Friends "Controversy"

[Darkdragon]

I hope you guys don't mind, but I joined the eurobricks forums just to participate in this thread. I was really, really disappointed by the quality of the discussion about the new line elsewhere on the internet.

~snip~

Thank you! I posted my thoughts in the other Friends thread and won't repost in this one, but I do want to say that I agree 100% with everything you said.

[PhoBWanKenobi]

I am glad you joined to add to the discussion PhoBWanKenobi because your post provides such a clear and logical perspective.

And on the issue about Lego just being for building, I have a teenage son who only ever played with Lego structures if I built them for him; however, he played a lot with minifigures (customising them and playing with them).

Thanks, lorax. LOVE the TMBG vid, btw.

I actually think there are plenty of boys who play imaginatively and plenty of girls who like to build--but in so many of these discussions there's this stated disdain for "dolls" (and a lot of sneering at Polly Pocket, Playmobil, and Barbie), when these are toys many kids LOVE playing with. Lego sets that combine the best features of these toys with building? Plus have little teeny tiny robots? Sign me up!

[sharky]

let's not get started on the figures. to keep a long description short, they're ugly, they don't fit into the minifig world. however, i can see that the minifigs wouldn't work in a "Friends" theme, for some reason... in any case, in my view, they belong to the category: "waisted plastic"

I understand that you don't like the new minifigure, and they are a departure from the standard minifigure. I'm not crazy about them either. But, I don't think they are 'ugly' in the least bit.

From a playability aspect I think they missed the mark. Case in point, a saw some preliminary pics of the summer 2012 sets and all the Friends figures have to basically stand up on the horses. Of course standard minifigures also stand in a horse, but their leg height is such that you get a sitting effect. The Friends minifigures are taller and it looks very odd, IMO.

[lightningtiger]

Now perhaps we should consider this that the packaging, styling of the figures, etc., are they aiming these at the girls who will play with them or maybe aiming them at the parents or sometimes worse....grandparents who will buy them because the box art is pretty ?

[Xyver]

I am very happy that they have released the Friends line. I have a 5 year old daughter who really enjoys playing with the Lego sets that I have, 'play' being the key word. I'll build the set and she'll play around with the minfigs.

I have a small town scene set up for her which she loves and will play 'family' in the houses etc, that's when she's not playing arrest the criminal. She's also a huge fan of Star Wars (takes after her me) and loves playing with them too, but has been wanting more of the Belleville sets, or barbie lego, as she calls it. The problem was that the Belleville was not to scale with the rest of the buildings, but with these new Friends sets, they are. These are going to provide a nice addition rather than just more police and firemen.

Girls love to play dolls and many of them like to play with Lego, this combines the two in scale, what could be better?

Although I do believe Lego has always been a unisex toy, most of the sets appeal more to boys than girls, in general. The local shops even advertise Lego under 'Boys Toys' which has always erked me, so its not Lego's fault.

These new sets will give younger girls the dolls they want to play with, on a scale that means they can get other Lego buildings to compliment them and also encourage them to build, something other doll lines do not. I think thats a great thing.

My only annoyance is that they aren't coming to Australia until March, and my daughters birthday is at the start of March, they better be in early...

[AndyC]

first, isn't it a bit too late to use a '90s series? all you got, these days, are reruns and endless discussions on whether there will ever be an actual film... i can only assume that this is a desperate move by Lego to get more girls into Lego. yes, to me, this looks like a theme for girls.

It's not in any way associated with '90s TV show 'Friends', because that would indeed be a bit rubbish. It just happens to have the same name.

[Laura Beinbrech]

I hope you guys don't mind, but I joined the eurobricks forums just to participate in this thread. I was really, really disappointed by the quality of the discussion about the new line elsewhere on the internet.

Welcome PhoBWanKenobi, and I agree with you on the quality of discussion about this new theme on non-LEGO fan sites (most LEGO fan site discussions have been very civilized).

