
And offcourse also sooth striped folklore caracters, lbthi minifigures and vegan bricks.

what else (what more)

What thundering nonsense even is this ⬆️ ?

Sometimes studies like this are *exactly* what are needed to both make strategic, evidence-based decisions on how to progress *and* give a hook to talking about why it’s important in the media. 

Meanwhile - was delighted to see these books appearing https://www.thebrickpost.com/news/lego-little-golden-books-how-to-be-a/ - representation matters so much, and while it might seem a little thing to have a female pirate and a wheelchair-user knight, it’s a world of difference in both normalising and challenging. 

[JaBaCaDaBra]

42 minutes ago, williejm said:

What thundering nonsense even is this ⬆️ ?

Sometimes studies like this are *exactly* what are needed to both make strategic, evidence-based decisions on how to progress *and* give a hook to talking about why it’s important in the media. 

Meanwhile - was delighted to see these books appearing https://www.thebrickpost.com/news/lego-little-golden-books-how-to-be-a/ - representation matters so much, and while it might seem a little thing to have a female pirate and a wheelchair-user knight, it’s a world of difference in both normalising and challenging. 

Goatwool socks

[Peppermint_M]

Just now, JaBaCaDaBra said:

Goatwool socks

Are you having a stroke? Please seek medical attention.

Also: Good! I was fed up of judgy adults saying that as a girl I should not have LEGO.

If even one person is educated then I am happy.

[timemail]

1 hour ago, williejm said:

Sometimes studies like this are *exactly* what are needed to both make strategic, evidence-based decisions on how to progress *and* give a hook to talking about why it’s important in the media. 

Meanwhile - was delighted to see these books appearing https://www.thebrickpost.com/news/lego-little-golden-books-how-to-be-a/ - representation matters so much, and while it might seem a little thing to have a female pirate and a wheelchair-user knight, it’s a world of difference in both normalising and challenging. 

I hadn't heard of these - this is the sort of thing that I like much better. It works towards the goal but feels less like co-opting others to be your advertising campaign (again it could just be me not understanding social media but those campaigns feel so forced). My daughter will love the pirate book - with any luck there will be a train one in the line for my son - I can't see any other information on the line besides those two (which likely were announced first for the extra press). Hopefully they will be widely available.

[nerdsforprez]

1 hour ago, Peppermint_M said:

Are you having a stroke? Please seek medical attention.

Part of the whole campaign of ending racism, genderism, etc. is the curtailing the use of derogatory language.  To advocate for equality across gender, racial, etc. spheres but create one's own derogatory terms, sayings, "isms", etc. is both hypocritical and counterproductive.  Please, for the sake of trying to enlighten others, don't stoop to the level of being derogatory simply because someone disagrees with you.  It is possible to disagree with someone while simultaneously doing so in a productive, educational manner......

This thread will quickly get out of hand if we don't....

 

[MAB]

3 hours ago, teljesnegyzet said:

There are boys in the promotional photos and videos of multiple Friends sets.

Here are some examples:
https://www.lego.com/en-us/product/heartlake-city-movie-theater-41448
https://www.lego.com/en-si/product/magical-funfair-roller-coaster-41685
https://www.lego.com/en-au/product/heartlake-city-amusement-pier-41375
https://www.lego.com/en-us/product/friendship-bus-41395
https://www.lego.com/en-us/product/heartlake-city-vet-clinic-41446
https://www.lego.com/en-us/product/tiger-hot-air-balloon-jungle-rescue-41423

At the moment, the very first image at https://www.lego.com/en-us/themes/friends/about features both a boy and a girl.

Thanks, I hadn't seen those, at least it is a start getting their message across that they think Friends is for both girls and boys. Now they need a couple of boys playing it, with no girls around.

LEGO is still partially / predominantly to blame  though. They should acknowledge that their past advertising was wrong. They used to have a gift finder on their website until about two years ago. Friends was often brought up when you entered it was for a girl, but never for boys. That view will probably remain in the population at large for another 10 years. And most likely forever.

I wonder if they will get very far this time. This was their attempt 50 years ago...

 

They believed it then but a decade afterwards came out with highly gender biased toys.

