Friends "Controversy"

[Blakstone]

I found the Feminist Frequency video well reasoned, but it also shows how much of an improvement LEGO has made with Friends over other attempts to market to girls.

I say market as this thread was filled with examples of girls and women that still found the other LEGO sets appealing. One of my sisters was a huge fan in her childhood and I give her Frank Lloyd Wright sets for birthdays and Christmases. I have a grade school niece that enjoys Star Wars, Castle, and Friend sets.

I feel that all lines, Friends or not, need to do a better job including both genders. City needs more females and Friends needs at least a few boys. But lets not sacrifice the good for the perfect since no toy line will ever be perfect.

I believe that the Friends line has brought more girls to the LEGO experience. Yes, some of the sets do reenforce stereotypical behavior but not all of them. If it was necessary to make a different size person for these sets, it was worth it. It appears to help that Friend sets are located on a girls toy aisle. But if they do that, they also need make some of the assorted brick boxes purple and set them in the same aisle. This way Friends fans can expand on the sets and build bigger and more complex designs.

I am a big fan of LEGO and will give sets as gifts at the drop of a hat. For the last two Christmases I have adopted different third grade girls. In addition to their needs such as warm clothes, I provided them with the gift that they asked for Disney faerie doll one year and a Monster High doll the next. But last year I was able to include a small Friends set as well. If I was to give a random girl any other LEGO set, it likely would have been rejected. But colors and the doll style is camouflage enough for us to get the experience to those kids who otherwise would be left behind. Not every girl needs Friends to get into LEGO but obviously some do.

Edited July 18, 2013 by Blakstone

[Capt.JohnPaul]

I really don't get what's the big deal. Here's a fact: Girls like pink, pastely, stuff and Friends. Boys like blue, action, construction and City sets. I'm only saying how it is, a fact. If girls like the same thing as boys, there would be no need to make a Friends line.

Also in the Feminist Frequency video, the girl constantly complains about stereotypes such as you never see girls in the City sets. TBH, I've never seen a girl construction worker or a miner. I see a few police women and nurses. But I've never seen Coast Guard Search and Rescue women, or women firefighters.

As a society, we need to accept there are differences between guys and girls. The brains may be similar, but are also different. Both genders have an endocrine system, but for males testosterone is released, for females estrogen is released. Also, if you check out the Feminine Frequency website, she also has a video on "Damsel in Distress." She proves her point very well that females fill the stereotypical role, but you must ask.... so? As an audience, we like that. The FF girl said that women are treated as objects and are a prize or just an objective. Well, that's how men think. (Not all of them.) As a generalization, a lot of guys don't treat girls like individuals, just objects that fulfill their desires. I saw in a magazine article about a male and female potentially falling in love and having sex. For the girl, it said she would feel like she was in love and had a meaningful relationship. But it also warned the females not to get heartbroken, as for the male, sex could be just physical. I can't remember exactly, it was a month or few back- but this is reality and how people think. Men take the dangerous roles so they protect the women, which is necessary to keep the human species going. That is an instinctive trait in all life form's DNA- to keep the species alive. Therefor, you must protect the things that keep the species going- the women. Again, that's just the way things are, it's biological. Some may argue it's not biological/natural, but rather a social obstacle, but there is so much about the brain we don't know.

[Blakstone]

Also in the Feminist Frequency video, the girl constantly complains about stereotypes such as you never see girls in the City sets. TBH, I've never seen a girl construction worker or a miner. I see a few police women and nurses. But I've never seen Coast Guard Search and Rescue women, or women firefighters.

There are LEGO firefighters but it is 80% male. I don't think that is a real issue.

http://shop.lego.com/en-US/LEGO-City-Fire-Accessory-Set-850618

http://shop.lego.com/en-US/Fire-Station-60004

And at least one other where you have a house on fire

But just as often women are included in the City sets in order to be rescued. These include:

http://shop.lego.com/en-US/Fire-Chief-Car-60001?CMP=KAC-SAHGOOGLEUS&HQS=60001&adtype=pla

http://shop.lego.com/en-US/Flatbed-Truck-60017

It is too much to demand a toy company to solve issues such as misogyny and stereotypical gender roles but I think LEGO has made progress. They just need to continue to make some progress. In the end it is up to the market, children, parents, and relatives, to either embrace these changes or not.

[Haltiamieli]

This person is misleading and reporting biased and facticious stuff in order to attack TLG for mysterious reasons.

Or she may be just concerned, as we too often are when we think TLG is going in a direction we don't appreciate (how much "biased and facticious stuff" has been said over the "cheap China plastic" among AFOLs? Someone might call your argument in the previous paragraph decidedly "facticious" as you used magician and karate sets as examples when these 2013 weren't known of or available at the time when the video was released). She may not have got all her facts correctly and may have misconstrued or oversimplified some things for the sake of argument, intentionally or not, but that doesn't necessarily mean she's, like, evil. Admittedly I'm not in the mood to watch that video again, I saw it around the release time, but as far as I remember there were some good and informed points (how important they are is subjective) and less misinformation than in some other Friends critiques.

We should stop to decide what's better for our children. They are people as much as we are, and if they can't decide most of the things, I am totally sure they can decide which toys they like most.

Indeed. This is an issue (if an issue at all, how ever one sees it) on a societal or cultural level, and I think it shouldn't be brought to the level of individual kids. Certainly one should not suffer for conforming to any cultural gender roles or stereotypes, no more than for diverting from them. Probably the saddest thing about this whole debacle has been the people who furiously proclaim to start a boycott on Lego and not buy any more sets for their children.

Plus, I have experienced fun in building Friends set, they're not EASY to build, they present the same issues, if not more, in building a counterpart of a city.

THIS is what people should be concerned about: if they made easier set for women, that would have been a problem.

Yeah, that's a very important point many critics have unfortunately failed to see during the debate, and certainly the campaign (and many AFOLs' opinions, for that matter) started with very misinformed view on this. But I think this argument about simplified builds has been used less and less lately, or at least less prominently, so maybe actual contact with the product is changing opinions.

I really, really believe this topic should be closed before it gets too far.

What happened to the "only dictatorial, antidemocratic, or people who know they are purposely selling false things, disable the opportunity to reply"? After close to 700 posts, which have already included a few somewhat heated arguments, I don't think this topic is in any immediate danger of suddenly "going too far".

Edited July 18, 2013 by Haltiamieli

[Itaria No Shintaku]

I really don't get what's the big deal. Here's a fact: Girls like pink, pastely, stuff and Friends. Boys like blue, action, construction and City sets. I'm only saying how it is, a fact. If girls like the same thing as boys, there would be no need to make a Friends line.

Also in the Feminist Frequency video, the girl constantly complains about stereotypes such as you never see girls in the City sets. TBH, I've never seen a girl construction worker or a miner. I see a few police women and nurses. But I've never seen Coast Guard Search and Rescue women, or women firefighters.

As a society, we need to accept there are differences between guys and girls. The brains may be similar, but are also different. Both genders have an endocrine system, but for males testosterone is released, for females estrogen is released. Also, if you check out the Feminine Frequency website, she also has a video on "Damsel in Distress." She proves her point very well that females fill the stereotypical role, but you must ask.... so? As an audience, we like that. The FF girl said that women are treated as objects and are a prize or just an objective. Well, that's how men think. (Not all of them.) As a generalization, a lot of guys don't treat girls like individuals, just objects that fulfill their desires. I saw in a magazine article about a male and female potentially falling in love and having sex. For the girl, it said she would feel like she was in love and had a meaningful relationship. But it also warned the females not to get heartbroken, as for the male, sex could be just physical. I can't remember exactly, it was a month or few back- but this is reality and how people think. Men take the dangerous roles so they protect the women, which is necessary to keep the human species going. That is an instinctive trait in all life form's DNA- to keep the species alive. Therefor, you must protect the things that keep the species going- the women. Again, that's just the way things are, it's biological. Some may argue it's not biological/natural, but rather a social obstacle, but there is so much about the brain we don't know.

