The Little Girl from the 1981 LEGO Ad is All Grown Up

[naf]

Interesting read. I really haven't looked at the Friends line too closely, but I'm kind of disturbed by how they describe the set in the article. The box says that the reporter needs to look her best in front of the camera, the "big" story is about a cake, and then she's going to talk about the weather? That's a very stereotypical and highly sexist view of female news anchors.

I have no problem with pink toys in general, and I like the fact that Lego has added shades of pink to the brick color palette. I just find it sad that companies feel like they need to make toys pastel and princess-y in order to appeal to girls. Thankfully we still have Creator, which is the closest thing we have today to those universal building sets.

Link to the article:

http://www.womenyous...-something-say/

** mods, I guess I ran over the character limit for the title of this post, I just copied the title from the article. please edit as it looks a little strange since it got cut off

Edited February 13, 2014 by naf

[xtremegoogler]

Pretty interesting article. Other companies do the same with their marketing, Playmobil, Mattel whatever, does that make you sad as well?

Ever since Jørgen Vig Knudstorp became CEO in 2001, Lego does not care anymore about education.

For instance, Lego used to be against war toys as well, now we have the Star Wars license.

Gender separate marketing works great, that's why Lego uses it.

At the end of the day, Lego is just another toy company, nothing less, nothing more. They just want to sell as much toys as possible.

[naf]

Pretty interesting article. Other companies do the same with their marketing, Playmobil, Mattel whatever, does that make you sad as well?

Yes it does.

Ever since Jørgen Vig Knudstorp became CEO in 2001, Lego does not care anymore about education.

For instance, Lego used to be against war toys as well, now we have the Star Wars license.

To be fair, star wars is fantasy. I know it it's a gray area, but it's not like Lego is producing real world tanks, and I don't think they ever will.

Gender separate marketing works great, that's why Lego uses it.

Says who? My stepson plays with My Little Pony. My stepdaughter is obsessed with Lego Ninjago. I know these are just two examples, but the female children in my life don't really like the pink aisle in the toy store.

At the end of the day, Lego is just another toy company, nothing less, nothing more. They just want to sell as much toys as possible.

This is true, but as a customer I have the right to comment on how they run their business. There are sexists undertones in some of the Friends sets, and I don't think that's sending the right message to our daughters.

[xtremegoogler]

Says who? My stepson plays with My Little Pony. My stepdaughter is obsessed with Lego Ninjago. I know these are just two examples, but the female children in my life don't really like the pink aisle in the toy store.

This is true, but as a customer I have the right to comment on how they run their business. There are sexists undertones in some of the Friends sets, and I don't think that's sending the right message to our daughters.

I never said you did not have to right to comment on how they run their business, in fact I agree with your criticism. It's just that it does not matter as long as the Friends sets keep selling like they do.

I don't think you like the marketing Hasbro does with My little pony, yet you (probably) still buy them, see what I mean? It's really hard to find gender neutral toys.

Most people never even think about these issues, that's how accepted it is and that's why gender marketing in toys works.

[naf]

I never said you did not have to right to comment on how they run their business, in fact I agree with your criticism. It's just that it does not matter as long as the Friends sets keep selling like they do.

I don't think you like the marketing Hasbro does with My little pony, yet you (probably) still buy them, see what I mean? It's really hard to find gender neutral toys.

Most people never even think about these issues, that's how accepted it is and that's why gender marketing in toys works.

I know, I'm sorry if my tone came off wrong. I wasn't criticizing your comments, just saying that even if toys sell well, I think we have a duty to criticize how that toy affects the way our children see the world. Toys can really affect a kid's first impressions of how the world works.

Stuff like this interests me now that I'm a new parent. I've read some research that suggests that gender-based marketing is a wash. If Friends sells well, I wonder if it's because girls want them, or do parents buy them for their daughters because it's "Lego for girls." Or are girls set up at an early age to think a certain way, that they get the pink Lego while their brother gets Ninjago?

My Little Pony is interesting. It's clearly marketed towards girls, yet there are many boys who play with it.

[Sisilisko]

I read the article. It was flawed in my opinion. It's not the first time the writer points to Friends on a gender issue. She also has a new book out...

Anyways, we have changed in the sense of how childrens toys are portrayed and what they contain. However before the Friends line the percetage of the lego bought by girls was 9%, now it is 28%..

I found the figures on another forum www.friendsbrick.com and haven't checked them.

If I remember correctly Friends is the forth largest product line in Lego

I don't care if the toy is gendersteriotyphical. We don't know what will come out of this. The more girls that build: the better! Children have a great sense of capturing freedom and they are building freely with much more modern stuff.