Edited October 12, 2021 by MAB

[TeriXeri]

Unless Friends/Princesses themes get major overhauls, I don't think Stereotypes can really go away.

Not only are those themes seperated by generally different color schemes, but also the figure types specifically designed for girl themes.

Minidolls kind of evoke the "girls play with dolls" type of mindset more then minifigures ever have, Paradisa had the color scheme but still was a part of Town.

I'm not saying that Friends sets can't fit into a City-theme display, but the different figures, animals, and color schemes don't really blend in automatic.

 

On the other hand , would adding more female figures, both protagonist and antagonist and side characters to Ninjago and such solve this ? I don't think it's that easy.

I don't watch the ninjago tv show, but that theme, as well as nexo knights and even chima generally had a lot more male characters.

 

City has been adding a lot of female characters across it's sets, many police and fire sets have almost a 50/50 split nowadays, so I don't think the stereotype is as big there.

City is also adding a School set next year , and a rumoured set with at least 1 horse, so I wonder if that's a signal of City trying to be closer to Friends subjects.

 

Edited October 12, 2021 by TeriXeri

[Lyichir]

3 hours ago, MAB said:

Thanks, I hadn't seen those, at least it is a start getting their message across that they think Friends is for both girls and boys. Now they need a couple of boys playing it, with no girls around.

LEGO is still partially / predominantly to blame  though. They should acknowledge that their past advertising was wrong. They used to have a gift finder on their website until about two years ago. Friends was often brought up when you entered it was for a girl, but never for boys. That view will probably remain in the population at large for another 10 years. And most likely forever.

I wonder if they will get very far this time. This was their attempt 50 years ago...

 

 

They believed it then but a decade afterwards came out with highly gender biased toys.

Even the sets this leaflet came with were gender biased, in a way. This insert was packaged primarily in the dollhouse-style "homemaker" sets—notably, it was NOT packaged in the "spaceship" or "truck" sets, leading to the impression that Lego was more concerned (at the time) about boys being judged or put off by playing with dollhouses than with girls being judged for building something other than that. As such, it can be frustrating to see this brought up by people with the impression that by selling pink or purple bricks Lego has "fallen from grace" in some way—there was bias then and there is still bias now, though hopefully that can get better.

On a personal level, I do hope that the ways combating gender bias is done revolve primarily around things like the demographics of figures AND models (such as including more female characters in Ninjago or male characters in Friends), and the broadening of subject matter (I would love to see the Lego Friends go on more adventures, maybe even to space, or Lego City to include more subject matter that is domestic or leisure-based), and NOT by a misguided attempt to "neutralize" color schemes or visual language that gives themes their distinct appeal. As a male fan of themes like Friends and Elves, I love the harmonious, brightly colored hues of those themes, as well as the bubbly, approachable shapes of Friends architecture and vehicles (compared to the more angular or rugged look of subject matter in the City theme). The point of having a variety of themes is to offer options for people with different preferences, and merely eliminating colors like pink and purple that could be considered "girly" is in reality the OPPOSITE of being gender neutral (since it treats things that have historically been considered "masculine" as fit for everyone, and things historically considered "feminine" as fit for nobody). I trust that Lego recognizes this as masters of visual language and design, but I've seen far too many commentators reading this news and seeming to hope primarily that the pinks, purples, and pastels will be replaced by boyish homogeny.

Edited October 12, 2021 by Darkdragon
Please don't quote images.

[Mylenium]

3 hours ago, teljesnegyzet said:

There are boys in the promotional photos and videos of multiple Friends sets.

But then again they are not specifically addressing boys and they are mostly relegated to the "little brother" role. And it's not just the photos. It's how the stuff is listed and promoted in retail stores and so on. And it gets really awful once you review other materials like the magazines and the animated series. Also LEGO is not particularly proactive or visible in that regard. Other companies are already advertising with boys playing with dolls and all that much more aggressively.