I share all the things you did say.

What happened to the "only dictatorial, antidemocratic, or people who know they are purposely selling false things, disable the opportunity to reply"? After close to 700 posts, which have already included a few somewhat heated arguments, I don't think this topic is in any immediate danger of suddenly "going too far".

There's a big difference between not allowing to comment at all, and letting many people express their thoughts and then declare it over before it gets too hot...

Edited July 18, 2013 by Itaria No Shintaku

[Pandora]

I really, really believe this topic should be closed before it gets too far.

I keep a very close eye on this topic, and I appreciate you own censure in realising you're posting while angry.

I don't believe anyone is currently offended, or has said anything particularly offensive, but any member may highlight anything they are concerned about by using the "report" button, or may bring it to my attention via the Personal Messenger system.

In the meantime, I believe there is sensible and mature discussion here, and that's exactly what this site is for.

[LiamM32]

I'd add some spare thoughts, after I got calm, since I lean to become argumentative and I don't like myself, when topics get hotter.

I really, really believe this topic should be closed before it gets too far.

I felt really offended by the video posted, and in the meantime I know for sure that LiamM32 didn't intend to.

I beg pardon it's just I find outrageous that people use toys and children for their political purposes.

So I really really wish this topic to get closed and people like the girl in the video spreading all this hate towards a TOY really become aware of how mean they are, exploiting a toy for children to convey their personal controversial political ideas is really a low blow.

I repeat myself at the cost of being annoying: using kids and toys to convey ideas, moreover wrong, it's the thing that pisses me off the most.

This is why I overreacted.

I can really agree with you with that first part of your post. Like I said in 1 or 2 earlier posts, the argument should end before it becomes it's own controversy. I also get argumentative in these heated debates.

I am sorry about the Feminist Frequency video. But I am also confused, as I don't really understand your interpretation of it. I didn't myself percieve it as entirely negative or agressive. I thought that she was admitting both good and bad points, with reason, that was overall quite neutral in the overall view. I can see your point about it being biased a bit for specific opinions. I probably just wasn't thinking about that much, because of the combination of good and bad, and good reasoning compared to many articles on the topic. I don't think though that there is any bias for her personal goals though. Anyway, I am sorry about the offence.

I really don't get what's the big deal. Here's a fact: Girls like pink, pastely, stuff and Friends. Boys like blue, action, construction and City sets. I'm only saying how it is, a fact. If girls like the same thing as boys, there would be no need to make a Friends line.

As a society, we need to accept there are differences between guys and girls. The brains may be similar, but are also different. Both genders have an endocrine system, but for males testosterone is released, for females estrogen is released. Also, if you check out the Feminine Frequency website, she also has a video on "Damsel in Distress." She proves her point very well that females fill the stereotypical role, but you must ask.... so? As an audience, we like that. The FF girl said that women are treated as objects and are a prize or just an objective. Well, that's how men think. (Not all of them.) As a generalization, a lot of guys don't treat girls like individuals, just objects that fulfill their desires. I saw in a magazine article about a male and female potentially falling in love and having sex. For the girl, it said she would feel like she was in love and had a meaningful relationship. But it also warned the females not to get heartbroken, as for the male, sex could be just physical. I can't remember exactly, it was a month or few back- but this is reality and how people think. Men take the dangerous roles so they protect the women, which is necessary to keep the human species going. That is an instinctive trait in all life form's DNA- to keep the species alive. Therefor, you must protect the things that keep the species going- the women. Again, that's just the way things are, it's biological. Some may argue it's not biological/natural, but rather a social obstacle, but there is so much about the brain we don't know.

PLEASE, Please, DON'T! This post could break out the tiring argument right after it settled down.

Your message is terrible. It reinforces the most outrageous gender stereotypes. Of course it isn't natural for girls to like pink while boys like blue. Of course it is a societal belief. If you ever even ask people about their favourite colours nowadays, there is only the least bit of effect of these ideas anyways.

Yes, I have seen her Damsel in Distress video. This was the first Feminist Frequency video that I watched. I found discovered her website a few days ago when I typed the words "damsel in distress" on a Google search, just to see some people that share my great dislike for that lame trope. Your argument to justify this trope is terrible. These shows do not just display the prization of women as a man's perception of them, but how they really act themselves. And NO! Not all of the audience enjoys this long tired way to excite.

I don't believe anyone is currently offended, or has said anything particularly offensive, but any member may highlight anything they are concerned about by using the "report" button, or may bring it to my attention via the Personal Messenger system.

Yep. I am offended by the recent post from Capt.John Paul. The one that I reposted above.

[Itaria No Shintaku]

I am sorry about the Feminist Frequency video. But I am also confused, as I don't really understand your interpretation of it. I didn't myself percieve it as entirely negative or agressive. I thought that she was admitting both good and bad points, with reason, that was overall

The problem is that feminism is often (if not always) a form of sexism... and the manners of the girl in that video are aggressive.

But thank you for your words I appreciated them.

Edited July 19, 2013 by Itaria No Shintaku

[Pandora]

Yep. I am offended by the recent post from Capt.John Paul. The one that I reposted above.

Capt.JohnPaul has posted his opinions and views on the matter. You may not agree with them, but he has posted them politely.

Naturally, you are within your rights to disagree with his post, but please do so respectfully and politely. Thank you.

[Itaria No Shintaku]

Of course it isn't natural for girls to like pink while boys like blue. Of course it is a societal belief.

Er... not. It's not a social belief. That's the way things are.

Market researches show clearly that boys are more attracted to blue, and girls to pink/violet.

This is mostly why TLC made blue boxes for city sets and pink boxes for friends sets.

You can't "socially" force a kid to like or dislike a color.

It would be like "socially" forcing them to like ord dislike a scent, or a taste for a food.

Plus, since I am continuosly censuring myself not to offend people, but I wanted to spend 2 words on the "Damsel in Distress" trope.

My girlfriend LIKES me to care about various stuff. She preferes ME to drive. She likes to enjoy trips, enjoying views and captruing details that I cannot do while driving.

My girlfriend LIKES me to open her door of restaurants, cars, serving her the drinks at the table and so on.

I am censuring myself so I won't go in deep with this argument, but I will just throw a little rock, if it offends someone I will remove this line because I know many aren't able to accept lines like this, because they easily get misunderstood but:

Woman has been given by nature the most beautiful role among the genders: she can give birth to new life.

As a man, I suffer for not having this chance. It is indeed a serious pain to suffer a whole life for the period, with pains, diseases, or simply being uncomfortable. It is indeed a serious pain to stay 9 months with nausea, extra weight, pains and so on. And it is indeed a serious pain the whole act of giving birth to a child.

But, pain or not, I will never been given this opportunity. I cannot simply choose to enter pregnancy.

Thus, male role is indeed to protect women. THEY are the important gender of our race. THEY give birth. A man is most "expendable" than a woman.

This is where the "damsel in distress" tropy comes from.

Whatever society tries to do, they would never change the way it is. Women are phisically weaker. Some women I know are knocked out from their period (some can't even work properly during those days, a friend of mine gets temperature over 38C every time she has her period).

This does NOT in any way make women worse than men.

They will always be the life bringers, they didn't choose this as we didn't choose our role.

This just reinforces the fact that a man role is to serve and protect woman.

I mean, if we are totally interchangable and equal, why do they keep separing championships in sports in "woman" and "man" categories?