But to me, it looks like TLC put a lot of care into NOT making this set another faux-Disney-Princess toy. The problem with Disney Princess stuff has always been, to me, the limited interests and the passivity of female characters. You sit around waiting for your prince to come, that sort of thing.

That is a VERY good point... What do you think about Disney's latest trend to more action-oriented princesses (i.e. Tangled, Brave, etc)? The reason I'm asking is that a Disney Princesses theme for Duplo has been confirmed, and there have been rumors and conjecture floating around here about the possibility of a SYSTEM Disney Princess Theme, and I've seen some people posting concerns that such a theme might be done with Friends-style figures instead of normal minifigs, so it's tangentaly related....

There's also a bizarre assumption that all of these sets are completely prefab, and that doesn't seem to be the case, either. In fact, these sets aren't even very PINK. The primary colors seem to be purple and blue.

I agree 100%: Not only are the builds good and solid, from what I can discern from the promo pics, but many of them would be entirely applicable to OTHER themes, such as the Robot (one of the main reasons I'm getting Olivia's Inventor's Workshop ), the Sports Car and the lawnmower in the Olivia's House set (I'm planning on attempting to make a dark-green and black version of Stephanie's Cool Convertible, a-la the Emerald Night train... Maybe call it the Emerald Night Rider? ).

They're not overly sexualized; just as many wear pants as skirts. I can see these really appealing to modern girls with a wide range of interests. Heck, it has me shopping for lego for the first time in fifteen years.

Yes, and the best part about that, IMO, is the fact that in most cases, the same character is wearing skirts or pants in different sets (Ex: Olivia, the brainy girl, wears a yellow top with green pants in her Inventor's Workshop set, a pink top and skirt in her Olivia's House set and a pink top and blue skirt with lavender leggings in her treehouse set), so you don't end up with the almost equally stereotypical "tomboy & girly-girl" dynamic that Western media seems to like so much... The cherry on top, as it were, is the fact that you can take the girl figs apart into the same amount of major parts that you can a standard minifig, so young ladies who like this line can mix and match parts to either customize a character they like or create an entirely new one, just like you can with regular minifigs (I'm mostly in it for the hair pieces and hair piece accessories such as ribbons and bows )

Oh, and welcome to the wonderful world of AFOL-dom.

[Ickelpete]

My first thought on the new Friends line was that it was very similar to Polly Pocket in both scale and design.

I am sure as the real target purchaser of this product is parents of girls between 6 and 12 it will sell very well.

On a personal note I asked my daughter if she would like any of the Friends sets and she said no she did not want any however she is excited about the lord of the rings sets coming out next year, I am glad she does not fit the typical marketing stereotype!!

PeterS

[MAH4546]

To be honest I'm completely baffled why there even is a controversy surrounding this theme. If Lego is appealing to both boys AND girls what's the problem? It just shows that they appeal to all audiences.

The controversy isn't as big as one might be led to believe. It's being largely done by a feminist organization that fights against female stereotypes in consumer products and has asked its members/followers to spam LEGO.

I think this range has great potential. I would have preferred if it were "minifig scale" but nonetheless I look forward to picking up a few of the sets.

[Ash]

Although I do believe Lego has always been a unisex toy, most of the sets appeal more to boys than girls, in general. The local shops even advertise Lego under 'Boys Toys' which has always erked me, so its not Lego's fault.

My issue is that I think it is LEGO's fault. I don't have a problem with this line and I hope it's a success. However I do have a problem with the way LEGO is increasingly becoming a boy's toy and they don't seem to be making an effort to make their other lines more inclusive. Aside from licensed sets where they are somewhat limited by the source materials you just need to look at their recent in-house lines. Atlantis, Pharaoh's Quest, Alien Conquest and the new Dino line each have only a single female character who appears in only one or two sets. Most of the time they're some kind of support character not actually part of the team fighting Aliens or Dinosaurs or whatever. City is slightly better but still only had four or five out of around thirty or so last year.