Mylenium

6 minutes ago, Lyichir said:

and NOT by a misguided attempt to "neutralize" color schemes or visual language that gives themes their distinct appeal. As a male fan of themes like Friends and Elves, I love the harmonious, brightly colored hues of those themes, as well as the bubbly, approachable shapes of Friends architecture and vehicles (compared to the more angular or rugged look of subject matter in the City theme). The point of having a variety of themes is to offer options for people with different preferences, and merely eliminating colors like pink and purple that could be considered "girly" is in reality the OPPOSITE of being gender neutral (since it treats things that have historically been considered "masculine" as fit for everyone, and things historically considered "feminine" as fit for nobody). I trust that Lego recognizes this as masters of visual language and design, but I've seen far too many commentators reading this news and seeming to hope primarily that the pinks, purples, and pastels will be replaced by boyish homogeny.

Different problem, though, IMO. As a graphics designer for me this is mostly a matter of "uneducated use" putting people off plus that old chicken vs. egg problem where the set designers themselves have been falling victim to stereotypes, which of course itself could be another of facet of this whole thing. Or to put it in other words: If LEGO didn't try to ugly color combinations down people's throats like adding Dark Pink even in the latest Forest House (41679) and if the designers themselves took the time to reflect on their own biases and preconceptions, things could be a whole lot better without sacrificing anything.

Mylenium

[TeriXeri]

26 minutes ago, Lyichir said:

 I trust that Lego recognizes this as masters of visual language and design, but I've seen far too many commentators reading this news and seeming to hope primarily that the pinks, purples, and pastels will be replaced by boyish homogeny.

I think LEGO currently needs to find a good balance between Friends / City / Creator 3-in-1, there has been a lot of overlap between themes, but it seems focus for each theme are shifting a bit lately.

Currently it seems 3-in-1 is mostly shifting away from it's Houses/Shops , 2022 will have a noodle shop but 1HY mostly seems to have brick built animals (one being a purple owl).

City had an overhaul with the road plates and now more shops/animals and a house set, and for 2022 will have a School, something only seen in Friends or Town beforehand.

Friends will be getting it's largest set in 2022 supposedly with an appartment block.

 

But yes, LEGO has to be careful about the design and color use.

 

Still I think the minidoll vs minifig factor perhaps is a bigger deal then the color schemes, especially this part of the article : 

 The LEGO Group knows that boys are also battling prejudice when it comes to creative play and playing with toys that are traditionally seen as being for the opposite sex. 71% of boys vs. 42% of girls say they worry about being made fun of if they play with a toy typically associated for the other gender.

Edited October 12, 2021 by TeriXeri

[williejm]

2 hours ago, nerdsforprez said:

Part of the whole campaign of ending racism, genderism, etc. is the curtailing the use of derogatory language.  To advocate for equality across gender, racial, etc. spheres but create one's own derogatory terms, sayings, "isms", etc. is both hypocritical and counterproductive.  Please, for the sake of trying to enlighten others, don't stoop to the level of being derogatory simply because someone disagrees with you.  It is possible to disagree with someone while simultaneously doing so in a productive, educational manner......

This thread will quickly get out of hand if we don't....

Thanks for bringing this up. Totally agree. 

[MAB]

1 hour ago, Mylenium said:

But then again they are not specifically addressing boys and they are mostly relegated to the "little brother" role. And it's not just the photos. It's how the stuff is listed and promoted in retail stores and so on. And it gets really awful once you review other materials like the magazines and the animated series. Also LEGO is not particularly proactive or visible in that regard. Other companies are already advertising with boys playing with dolls and all that much more aggressively.

 

Yeah. When I see those pictures I see a brother playing with or helping his sister or friend, not that it is his lego. But that may be my bias. Show a boy on his own or two boys playing Friends and it is more likely theirs.

I'm not sure adding male figures to Friends is necessarily a good thing. Sure it balances what they are doing to City. But will it make boys want to buy Friends? Probably not much because it is still seen as a girls' toy introduced to make sales to the girls that weren't interested in City and similar. But it may put off girls buying some sets or see them as less attractive. My daughter must have about 40 or so Friends figures, 10 of which are male. The male ones rarely get used. She tends to populate her shops and houses with girls and women first and only use the male ones when she runs out. 