Socially they're trying to disrupt human nature, convincing us that women and men are interchangable.

This is one of the steps society is trying to do to cancel the difference between us, making us just replaceable puppets.

Think about it.

They're trying to convince you that etnicity does not matter, based on the fact you may be racist, thus trying to cancel the heritages of races.

They're trying to convince you that gender does not matter, based on the fact you may be sexist, thus trying to cancel the differences between male and female.

They're trying to convince you that sexual orientantion does not matter, based on the fact you may be homophobe, thus trying to cancel the unicity of our sexual desires.

We humans must fight against this. We are everybody unique, with our differences, heritages, sexual interests, tastes, and so on.

We have abilities for different tasks that come from our gender, our skills, our culture, our education.

We are not all the same.

I love LEGO because it makes perfectly understand this.

We must never, never forget that our differences makes us unique people.

Men have virtues and vices of being male.

Women have virtues and vices of being female.

Women's virtues are not always achievable by men and viceversa.

Brains do work in different way, making men more suitable for some activities and women more suitable for others.

This doesn't mean that a certain woman can not attain results in a mainly-male field, and vice versa, only that it will be harder for her/him.

I could start a whole line including the "male-bashing-trophy" which is fair more worrying than the "damsel-in-distress-trophy", but that would be stopping censuring myself, because I could not be nice. So I end it here.

I just felt the urge to add my 2p, but I really think we should everybody remember that Lego is a toy.

[Capt.JohnPaul]

I'm sorry if I offended some, I'm just the messenger bringing facts. And while some may not like the Damsel in Distress trope, most do. People go back for more of that. James Bond, probably the most iconic movie franchise, has been going for decades, and the recent film, Skyfall,made $1,108,561,013 at the box office. All of thee films include a "manly" spy, wooing women and saving them from the evil villain. So saying people are tire of it is not true. In fact, a lot of action movies revolve around the same thing. And it is not a modern thing either, where society pushes these beliefs. It started in the middle ages, in popular stories such as Camelot and King Arthur, where brave "manly" knights rescue princesses from towers.

Itaria No Shintaku- your post was amazing. And it is all true. Gender equality is a good thing, but it is open for debate when our fundamental societal institutions are being changed. I agree with everything you say, the market is proof that boys and girls are different. (Not to mention the different way our brains operate.) Also, on the show Brain Games, they had an episode about male and female brains. It showed that men are better at spacial and physical things, which may explain why it is mostly boys who like LEGO. Girls may too, but I'm just saying mostly.

A man's purpose in life is to protect and be kind to a woman. Look everywhere you go where you see a couple. I bet you $20 that the guy has his arm around the girl's shoulder. Or the girl is leaning her head on the guy, or something like that. The male feels protective, and the female is looking for that. Society has noting to do with it, in my opinion.

Remember, there are stereotypes for a reason, they were once based on fact, but were exaggerated.

[Aanchir]

Er... not. It's not a social belief. That's the way things are.

Market researches show clearly that boys are more attracted to blue, and girls to pink/violet.

Your comment is true; it IS the way things are to a great extent, and it IS evidenced by market research. That doesn't mean it's not a societal belief. Long ago, pink was considered a masculine color. So was purple, since it was associated with power and royalty. Pink didn't begin to be considered a "girl color" until the last century, but it is very heavily ingrained in society today.

As I've said before, just because a belief isn't genetically ingrained in people doesn't mean it's not real. But on the flip side, just because gender preferences are real doesn't mean they're a genetic or biological trait. The society we grow up in is the source of many of our preconceived notions about gender.

This is mostly why TLC made blue boxes for city sets and pink boxes for friends sets.

You can't "socially" force a kid to like or dislike a color.

It would be like "socially" forcing them to like ord dislike a scent, or a taste for a food.

That's right. You can't socially force a kid to do anything. This isn't about "force". This is about much subtler influences. A girl who grows up in a society where pink is considered "for girls" will learn to associate those two ideas even if nobody's consciously teaching them to her. A girl in a remote tribal culture without as much influence from Western society will not develop those same preconceptions, but they will gain their own preconceptions based on their society.

Plus, since I am continuosly censuring myself not to offend people, but I wanted to spend 2 words on the "Damsel in Distress" trope.

My girlfriend LIKES me to care about various stuff. She preferes ME to drive. She likes to enjoy trips, enjoying views and captruing details that I cannot do while driving.

My girlfriend LIKES me to open her door of restaurants, cars, serving her the drinks at the table and so on.

There's nothing wrong with that. It's entirely at a woman's discretion if she wants to place so much trust in a man's hands, just as it's at a man's discretion if he wants to place that same degree of trust in a woman's hands. We live in an enlightened society where male dominance is neither a societal nor a biological necessity. However, there's also nothing wrong with women who seek to be more independent, and it is a real problem if "damsel in distress" roles are the ONLY roles female characters get in toys or media, or even an overwhelming majority. Thankfully, we're moving away from that, both in LEGO and in society as a whole, but there's still a considerable imbalance that shouldn't be ignored.

I am censuring myself so I won't go in deep with this argument, but I will just throw a little rock, if it offends someone I will remove this line because I know many aren't able to accept lines like this, because they easily get misunderstood but:

Woman has been given by nature the most beautiful role among the genders: she can give birth to new life.

As a man, I suffer for not having this chance. It is indeed a serious pain to suffer a whole life for the period, with pains, diseases, or simply being uncomfortable. It is indeed a serious pain to stay 9 months with nausea, extra weight, pains and so on. And it is indeed a serious pain the whole act of giving birth to a child.

But, pain or not, I will never been given this opportunity. I cannot simply choose to enter pregnancy.

Thus, male role is indeed to protect women. THEY are the important gender of our race. THEY give birth. A man is most "expendable" than a woman.

This is where the "damsel in distress" tropy comes from.

Yes, this is true. The roots of the trope are biological. However, at the same time, we no longer live in a society where women need "protection" from males. It is even possible for women to play a "protector" role for men if the need arises and the woman is prepared to take that opportunity. So in some respects, the "damsel in distress" role is no longer the universal truth it was once imagined to be, and toys and media should reflect that by giving female characters more diverse roles.

Whatever society tries to do, they would never change the way it is. Women are phisically weaker. Some women I know are knocked out from their period (some can't even work properly during those days, a friend of mine gets temperature over 38C every time she has her period).

Women are generally physically weaker, but it is entirely possible through strength training or training in skills that aren't based solely on physical brawn that a woman can be better-prepared for dangerous situations than a man. Even things like symptoms of a woman's period can be treated with certain medications to lessen their effects. If male physical dominance were a biological imperative in this day and age then I'd be screwed, because I am very thin and not very muscular. I would not be very confident at all in my ability to protect a woman from danger.

Also, urbanized society today is at a point where physical strength doesn't matter that much. Rarely is it necessary for people to fight or struggle for their survival. More important to survival and success in this day and age are one's reasoning, creative, and decision-making abilities. These are things that do not depend on gender at all. And most people live in a lifestyle where being exhausted for one day a month will not severely impede their role in society.

Overall, the idea that women CAN depend on men is not a terrible problem in and of itself. The idea that women HAVE to depend on men, though, has been reduced to a relic as far as urban society is concerned.

This does NOT in any way make women worse than men.

They will always be the life bringers, they didn't choose this as we didn't choose our role.

This just reinforces the fact that a man role is to serve and protect woman.

That "always" thing is an issue here. Not all women have children. It's no longer an imperative in many societies, which have more than enough population growth to be self-sustaining. So women CAN choose their role, just as men can choose theirs. Prescribing male and female roles by what they would have been in an archaic society that had to physically struggle for survival does a disservice to both genders.