In the past there was a lot less emphasis on minifigures and conflict and LEGO as a building toy could be seen as unisex. However more and more the set revolve around a characters in some kind of narrative and in most of those narratives women seem to play a very minor role. I think LEGO's claim of being a unisex toy has been growing weaker as time goes by. Yes building a house out of LEGO isn't gender restrictive in anyway, but fighting Aliens or Dinosaurs apparently is and increasingly that's what LEGO is being marketed as.

I think some for me that's a big part of the issue. That this line in itself isn't a bad thing. I'd just prefer LEGO to try and appeal to both genders in other ways as well. And this is as a father of a male child. I just think we should be past this by now and I get so tired of all his toys continuously reenforcing the idea that it's men who fight the bad guys, and men who have adventures and men who explore and women.... like looking after sick animals. It's just a message that's he's bombarded with constantly and I really don't see any reason why it should be the case.

I think there is a perception that people who find any kind of controversy in something like this are just complaining for the sake of complaining and that wanting everything to be equal with regards to toys is just a silly goal. But I think a lot of the dialogue surrounding this particular toy is part of a much bigger and ongoing issues that affects boys as much as girls. I want my kid to be able to be a boy and do boyish thing and play with boy's toys (or girls toys if he wants!). I don't want to live in a world of uniform unisexuality. However, I also want him to grow up knowing that both girls and boys can do and be anything they want. And while I do my best to teach him this, the toys he plays with, the movies he watch, for the most part send a very different message which just seems crazy in this day and age.

Edited December 22, 2011 by Ash

[lightningtiger]

Lego is not totally to blame, as I have written before, narrow-minded and lacking set knowledge parents/grand parents. I have lost count of the number of parents, grandparents and worse store staff (only in major retail stores) who I have given informed advice....from a AFOL who is also a parent.

Lack of understanding of what Lego has become is the main fault of Lego in this decade, Lego should use the power of television to educate everyone....a tv show might help. Doesn't sound as silly as one might think, hands up would watch a show on Lego eh ?

Friend's will be a success, only because it fills that void thanks to those same uneducated narrow-minded parents who think pink is for girls and blue is for boys....sadly there are people out there who still believe that.

[SilvaShado]

My only problem with Friends is the minifigures not being normal minifigures. I have the fear that they'll start using these figures for all female figures, which would really suck. If they do a Disney series in system, I really hope they use normal minifigures. There are not enough female minifigures as it is.

Here's a blog I wrote on the Brick Blogger and I've gotten a lot of feedback that is in agreement with me.

[Laura Beinbrech]

My only problem with Friends is the minifigures not being normal minifigures. I have the fear that they'll start using these figures for all female figures, which would really suck. If they do a Disney series in system, I really hope they use normal minifigures. There are not enough female minifigures as it is.

Here's a blog I wrote on the Brick Blogger and I've gotten a lot of feedback that is in agreement with me.

Ah, so that was your blog I linked earlier: I must say you pretty much hit the nail on the head, and I agree with just about everything you said...

I guess for now, we should just relax and wait a bit to see how everything pans out....

[Vindicare]

My issue is that I think it is LEGO's fault. I don't have a problem with this line and I hope it's a success. However I do have a problem with the way LEGO is increasingly becoming a boy's toy and they don't seem to be making an effort to make their other lines more inclusive. Aside from licensed sets where they are somewhat limited by the source materials you just need to look at their recent in-house lines. Atlantis, Pharaoh's Quest, Alien Conquest and the new Dino line each have only a single female character who appears in only one or two sets. Most of the time they're some kind of support character not actually part of the team fighting Aliens or Dinosaurs or whatever. City is slightly better but still only had four or five out of around thirty or so last year.

In the past there was a lot less emphasis on minifigures and conflict and LEGO as a building toy could be seen as unisex. However more and more the set revolve around a characters in some kind of narrative and in most of those narratives women seem to play a very minor role. I think LEGO's claim of being a unisex toy has been growing weaker as time goes by. Yes building a house out of LEGO isn't gender restrictive in anyway, but fighting Aliens or Dinosaurs apparently is and increasingly that's what LEGO is being marketed as.