They could eliminate Friends altogether by making exactly the same sets but putting a City label on them, and including minifigs instead of dolls, with 50:50 male and female characters. That might make them seen as more suitable for both boys and girls and not seen as boys playing with girl toys. But it seems a shame for the (mainly) girls that prefer minidolls.

 

I thought Elves was great but could have been better. If the main characters had been 2 boys and 2 girls, it might have been seen as a more gender neutral theme and stopped the minidoll being seen as for girls only/mainly. But that time has passed, especially after they also did superhero girls only.

[Peppermint_M]

3 hours ago, nerdsforprez said:

Part of the whole campaign of ending racism, genderism, etc. is the curtailing the use of derogatory language.  To advocate for equality across gender, racial, etc. spheres but create one's own derogatory terms, sayings, "isms", etc. is both hypocritical and counterproductive.  Please, for the sake of trying to enlighten others, don't stoop to the level of being derogatory simply because someone disagrees with you.  It is possible to disagree with someone while simultaneously doing so in a productive, educational manner......

This thread will quickly get out of hand if we don't....

 

I am actually concerned for the user, the strange posts and lack of any form of structure in their earlier "statement" has me worried. This sort of thing can be a symptom of a medical event. I have known someone to message and "post" in such a manner when they had unknowingly suffered a later diagnosed issue that could have been fatal if no one had actually gone to them to see what was up.

Spoiler

I know that ASD can make my words come across in a poor manner, further exacerbated by the medium of a forum. However I try my best and I mostly manage to avoid situations like this. It is not something I like to throw around as I try to keep my private matters from the forum. 

 

[nerdsforprez]

Just now, Peppermint_M said:

I am actually concerned for the user, the strange posts and lack of any form of structure in their earlier "statement" has me worried. This sort of thing can be a symptom of a medical event. I have known someone to message and "post" in such a manner when they had unknowingly suffered a later diagnosed issue that could have been fatal if no one had actually gone to them to see what was up.

  Reveal hidden contents

I know that ASD can make my words come across in a poor manner, further exacerbated by the medium of a forum. However I try my best and I mostly manage to avoid situations like this. It is not something I like to throw around as I try to keep my private matters from the forum. 

 

 

With  all due respect, this is not a symptom of a stroke.  Don't need to go into details unless you want me to.  Psychiatric event, perhaps.  But if you are going to try and reframe a psychiatric event as a  "medical event" I find it hard not to read this as attempting to rebrand  calling someone "crazy" as "oh well I was just looking out for your mental/medical health!"

Don't double-down. Just don't name-call or be pejorative.  The thread will retain traction if we don't  

 

 

 

55 minutes ago, williejm said:

Thanks for bringing this up. Totally agree. 

 

[teljesnegyzet]

20 minutes ago, MAB said:

Show a boy on his own or two boys playing Friends and it is more likely theirs.

The closest thing I can think of is the beginning of the 2020 holiday ad: a father and son are playing with a Friends set (I think it's 41424 Jungle Rescue Base).

https://www.lego.com/en-us/aboutus/news/2020/november/rebuild-the-holidays/

[Darkdragon]

3 minutes ago, nerdsforprez said:

Don't double-down. Just don't name-call or be pejorative.  The thread will retain traction if we don't  

Please don't act as if you are staff and don't talk down to forum staff.  Just take the response for the concerned response it is and drop it. If you don't like the thread, the best solution is for you to quit posting in it. 

Thank you.

[nerdsforprez]

 It was a good comment.  And I stand by it.  Has nothing to do with not liking the thread or anything.  in fact, my comments all but support the thread... I would like to see it going!    Staff or not, using pejorative language towards others is not cool.  Per @Peppermint_M's own reference, the defense did not apply (stroke vs. ASD).  

I do apologize that I normally frequent the Technic forum and not other subforums... so I am not familiar with the main players here.  I do apologize if I offended @peppermint_M - but he/she can reach out through PM if that is the case.   I would be happy to discuss. I don't mean anything rude by my statement and I am sure we can clear the air.  Not trying to act like staff.  Not talking "down" to anyone.  Truly, I mean to be friendly and my track record speaks to that.  Reach out to @Jim or milan if you need context.