I mean, if we are totally interchangable and equal, why do they keep separing championships in sports in "woman" and "man" categories?

Because the strongest man will generally be stronger than the strongest woman. That IS a biological trait. However, sports ARE a context where physical strength is often the determining factor in performance. Many other real-world skills have nothing to do with that.

Socially they're trying to disrupt human nature, convincing us that women and men are interchangable.

This is one of the steps society is trying to do to cancel the difference between us, making us just replaceable puppets.

Wait, so does that mean that because I and an NFL quarterback are both men, we're "interchangeable puppets"? No? I didn't think so. So treating men and women as equal in contexts where neither has a biological advantage, or even acknowledging that women from one context can be superior within that context to men from another context, doesn't do anything of the sort. A female athlete or a woman working in a job that gets her a lot of strength training will almost certainly be physically more capable than a man who has a desk job and doesn't exercise. "Human nature" is that humans are versatile and adaptable. It is not a rigid constraint, but rather an opportunity for humans of either gender to shape their lives as they see fit.

Think about it.

They're trying to convince you that etnicity does not matter, based on the fact you may be racist, thus trying to cancel the heritages of races.

They're trying to convince you that gender does not matter, based on the fact you may be sexist, thus trying to cancel the differences between male and female.

They're trying to convince you that sexual orientantion does not matter, based on the fact you may be homophobe, thus trying to cancel the unicity of our sexual desires.

I'm... not even going to validate this conspiratorial cockamamie with a response.

We humans must fight against this. We are everybody unique, with our differences, heritages, sexual interests, tastes, and so on.

We have abilities for different tasks that come from our gender, our skills, our culture, our education.

We are not all the same.

Yes. Which also means: not all women are the same. Not all men are the same. And treating all men, no matter what their upbringing and lifestyle as "protectors", and all women, no matter what their upbringing and lifestyle, as "people to be protected", flies in the face of that.

I love LEGO because it makes perfectly understand this.

We must never, never forget that our differences makes us unique people.

Men have virtues and vices of being male.

Women have virtues and vices of being female.

Women's virtues are not always achievable by men and viceversa.

Brains do work in different way, making men more suitable for some activities and women more suitable for others.

This doesn't mean that a certain woman can not attain results in a mainly-male field, and vice versa, only that it will be harder for her/him.

Can't argue with that (except the whole "virtues and vices" thing; that sounds remarkably like casting an arbitrary double-standard and allowing men different "vices" than women). The important thing to remember is that in this day and age, gender hardly the most important factor that makes people unique. You can find a woman and a man who are almost equally capable at a certain task, but you could find two women or two men who are radically different from each other in their capabilities. So it's frustrating that so often in LEGO, men are given lead roles and women are giving supporting roles.

Why aren't there more women in the LEGO City police force (some years don't have a single female police officer in any of the sets)? Why aren't any LEGO City convicts female? Why aren't there more female astronauts in themes like Galaxy Squad where the majority of conflict is based on lasers and vehicles rather than hand-to-hand fighting? Why on double-sided minifigure heads do smiling male faces tend to change to a scowl and smiling female faces tend to change to a scared expression? Why in Ninjago does Nya appear in so few sets, despite being established as just as capable a fighter as the Ninja? Why in a theme like Hero Factory, with characters who are not human or even organic creatures, are less than one-sixth of the characters identified as female and the remainder (including every single villain) identified as male? Why in the Super Heroes theme has the only female hero to appear, Wonder Woman, been portrayed as a damsel in distress for Superman rather than a "hero" in her own right?

In most cases, the reason boils down to sales. Young boys are the core audience for the majority of LEGO themes, and those boys are not especially interested in buying sets starring female characters. But it has nothing to do with "biological imperatives" or anything of that sort. Those sorts of things are more or less irrelevant in this day and age, at least in families wealthy enough to buy LEGO.

In conclusion, your argument is not only weak, but also disgustingly archaic. I do not know if it's even worth replying to future posts of yours because you seem firmly convinced that any argument against female subordinance flies in the face of human nature. It's these sorts of posts (and the fact that the first reply agrees with it wholeheartedly) that make me lose faith in the intelligence and virtue of the LEGO fan community. And sadly there's nothing the LEGO Group can do to eliminate the ignorance of its fans. I can only hope that LEGO Friends and similar campaigns will bring more girls into the hobby, and that eventually there will be enough female AFOLs to speak up and say they've had enough of this garbage.

[GregoryBrick]

As was already posted in this thread, the association of pink with girls and blue with boys is a very recent phenomenon, from the 20th century, and was arbitrary - there are plenty of sources from the early 20th century which recommended pink for boys (see Jo B. Paletti, Pink and Blue: Telling the Boys from the Girls in America).

The anthropological record shows that all societies are structured around gender, but are so with massive variation in the roles and meanings associated with gender. Claims that a man's role is invariably and biologically 'to protect women' fails to explain: anthropological variation, men who don't protect women, same-sex couples, women who protect men, how 'protect' is defined, and more. To say that these examples are deviations from essential roles is to beg the question.

As I said earlier in the thread, studies on neurological difference between the sexes are aggregate measures and cannot be applied universally to every member of the category. The distribution curves for all kinds of traits overlap substantially, so there are millions of women stronger, taller, etc. than millions of men. The fact that men dominate one tail of these distribution curves (e.g. Olympic-level 100m records) is statistically insignificant when it comes to understanding how those traits are distributed amongst the rest of the population, and Olympic sprinters and first-world childhood LEGO fans are both populations already complicated with all kinds of selection effects. This is not a claim made in ignorance of the neurological research; it's fundamental to interpreting this research correctly.

Gendered sport segregation has occurred for all kinds of reasons, depending on the sport, and it includes the historical disenfranchisement of women as well as popular sports being ones where men tend to outperform women, not to mention an emphasis on professional sport. See also my comment about distributions above.

I don't know how one can look at courtship practices for people who have spent 20 years being socialized ('putting one's head on another's shoulder') and confidently assert that social factors have nothing to do with this, especially when such practices (like pink for girls) are historically- and culturally- specific. Hmong and Inuit and Masai and !Kung and Rhode Islanders do not express physical intimacy between genders the same way and it has changed over time.

Finally, toys are inherently political. They teach children about what in the world is salient and what is not, what roles are possible and preferable, how to interact with others, and more.

To bring it back to topic, then, LEGO is operating under preference constraints: their market is divided roughly among gender lines. However, these rough lines are mutable and permeable, and LEGO (and their audience) are right to consider how their decisions reinforce or alter ideas about gender. They should not commit the naturalistic fallacy ('girls are like this, therefore it is just') especially when the evidence that these toy preferences stem directly from universal neural differences distinguishing every man (or even most men) from every woman is so thin.

EDIT: It turns out I was posting at the same time as Aanchir; we state a number of points in common and I did not want him to think I was ignoring his contribution or just repeating it.

Edited July 19, 2013 by GregoryBrick

[Itaria No Shintaku]

In conclusion, your argument is not only weak, but also disgustingly archaic. I do not know if it's even worth replying to future posts of yours because you seem firmly convinced that any argument against female subordinance flies in the face of human nature. It's these sorts of posts (and the fact that the first reply agrees with it wholeheartedly) that make me lose faith in the intelligence and virtue of the LEGO fan community. And sadly there's nothing the LEGO Group can do to eliminate the ignorance of its fans. I can only hope that LEGO Friends and similar campaigns will bring more girls into the hobby, and that eventually there will be enough female AFOLs to speak up and say they've had enough of this garbage.

I find this highly offensive and I didn't expect that from you.

You are inherently calling me non-intelligent and ignorant.

I was polite all along, you are not.

Calling one "ignorant" and having "no intelligence or virtue" because you do not share his opinion is not a great sign of be a smart and democratic person.