I think some for me that's a big part of the issue. That this line in itself isn't a bad thing. I'd just prefer LEGO to try and appeal to both genders in other ways as well. And this is as a father of a male child. I just think we should be past this by now and I get so tired of all his toys continuously reenforcing the idea that it's men who fight the bad guys, and men who have adventures and men who explore and women.... like looking after sick animals. It's just a message that's he's bombarded with constantly and I really don't see any reason why it should be the case.

I think there is a perception that people who find any kind of controversy in something like this are just complaining for the sake of complaining and that wanting everything to be equal with regards to toys is just a silly goal. But I think a lot of the dialogue surrounding this particular toy is part of a much bigger and ongoing issues that affects boys as much as girls. I want my kid to be able to be a boy and do boyish thing and play with boy's toys (or girls toys if he wants!). I don't want to live in a world of uniform unisexuality. However, I also want him to grow up knowing that both girls and boys can do and be anything they want. And while I do my best to teach him this, the toys he plays with, the movies he watch, for the most part send a very different message which just seems crazy in this day and age.

Why do you assume the female characters from the aforementioned themes are secondary? Personally, they're just as much a part of the team as the males. It's not like the females are bringing the rest food or something on the box art...

Edited December 22, 2011 by Legocrazy81

[Haltiamieli]

My only problem with Friends is the minifigures not being normal minifigures. I have the fear that they'll start using these figures for all female figures, which would really suck. If they do a Disney series in system, I really hope they use normal minifigures. There are not enough female minifigures as it is.

Ladyfigs in a same set with normal minifigs? I think the possibility of that is much smaller than Lego changing all the minifigs to fleshtones, which I don't think is particularly probable in the foreseeable future either. I have to admit, though, that I also presume that if Disney license is some day brought to System sets, it will be with ladyfigs.

[SilvaShado]

Ah, so that was your blog I linked earlier: I must say you pretty much hit the nail on the head, and I agree with just about everything you said...

I guess for now, we should just relax and wait a bit to see how everything pans out....

Yeah, my husband told me to relax too. I'm getting too worked up over something I can't really control. Plus it hasn't happened yet. If it does, well, then LEGO is going to hear from me and from as many people as I can gather.

Ladyfigs in a same set with normal minifigs? I think the possibility of that is much smaller than Lego changing all the minifigs to fleshtones, which I don't think is particularly probable in the foreseeable future either. I have to admit, though, that I also presume that if Disney license is some day brought to System sets, it will be with ladyfigs.

I'm a little paranoid about LEGO's decisions because they don't make them with us adult fans in mind for the most part. And even then, they're not paying attention to the current young fans who, from what I've heard, love the normal minifigure. I'd just be really disappointed in LEGO at the lost opporutnity to have more female minifigures, especially Princesses.

Here's a different perspective that I found, which makes another good point. LEGO should be gender equal and give boys a chance to play with something other than police and violent warriors.

Edited December 23, 2011 by SilvaShado

[Laura Beinbrech]

Here's a different perspective that I found, which makes another good point. LEGO should be gender equal and give boys a chance to play with something other than police and violent warriors.

Yes! That was what I was trying to point out earlier: I'm somewhat in the same general category as that author's son (i.e. I have some stereotypically "feminine" interests, like flowers and sewing), and I agree with what she's saying: Saying that marketing pink, frilly stuff for girls is JUST AS stereotypical as saying that all the quasi-military sets are "for boys"... BOTH are EQUALLY limiting and stereotypical...