I am glad Lego did evolve to what it is today or it would not be at all.

[naf]

I read the article. It was flawed in my opinion. It's not the first time the writer points to Friends on a gender issue. She also has a new book out...

Why do you consider it flawed?

The article links to another one about the Friend's set in question. The news van comes decked out with lipstick, a hair brush, perfume, and a smart phone. There's a small sticker that shows the news story about said cake. Comes off just a tad sexist in my opinion.

Edited February 13, 2014 by naf

[Joebot]

In my opinion, the article is flawed because they cherry-picked a Friends set that met their preconceived agenda ("The Friends theme is sexist!")

They failed to mention the sets that depict girls playing soccer, camping, riding horses, working at a vet, painting, playing music, building a robot, going to school, practicing karate, and singing.

Are those activities sexist too?? Of course not. Thus, they're conveniently ignored by this author.

Somebody mentioned this over in the Friends thread, and it bears repeating here: The marketing of a toy is not the same as the toy itself. TLC conforms to gender-coding stereotypes in the way they market the Friends line (lots of glittery purple / pink boxes). This is unfortunate, but probably a necessary evil in the current toy industry. TLC didn't create that problem; they just caved into it.

But the toys themselves?? The actual sets?? That's a much more involved, complicated question, one that this author seems unwilling to engage with.

[Sisilisko]

Flawed because:

She is using Lego to "sell" her book. She speaks out of self intetest.

She points out the vanity gear and states that there is NO equipment. Clearly when I check the news van there is both a computer, an antenns and a camera. So she omitted the real truth, what more has she omitted? Earlier when she wrote about a friends set she stared that they are more expensive and less complicated to build then other simulator sets: clearly ignorant to write that. I will not trust that lady. I don't give her credit. You are free to if you like. I won't hold it against you. :)

However I do think she has a point in her article but Lego is not really to blame: we all went down different iles when "lead" by big companies.

[caperberry]

The poster model is also incorrect to say that Lego was gender-neutral in 1981. Scala jewellery was around that time and wasn't TLG's first attempt to appeal to girls.

Perhaps the difference is that Friends is successful and all tlg's previous efforts have been unsuccessful.

[Lyichir]

I've made my opinions on this story perfectly clear on other sites. Either she or the publication that found her is exploiting her image to make a point (a point that is not based on facts, and works against all that Lego Friends has accomplished by proving that girls can enjoy building toys just as much as boys). Non-gendered basic brick sets (of the sort that is featured in the original ad) still exist and are still perfectly good for both genders, and all Lego Friends has done is provide an option for the girls who prefer that sort of thing.

I'm sick and tired of that gender neutral ad being brought up, anyway. Yes, it's completely different from the hyper-gendered advertising of today. But gendered advertising, even at its most repulsive, exists for a reason: to target a specific market. From effectiveness standpoint, did that ad from back in the day really make more parents buy their daughters Lego? Based on the lopsided gender diversity of Lego's audience up until the release of Lego Friends (and the comparatively low number of girls from that era who are AFOLs today), I would wager it didn't do as well as intended. I'm more interested in results than in feel-good advertising, and I'm sure Lego is as well.

[TanTile]

on my blog stats I have noticed that with the few Friends sets I have reviewed, Emmas sports car has the second highest hits of all my reviews.

The top one is Coast guard patrol boat. Both of these sets fight for the top spot week in week out. both were done in September last year

and if I don't have a new blog post for a week, I see that each day the Emma's Spots car gets top view count every day.

so regardless whether they have pink pieces in it I believe this is a strong LEGO set that is designed well and the views prove that.

[Sarah]

It seems people only get upset when a certain subset of play-themes are exposed in toys. They don't have problem with cars or police or fire. Only with the dollhouse and makeup type themes. So girls who like the former are lauded and girls who liked the latter are dismissed as being just a product of their programming.

[naf]

It seems people only get upset when a certain subset of play-themes are exposed in toys. They don't have problem with cars or police or fire. Only with the dollhouse and makeup type themes. So girls who like the former are lauded and girls who liked the latter are dismissed as being just a product of their programming.

I think the themes presented in Friends definitely has a place in Lego. I just find it troubling that Lego has chosen to market one theme towards girls, and umteen other themes to boys.

If you take a look at some of the current Creator sets, like the treehouse, beach house, and cottage, these sets only include a male minifigure. The only "house" type set that has both a male and a female is the family house.

I've said before that my stepdaughter loves Ninjago. Her favorite character is Jay, but she always "pretends" to be Nya while playing. Lego has been becoming more character driven in their themes, I think there's room for Lego to put a few more strong female characters in their toys.