This is also strawmanning because I never said that woman are subordinated to man, instead I stated the very opposite: men are expendable, women are not.

So you are even placing in my mouth words I did not say, nor mean, nor even allude, about feelings I totally do not share.

I am more than highly offended.

You should have spared your futile rant.

I demand your apologizes.

Edited July 19, 2013 by Itaria No Shintaku

[Capt.JohnPaul]

I did have a really long reply, but I stupidly backed out of the page and I can't get it back. Thus, I am trying again. I also thank Gregorybrick and Aanchir for pointing out that some colors were viewed as royalty back then. You made me rethink. Also, let's keep things calm guys.

Since my original thing was very long, I'll just explain why women are so often used as support or damsels in distress. They makes of the film want the audience to have a connection. So deep inside, I think the audience's biological traits/DNA or something kind of sparks, as deep inside, we recognize that's our role or something. That's my opinion, and I have no other explanation for it. Anyways, LEGO includes not as much women because it is not as common for women to have dangerous jobs. (Of course they can, but we must remember we are speaking generally, and it is not as common.) Also, LEGO would be combating widely "normal" beliefs. It would be like back in the Middle Ages and proposing a different belief then the Church. It wouldn't be normal and people would be shocked or confused. Also, I agree with a lot of things Aanchir has said aswell, such as women NOT HAVING to be reliant on men, or being able to be just as athletic with practice. But we must remember we are speaking generally and what is most common.

I don't know how one can look at courtship practices for people who have spent 20 years being socialized ('putting one's head on another's shoulder') and confidently assert that social factors have nothing to do with this, especially when such practices (like pink for girls) are historically- and culturally- specific. Hmong and Inuit and Masai and !Kung and Rhode Islanders do not express physical intimacy between genders the same way and it has changed over time.

That's a good point, but could we explain why we do it? I cannot change my mind off that, for I believe it is true, unless someone can explain.

Anyways, LEGO's job is not to change societal beliefs. Feminists should not target LEGO for change, but rather public figures and lawmakers or someone who could vouch for them. LEGO's job is a business, and out to make money. They have no obligation to change it. Feminists should target movies and James Bond first before they go after LEGO. Society has to change first. If women became the main fighting force in armies and breadwinners, and men stayed at home, then LEGO would change their marketing. (Italicized parts are ideas from EB member, also my brother, KingoftheZempk)

[Itaria No Shintaku]

Removed content.

I don't want to enrage hate here.

I am a polite and peaceful person.

Edited July 19, 2013 by Itaria No Shintaku

[Itaria No Shintaku]

Why aren't there more women in the LEGO City police force (some years don't have a single female police officer in any of the sets)? Why aren't any LEGO City convicts female? Why aren't there more female astronauts in themes like Galaxy Squad where the majority of conflict is based on lasers and vehicles rather than hand-to-hand fighting? Why on double-sided minifigure heads do smiling male faces tend to change to a scowl and smiling female faces tend to change to a scared expression? Why in Ninjago does Nya appear in so few sets, despite being established as just as capable a fighter as the Ninja? Why in a theme like Hero Factory, with characters who are not human or even organic creatures, are less than one-sixth of the characters identified as female and the remainder (including every single villain) identified as male? Why in the Super Heroes theme has the only female hero to appear, Wonder Woman, been portrayed as a damsel in distress for Superman rather than a "hero" in her own right?

Since I am an open person, I asked my gf on this topic.

Police woman/Galaxy Squad/Ninja/Hero Factory, her reply "Personally I love Lego, but I would never buy such themes, not now neither when I was a girl because they're mostly action themes and girls do not like action. I would have loved to buy a proper Lego Zoo which they never did. So they include few girls because they are oriented to boys and boys do not like to buy a lot of female minifigures, I think"

She also agrees that "pink and rose are nowadays more suitable to represent a girly product".

She in the same time says that "Friends does not totally represents the goals and attitudes of a girl, but it's not to blame for that"

Then she added this, which many of us won't agree on: "By the way most AFOLs are man because man like to play even when they grow, while girls are more practice and focused on real life, they grow faster and they abandon their toys many years before men do. Adult women rarely feel the need to play, and if they do they do not use toys, they prefere cards game or the like".

These are her words which I reported nearly in the same way she told me, I don't remember the very precise words.

I believe in the end she's right. Lego has to make money, like CaptainJohnPaul says, not to change the world.

I quote what he said.

Edited July 19, 2013 by Itaria No Shintaku

[Capt.JohnPaul]

I don't think anyone intended to offend anyone, so remember to keep your cool. This is a rare opportunity, as we rarely have reason to discuss such topics, and it's better because it directly relates to LEGO.

I remember, not all shows and storylines are the typical male hero ones. A show I watch, Nikita, is pretty much the same for all action stuff but in reverse. It's the girls who are the heroes. The 2 main characters, Nikita and Alex (female), are running around with guns trying to take down a secret Black Ops program gone out of control. Both female characters have had love ones killed.

As for the reason why we can't have female convicts as stated earlier, do you think that would be good press for TLC? People would accuse them of sending messages or something. No matter what happens, I think someone would get mad.

[Pandora]

I'm... not even going to validate this conspiratorial cockamamie with a response.

In conclusion, your argument is not only weak, but also disgustingly archaic. I do not know if it's even worth replying to future posts of yours because you seem firmly convinced that any argument against female subordinance flies in the face of human nature. It's these sorts of posts (and the fact that the first reply agrees with it wholeheartedly) that make me lose faith in the intelligence and virtue of the LEGO fan community. And sadly there's nothing the LEGO Group can do to eliminate the ignorance of its fans. I can only hope that LEGO Friends and similar campaigns will bring more girls into the hobby, and that eventually there will be enough female AFOLs to speak up and say they've had enough of this garbage.

You should have spared your futile rant.

I demand your apologizes.

BOTH of you please be polite and respectful. Slinging insults around is no way for adults to behave, and I post here as a Moderator, not because of any opinion I hold.

I want to keep this topic open because I believe that there is some interesting discussion here pertaining to gender and LEGO, but if it dissolves into insults then I will have to close it.

Can't argue with that (except the whole "virtues and vices" thing; that sounds remarkably like casting an arbitrary double-standard and allowing men different "vices" than women).

Please remember that not all members here have English as their first language, so "vices" in this context may not necessarily reflect what the author intends, although I admit I cannot speak for him.

Also, let's keep things calm guys.

I don't think anyone intended to offend anyone, so remember to keep your cool. This is a rare opportunity, as we rarely have reason to discuss such topics, and it's better because it directly relates to LEGO.

I appreciate the sentiment, but please leave the moderating to the Mods, thank you.

If you feel angry, then don't post. Go for a walk or something, and remember that this is the internet. Post your thoughts when you've cooled off and please try to stay polite and respectful. Thank you.

[Aanchir]

I apologize for getting so angry. Frankly, Eurobricks is one of the sites where I feel most comfortable most of the time, though I have heard things to call that into question. I suppose I let my guard down and then reacted angrily when as a result certain comments I was not anticipating were able to hurt me.

I find this highly offensive and I didn't expect that from you.

You are inherently calling me non-intelligent and ignorant.

I was polite all along, you are not.

Calling one "ignorant" and having "no intelligence or virtue" because you do not share his opinion is not a great sign of be a smart and democratic person.

This is also strawmanning because I never said that woman are subordinated to man, instead I stated the very opposite: men are expendable, women are not.

So you are even placing in my mouth words I did not say, nor mean, nor even allude, about feelings I totally do not share.

I am more than highly offended.

You should have spared your futile rant.

I demand your apologizes.