Unfortunately the root of the problem, as LightningTiger has already said, is that you still have entirely too many parents and grandparents who think it's 1911 instead of 2011 and think that girls should play with the pink princessy stuff and the boys should play with the blue shooty stuff, and that most likely won't change much until most of the old fossils are relegated to the history museum where they belong (this, of course is also why it's taken so long for the US military to allow women on submarines and why it'll probably be another 10-15 years before they allow female soldiers into actual combat roles or special forces: Too many old fogies at the pentagon who still think its 1953, and continue to perpetuate standards and regulations that have as much to do with modern warfare as smooth-bore muskets and wooden-hulled sailing ships. )

[LegoMyMamma]

Hey EB, I created a blog to compile the online activities of a feminist group vilifying TLG because of the new Friends line (which, btw, the Friends theme site went live today on Friends.LEGO.com)

Here is the blog: http://feminists-freak-out-over-lego-friends.blogspot.com/

They started a twitter hashtag of #liberateLEGO to spread their social-action agenda. I have been using their own hastag to counter it with information they have left off their articles

Anyway, feel free to comment and not let a few squeaky wheels skew the facts about LEGO Friends. It's meant to get some girls who don't currently play with LEGO interested -- such as girls who play with American Dolls, etc. -- this way they can realize they can build their own playset with their own imagination! Plus, it's merely one theme -- and they claim LEGO is not advancing gender equity.

Thanks!

[JopieK]

Hey EB, I created a blog to compile the online activities of a feminist group vilifying TLG because of the new Friends line (which, btw, the Friends theme site went live today on Friends.LEGO.com)

Here is the blog: http://feminists-fre...s.blogspot.com/

They started a twitter hashtag of #liberateLEGO to spread their social-action agenda. I have been using their own hastag to counter it with information they have left off their articles

Anyway, feel free to comment and not let a few squeaky wheels skew the facts about LEGO Friends. It's meant to get some girls who don't currently play with LEGO interested -- such as girls who play with American Dolls, etc. -- this way they can realize they can build their own playset with their own imagination! Plus, it's merely one theme -- and they claim LEGO is not advancing gender equity.

Thanks!

They are nuts, all (at least almost all) LEGO fans like more colors. Terrific sets!!! Let those feminists be kept busy with more important stuff. My wife likes to build e.g. that Unimog and Tower bridge but I know for sure that our nieces that like dolls, normal LEGO, etc. will be crazy about Friends (so hope we get discounts soon ;))

[SilvaShado]

I think the feminists are going way too far.

The only thing I complain about and have heard the most complaints about from LEGO fans is that the ladyfigs are not compatible with normal minifigures. The sets are good and appropriate with the content, it's just frustrating that the figs are different especially when LEGO doesn't make enough female minifigures as it is.

But Friends will do the job that LEGO wanted it to do, which is to get new girls interested in LEGO. I just hope it doesn't alienate current fans too much. And I wonder whether it will keep those new girls interested for very long...

[lorax]

I know I shouldn't, but I can't help but respond on the Lego facebook page. Most opponents have not even seen the sets and have made misinformed judgments because they have been told to object to the Friends range. Comments about how they are dumbed down, they are mostly pink, that the figures have 'ample' breasts, that there are no positive role models (it is all pampering and beauty) etc...

There is this little cartoon where a person is behind the computer and is supposed to be going to bed and they call out: 'I can't, someone on the internet is wrong'. That is how I am about this

[Fallenangel]

Looking at your blog posts and your Flickr page, I get the impression that you're writing off the activities of this PBG group as a joke... which isn't entirely inappropriate.

[def]

This topic has been fairly exhausted in this thread:

http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=63559

[lisqr]

Poor lego, got in the cross-hair of some extreme feminist group. Hope TLG's PR department saw this one coming, because I want this theme to succeed and bring us more colors.

[Thrawnie]

I'm trying to understand why this is raising such a stink when nobody seemed to complain about, say, Bellville or Clikits, both of which were considerably more pink and girly, and, more importantly, were poorer quality products. (maybe there was some controversy and I just didn't see it, I don't exactly go looking for that sort of thing)

If they were complaining about those lines, I could actually see myself agreeing with them somewhat, but honestly I think Friends is really a major step in the right direction for quality girl-oriented toys.