I apologize wholeheartedly. I should not have gone so far as to insult your character. However, I still think the opinions you expressed are outdated and not relevant to society on a large scale. They overemphasize the biological nature of gender roles. Just because once these ideas were once considered crucial to the continued existence of the human race does not mean that they are ingrained in the human psyche. The most remarkable thing about humans as a species is their capacity to learn, and as such, much less of our behavior is instinctual than with many other species. Much of our behavior is passed down through tradition and through the society we create for our offspring, hence why many aspects of human society are so very different in many parts of the world or across various points in time.

Furthermore, it is wrong to suggest that because something is traditional and was once essential to society it cannot be questioned on a moral level. There are many, many traditions humankind has had over the years which are now, quite rightly, made illegal or at least frowned upon. For instance, it was once accepted for people to challenge each other to duels to the death over perceived injuries or insults. Needless to say this doesn't happen today, and when it does such events are not simply disregarded as "crimes of passion" or anything of the sort. The persons in question are considered murderers, plain and simple. That isn't even getting into the many traditions that were once codified in laws which we have since rejected, such as many historical punishments which are today recognized as excessively harsh. Back then, some of them performed a function; some might even argue it was a necessary function for survival. This does not, however, mean that these kinds of choices are biologically ingrained in us, and even if they were it would not be immoral for individuals or groups to question or defy them.

Needless to say, I understand that these kinds of attitudes are probably a lot more widespread than I would like to believe, and certainly not limited to the AFOL community. But I have a feeling that any well-meaning feminists reading these kinds of attitudes on a LEGO forum would not be so forgiving. And yes, the majority of feminists do mean well. There is a minority that wants women to have superior roles to men in society, rather than just equality, and there are some who think the only way to reach equality is to eradicate feminine stereotypes and notions like "chivalry" altogether. However, most feminists are just seeing a very real imbalance in opportunities for boys and girls and are looking for ways to correct it. Too often, girls' toys and media express a very generic, homogenous definition of "girliness", while boys' toys present more diverse roles and archetypes for boys to aspire to.

I don't think that LEGO is under any obligation to perform any role of social betterment. But working to create a better society is a goal the company has claimed for itself, and so expecting them to work towards that goal, even if very slowly and gradually, should not be unreasonable. I do not expect LEGO to even out gender ratios in sets if it will hurt sales, so naturally I don't expect the gender ratios in Hero Factory to rise above one-sixth anytime soon. But in the long term I think issue of gender imbalance should be addressed, because currently gender ratios in LEGO are not an accurate portrayal of reality, and the few roles female characters are afforded in sets often do a disservice to the female fans of those sets and themes. I expect LEGO to do their part, through storytelling, marketing, and set design, to slowly create a society where boys will not avoid buying a set if female characters are included, and where girls and parents of girls will not avoid buying a set because it is not designed specifically "for girls". In other words, I simply expect them to keep pace with changes in society as a whole, and perhaps take the first step in that direction if an opportunity presents itself.

[Itaria No Shintaku]

Aanchir.

I appreciate your words.

Bytheway I will always have an opinion different from yours.

In my hopinion one of the things society has to stop as soon as possible is "male bashing".

Feminism leaded to a wrong concept of the male, and this is why I am proudly anti-feminist.

Feminism to me is a for of sexism. Rarely feminist battle for sex equality. Not the one I know, for least.

I pick you an example so you can truly understand what I mean.

If you see a movie with the "damsel in distress" trope you feel disturbed.

I totally disagree while it's your right to feel the way you feel.

I instead feel lot of disturbed when "male bashing" happens, and believe me, nowadays it's FAR more often.

This is what happens: in a movie, a man that hits or beats a women, is a monster, is a bad man.

A woman that hits or beats a man, instead, is seen as a positive stereotype.

Think about, for example, "Kill Bill" with inverted roles. Feminist people would have blocked such a movie.

Male bashing is everywhere, in commcercials, movies, tv shows and so on.

If we aim to gender equality... it's ok, so we should educate society that violence against male and women is the very same thing.

And this is nearly impossible, male bashing to be eradicated would need a tremendous efforce, and I don't think society is able to.

We live in the world of the "politically correct". They had to put a black ghostbuster, three white ghostbusters seemed racist. Does this seem right? Of course it's not! They could have been all white, all blacks, all women...

I don't find it normal to put a female role, a black role, a gay role, because it's more fair...

...if it fits, it's ok, but being forced by the politically correct is simply wrong.

How many sales did Nya make?

More than Cole? Or Zane?

I highly doubt it. Boys do not want Nya.

And boys are not yet influenced by the society, they're too young.

Think about 1989 pirates. There is a female pirate. In my not too detailed knowledge of pirates, I hardly even heard a female pirate.

They HAD to put it one, for the "politically correct".

Did we really need her? No.

Nice costume, but that's all.

Well I think I expressed my point well enough, I hope it doesn't offend anyone since this is not the spirit I wrote it.

[Capt.JohnPaul]

I can agree some feminists mean well, and others are the anti-chivalry type. I'm trying to figure out what the girl in Feminist Frequency is. When she commented that the Friends sets don't have firemen, that they'll "have to call the boys to rescue them," that makes me think more of the latter. I see nothing wrong wrong with that, and I think that's the way it should be. (Though I mean it in no ill-way about the abilities of women, but maybe it's just my traditional/"archaic" chivalry beliefs. Because, I'm sure we can agree, generally/biologically, women aren't as strong and aren't the protectors. Generally.)

And I like to think that we share the fact that it is in LEGO's best interest to widen their fanbase to girls as well. But the question is how to do that? The largely "stereotypical" Friends line was a huge success.... so what next?

Just because once these ideas were once considered crucial to the continued existence of the human race does not mean that they are ingrained in the human psyche. The most remarkable thing about humans as a species is their capacity to learn, and as such, much less of our behavior is instinctual than with many other species. Much of our behavior is passed down through tradition and through the society we create for our offspring, hence why many aspects of human society are so very different in many parts of the world or across various points in time.

Though I disagree slightly. It is true, we probably don't need as much ideals such as protecting women and such as it is not as crucial. However, I believe it is ingrained. It will always be with us, such other instinctive traits such as Fight or Flight, Self Preservation which are still inside us. The human population is 7 billion, that's a lot and it's not like it's crucial to have more, yet we haven't lost the instinct to produce offspring.

[Gryphon Ink]

Also in the Feminist Frequency video, the girl constantly complains about stereotypes such as you never see girls in the City sets. TBH, I've never seen a girl construction worker or a miner. I see a few police women and nurses. But I've never seen Coast Guard Search and Rescue women, or women firefighters.

I'm assuming you mean in real life, not Lego. Well, you own your experience, but I own mine, and I can tell you I've known plenty of female construction workers (my mother for one, and also one of my ex-girlfriends), and have met women who were firefighters, police officers, and medical personnel. Like, significant numbers of them. It's not feminist propaganda. It's the reality of the late 20th - early 21st century.

Also, if you check out the Feminine Frequency website, she also has a video on "Damsel in Distress." She proves her point very well that females fill the stereotypical role, but you must ask.... so? As an audience, we like that.

Who is this "we" that you speak of here? "We" certainly doesn't include me, or my wife, or half a billion Hunger Games and Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Alien fans. If everybody liked the Damsel in Distress trope, nobody would have spoken out against it. You like that - and that's fine. I'm not telling you what to like. But you don't speak for humanity.

The FF girl said that women are treated as objects and are a prize or just an objective. Well, that's how men think. (Not all of them.)

I think you may be projecting a little bit.

I'm sorry if I offended some, I'm just the messenger bringing facts. And while some may not like the Damsel in Distress trope, most do. People go back for more of that. James Bond, probably the most iconic movie franchise, has been going for decades, and the recent film, Skyfall,made $1,108,561,013 at the box office. All of thee films include a "manly" spy, wooing women and saving them from the evil villain. So saying people are tire of it is not true.

You do realise that every James Bond movie since Goldeneye has played heavily on the fact that the "manly" spy follows a value system that is seriously out of date, don't you? Did you notice that Bond's boss has been a woman since Goldeneye? That the evil mastermind in TWINE was a woman, there have been incredible action women in most of the recent movies, and that Bond was hinting rather strongly that he has had homosexual dalliances in Skyfall? These things happened because yes, Virginia, people really were getting seriously tired of the antiquated old-school James Bond.

In fact, a lot of action movies revolve around the same thing. And it is not a modern thing either, where society pushes these beliefs. It started in the middle ages, in popular stories such as Camelot and King Arthur, where brave "manly" knights rescue princesses from towers.

Yes, it's true, the Damsel in Distress trope is based on archaic beliefs that have little relevance in the modern world. Other things that were popular in the Middle Ages: witch-burning, rape, torture, slavery, duels to the death, government by the "divine right" of kings with perks for nobles and zero legal protection for commoners, and the hilarious sport of dogfighting. Bring 'em all back, I say. Good old-fashioned entertainment, amirite?

Itaria No Shintaku- your post was amazing. And it is all true. Gender equality is a good thing, but it is open for debate when our fundamental societal institutions are being changed.

Did you really just say that gender equality is open for debate? And which fundamental societal institutions are being changed exactly? Everywhere I look, I see things getting better. Women getting better pay and shattering glass ceilings. People of color finally getting less unequal opportunities. Gay people being allowed the freedom to marry and be seen as normal by a new generation that simply doesn't give a damn about their sexual preferences. Playing fields leveled everywhere you look, opportunities given to millions of people who didn't have a chance to lead successful lives two generations ago, better (although still far from perfect) protection from hate crimes and discrimination. Are these the societal institutions you think we should be preserving?

I wanted to spend 2 words on the "Damsel in Distress" trope.

My girlfriend LIKES me to care about various stuff. She preferes ME to drive. She likes to enjoy trips, enjoying views and captruing details that I cannot do while driving.

My girlfriend LIKES me to open her door of restaurants, cars, serving her the drinks at the table and so on.

... Whatever society tries to do, they would never change the way it is. Women are phisically weaker.

Many women enjoy these things. And many women don't. My wife is a mixture of old school chivalrous beliefs and the modern belief that NOTHING can stand in her way just because she's a woman. She likes me to open doors for her, too. She likes being pampered, getting massages and having me serve her drinks. She believes that because I'm a man, I'm responsible for all home improvement. Physically, she is weaker than me. I can overpower her, and I could probably knock her out with a good punch. But I am NOT her protector, because she doesn't need a protector. She has, on at least two occasions, stood up against gangsters - I'm talking about actual gangsters with guns, not punk kids wearing Eminem T-shirts - and forced them to back off because my wife is tough as %^#^&* nails. This is a very big part of why I love my wife.

Not every woman is like my wife. And not every woman is like your girlfriend. So, yes, there's room in the world for some Damsel in Distress stories. But there's also room for some Lara Crofts and Nikitas.

Think about it. They're trying to convince you that etnicity does not matter, based on the fact you may be racist, thus trying to cancel the heritages of races. They're trying to convince you that gender does not matter, based on the fact you may be sexist, thus trying to cancel the differences between male and female. They're trying to convince you that sexual orientantion does not matter, based on the fact you may be homophobe, thus trying to cancel the unicity of our sexual desires.

Um, no. "They" are trying to convince you that ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation don't matter, because for thousands of years those things have been used to keep certain classes of people down and deny them the opportunity to lead happy, fulfilling lives like everybody else. And that just isn't fair. No amount of crying about "cancelling our differences" will make it fair. It's time to give everybody equal opportunities, including the opportunity to be a Lego hero or a Ghostbuster.

Brains do work in different way, making men more suitable for some activities and women more suitable for others.

This doesn't mean that a certain woman can not attain results in a mainly-male field, and vice versa, only that it will be harder for her/him.

No offense, but this is dangerously close to the reasoning that was once used to claim that women could not be doctors. Or engineers. Or pilots. Or astronauts. This argument was tired in 1970. In 2013, it's ridiculous. The differences between male and female brains have not stopped women from making important scientific discoveries, saving lives every day and running billion-dollar corporations. Nor have they prevented millions of men from being wonderful, caring stay-at-home fathers (I was a SAHD for the first three years of my elder daughter's life, and I am still to a large extent "Mister Mom". My wife just doesn't have the "mothering gene". You'd be amazed how many women don't have it.)

We can argue about the differences until we're all blue (or pink) in the face, and nature vs. nurture, and we can cry about how this one insulted that one and help help, I'm being oppressed, come and witness the violence inherent in the system. But the simple fact is that there is no one philosophy that works for everyone. The classic Lego storyline of action-hero boys saving helpless girls works for a very large number of people, and that is why they sell. But they also don't work for a slightly smaller (but growing) number of people - and that is why there's controversy.

Let the record show that I'm still a huge Friends fan. Still waiting for Heartlake High! And I have one daughter who's anxiously waiting for a Dolphin Cruiser, while the other daughter keeps bugging me for new Chima sets. Strangely, the one who wants the Cruiser is the one who despises pink, and the one who wants Chima is our little Barbie Sparkle Pony Princess. Wow, I just had an incredible thought: what if we're all just individuals?

Peace be upon you, my brothers and sisters.

[Itaria No Shintaku]

I'm assuming you mean in real life, not Lego. Well, you own your experience, but I own mine, and I can tell you I've known plenty of female construction workers (my mother for one, and also one of my ex-girlfriends), and have met women who were firefighters, police officers, and medical personnel. Like, significant numbers of them. It's not feminist propaganda. It's the reality of the late 20th - early 21st century.

Not necessarily. In 34 years of life I have NEVER seen a female construcion worker.

So it's just about your country or mine, not a global condition.

Yes, it's true, the Damsel in Distress trope is based on archaic beliefs that have little relevance in the modern world. Other things that were popular in the Middle Ages: witch-burning, rape, torture, slavery, duels to the death, government by the "divine right" of kings with perks for nobles and zero legal protection for commoners, and the hilarious sport of dogfighting. Bring 'em all back, I say. Good old-fashioned entertainment, amirite?

Actually it's mostly like that today too.

Capitalism has awarded rich people what Monarchy and Noblety awarded centuries ago, but the problem is still the same. The lower class is still in a slavery condition, but's it's masked as freedom. It is not. You have to work 12 to 16 hours per day to get a minimum wage that barely helps you to survive. This is not really much much different from slavery.

And witch hunting? Do you really think people is entitled to have a personal opinion? Today witches are who opposes to gay marriage, or whoever seems close enough to pedophilia.

History repeats itself, in a less brutal way but things ain't changed much.

Many women enjoy these things. And many women don't. My wife is a mixture of old school chivalrous beliefs and the modern belief that NOTHING can stand in her way just because she's a woman. She likes me to open doors for her, too. She likes being pampered, getting massages and having me serve her drinks. She believes that because I'm a man, I'm responsible for all home improvement. Physically, she is weaker than me. I can overpower her, and I could probably knock her out with a good punch. But I am NOT her protector, because she doesn't need a protector. She has, on at least two occasions, stood up against gangsters - I'm talking about actual gangsters with guns, not punk kids wearing Eminem T-shirts - and forced them to back off because my wife is tough as %^#^&* nails. This is a very big part of why I love my wife.

Not every woman is like my wife. And not every woman is like your girlfriend. So, yes, there's room in the world for some Damsel in Distress stories. But there's also room for some Lara Crofts and Nikitas.

Thank you for agreeing that the "Damsel in distress" trope still applies in the nowadays world and hence it has nothing to be criticized.

I appreciate your intellectual honesty, really.

Um, no. "They" are trying to convince you that ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation don't matter, because for thousands of years those things have been used to keep certain classes of people down and deny them the opportunity to lead happy, fulfilling lives like everybody else. And that just isn't fair. No amount of crying about "cancelling our differences" will make it fair. It's time to give everybody equal opportunities, including the opportunity to be a Lego hero or a Ghostbuster.

Er... I never said that a black ghostbuster is wrong. I just said that is wrong to put it BECAUSE three white ghostbusters seemed racist.

Since there is no difference between black and white, nobody should feel offended if ghostbusters were all males, all females, two black and two white...

see? It doesn't make any difference!

Do you really think that someone would have complianed if the new lego city sets portraited only female cops?

No.

But if there aren't feminists complain.

Is that logical?

No offense, but this is dangerously close to the reasoning that was once used to claim that women could not be doctors. Or engineers. Or pilots. Or astronauts. This argument was tired in 1970. In 2013, it's ridiculous. The differences between male and female brains have not stopped women from making important scientific discoveries, saving lives every day and running billion-dollar corporations. Nor have they prevented millions of men from being wonderful, caring stay-at-home fathers (I was a SAHD for the first three years of my elder daughter's life, and I am still to a large extent "Mister Mom". My wife just doesn't have the "mothering gene". You'd be amazed how many women don't have it.)

Er... no sorry I do not agree with you. I believe that THIS is a social influence.

But that's just my 2p.

And no, I do feel that the reasonment that women and man can achieve the very same goals... well that's anachronistic.

Thanks to science we developed a nearly full knowledge of the deep differences that there are between male and femail which wasn't available years ago.

So that's a modern way into thinking.

We can argue about the differences until we're all blue (or pink) in the face, and nature vs. nurture, and we can cry about how this one insulted that one and help help, I'm being oppressed, come and witness the violence inherent in the system. But the simple fact is that there is no one philosophy that works for everyone. The classic Lego storyline of action-hero boys saving helpless girls works for a very large number of people, and that is why they sell. But they also don't work for a slightly smaller (but growing) number of people - and that is why there's controversy.

What I don't feel like it's the need to complain!

I mean, I really feel that sometimes there are wasted places in the 16 collectible minifigures, for minifigures that have really no use for me, because they HAD to put a female character in it. Pick series 11. A female robot? Seriously? Who needed that? I have never seen a female robot among boy's toys in my entire life. But they had to to be politically correct.

This should be insulting for women, IMHO.

Like the woman's day should be insulting for women.

IMHO

Peace.

[Laura Beinbrech]

Also in the Feminist Frequency video, the girl constantly complains about stereotypes such as you never see girls in the City sets. TBH, I've never seen a girl construction worker or a miner. I see a few police women and nurses. But I've never seen Coast Guard Search and Rescue women, or women firefighters.

I highly disagree with this statement. For some background information, I served in the US Navy from 1999 - 2005 (did one tour in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and one tour in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom), and from the get-go I had to deal with fellow sailors of the female persuasion. First of all, I was in an integrated division in boot camp. What that meant was that while we slept and showered in different barracks rooms (adjoining each other), half the male recruits and half the female recruits would form up with their counterparts and do all other training (including eating and marksmanship) together, and only fall out into their separate living areas in the evening. I'm also proud to say that my division not only set (and as far as I know, still holds) the record time for completing the obstacle course, but we also did better than ANY other division that went through at the same time, including all-male divisions. We accomplished this by working together effectively as a team, and while the female recruits weren't, ON AVERAGE, as strong as the male recruits, they were, again, on average, smaller and more agile, so our strategy was to alternate male and female recruits, so that they could help each other out during parts that one or the other was having difficulty with (which was allowed), and we cleaned up the competition!

During training, there weren't as many females in my classes, mainly because it was for electronics technician type work, and such fields are still male-dominated (which is why I was delighted to see Olivia's Invention Workshop in the first wave of the Friends sets), but we still had a few, and they went through the same exact training and sets of standards as the male sailors.

When I got to the fleet, it was a completely different story: The first ship I was stationed on, the USS O'Brien (DD-975) had about 30% of the crew (100 out of 300) consisting of female sailors, and the second (and last) ship I was stationed on, the USS Belleau Wood (LHA-3) about 60% of the crew was female, and every one of those female sailors pulled their weight and served with honor, which was reflected by my first ship receiving a Naval Unit Citation and two Meritorious Unit Citations during the time I was aboard, and the second ship I was on received a Meritorious Unit Citation as well as a Battle Efficiency ribbon during the time I was on board, and BOTH ships went through arduous Persian Gulf deployments while I was aboard (the first ship's deployment got extended by about 2 months due to 9-11 happening right before we were supposed to return to our home port in Yokosuka, Japan).....

In addition to that, I've been working as a DOD civilian employee for the past 4 years, and have seen numerous female soldiers (including one of the recent base commanders) on the army base that I work on.

So you can obviously see where my perspective on this subject is different from yours and Itaria No Shinkaku's: I've spent the past 13 years or so of my life in situations where men and women ARE for the most part, treated as equals and seen that, yes, it CAN, in fact, work, but I've also seen where more could be done.

Much like LEGO Friends: Yes, it is a step in the right direction, getting girls into construction toys and, perhaps even more importantly, parents and grandparents to view construction toys as acceptable for girls, but more could be done (I.e. hopefully eventually phasing out the minidolls and/or incorporating the pastel colors into the main lines).

As for the feminist frequency (and other feminists) commenting about women being objectified, Girl Writes What, a Youtube blogger and men's rights activist, had a good response to that in the form of her "Feminism and the Disposable Male" video (which has been shown in numerous sociology and gender relations classes in colleges around the US), which points out that, yes, under the old Patriarchal system, women WERE objectified, as valued treasures, because of their ability to bear children. However, at the same time, men were ALSO objectified, due to the fact that one man could, theoretically, father 100 children, as expendable beasts of burden, disposable cannon fodder and mobile sperm banks.

Unfortunately (and this is one area I agree with Itaria no Shinkaku on), while women have made great strides in being allowed to do the same jobs as men, and having equal rights, men are STILL treated as completely disposable: I've found that the surest way to tell if a self-styled feminist is truly for gender equality or just on a Matriarchal power-trip is to ask her whether she believes that women should also have to register for selective service in order to vote or get federal grants (in the US) or, in countries that have it, include women in mandatory military conscription. If they're serious about equality, their answer will be either, yes, women should be included in registering for the draft, or that all forms of forced military service should be abolished for everyone.

...And to bring this topic back around to the ORIGINAL complaints about stereotyping in LEGO themes, this is why, even now, boys are expected (encouraged even!) to engage in toys and activities that are action and danger-oriented (toy soldiers, police and fire fighting toys, etc), in order to get them ready for the day that they will be fixing bayonets and charging up the hill into cannon fire, or giving up their seat on a lifeboat to a woman, while girls are encouraged to play with baby dolls and easy-bake sets to prepare them for the role of motherhood and nurture. As I said before, that stark division of labor was a necessity back in the stone age, when humans were merely an extremely clever snack for big cats and other apex predators, rather than THE dominant life form on the planet.

Now that there are over 6 BILLION of us overcrowding the planet, and most apex predators tend to crap their pants and run whenever they come across some humans, such rigid gender roles are no longer necessary for the survival of the species, and IMO, are only holding back societal and scientific progress, and the sooner we can be rid of such outdated notions as specific gender roles, the better.