Cars, fire and police are a great example. Lego City has become the "cops and robbers" theme for the most part. That's fine, but where are the female police officers? Female race car drivers? Emma's sports car hardly counts, lets compare apples to apples here.

I talked to a female friend at work today who is also another Lego addict. She played with the Space themes in the 80's and 90's, but said she felt like she "didn't belong in the club." She always felt like she was playing with "boys toys." By simply taking their current themes, and giving females a more prominent role, I think it could help reduce this gender gap.

Edited February 14, 2014 by naf

[naf]

Just came to mind since I recently built them with my family... the Winter Village series is a great example of a successful gender neutral theme. Males and females are represented pretty equally, both my son and daughter enjoy playing with them, and enjoyed building them.

[aurly]

Cars, fire and police are a great example. Lego City has become the "cops and robbers" theme for the most part. That's fine, but where are the female police officers? Female race car drivers?

Female robbers?

I talked to a female friend at work today who is also another Lego addict. She played with the Space themes in the 80's and 90's, but said she felt like she "didn't belong in the club." She always felt like she was playing with "boys toys." By simply taking their current themes, and giving females a more prominent role, I think it could help reduce this gender gap.

Or boys could stop playing with them, feeling like they're playing with "girl toys".

But anyway, the 80's space minifigures were gender neutral as far as I can remember, so it can't be the lack of female minifigures. So why would she feel that way? Would pink spaceships help?

[Joebot]

I think there's room for Lego to put a few more strong female characters in their toys.

Agreed with that. Sometimes TLC's hands are tied by the source material of the license. There simply aren't a lot of female characters in TMNT, Star Wars, or especially in Lord of the Rings (total sausage-fest).

But TLC is totally dropping the ball in the Super Hero theme. Both Marvel and DC have hundreds of female characters, both villains and heroes. There have admittedly been a few female mini-figs (Poison IVy, Black Cat, Harley Quinn, Wonder Woman, Black Widow, and FINALLY Batgirl off the top of my head), but almost as many have been the "girlfriend" role (Mary Jane Watson, Pepper Potts, Lois Lane). That's disappointing.

[Sarah]

Now see. The sets I can recall as a child. Late 70s, early 80s.

1. The Farm set -- had men and women figures. You built them up using blocks

2. The kitchen -- 1 little kid minifig. The other figures were family members built up using blocks

3. The bathroom -- 1 little kid minifig. And grandma I think to bathe her

4. The firehouse -- had one woman minifigure and some firemen. And two fire trucks and really cool roll up and down doors.

5. a couple of space sets -- don't remember the details But it was easy to turn anything into a spaceship.

5. A tiny set of "Figures" only. Castle men I think.

6. A tiny police car set.

I have a technic set in the Lego I got from my parents that I don't recall at ALL. So even if I purchased it it made no impression on me.

Did i lose interest in Lego because of a lack of female minifigs? or because of the themes in the sets. Honestly? I suspect it was the themes. I wanted to tell stories and have backdrops for my play and, as much as I enjoyed science fiction and space and such, the sets I could get were not satisfying my desire to play. I was the tomboy-type of girl with tons of Hot Wheels, Chemistry sets, Radio Shack 100-experiement electrical sets. I played with Star Wars action figures at a friend's house, and in his sandbox-fort. But I also enjoyed doll houses, Mandy dolls, Ginny dolls, Barbie and Skipper dolls, etc. I think if Friends type sets would have been around back then I would have lasted in Lego longer because my preferred way to play in Lego is the way Friends sets are designed for -- not just building a cool model. But Building a backdrop that you can then tell stories in.

I am just thankful Lego is now building sets that can be a backdrop for stories. I don't care what they call the theme name or where they put it on the store shelves. And I don't find them overbearingly pink. I'm not a huge fan of pink, but the colors of Friends, while pleasing to the eye, are not sickeningly pink no matter what the criticism aimed at them. I am perfectly willing to walk down every aisle of the toy area for what I want. Won't be the first or the last time. And I am THRILLED at how well Friends are doing. Lego is doing something right with these sets now because they are flying off the shelves.

PS Does anyone else who remembers their first sets ever thing to compare the building techniques in today's sets to then?

I remember a LOT Of placing block on block. I don't remember a lot of the cool techniques I see now. Like making a piece and clicking it on to a bar, then flipping it back to put it in place. The flatter bricks are much harder to pull apart -- but they allow a lot more flexibility in the building.

As for Superheroes -- as I got older, the "Super" themes I got into were Superman (movies) and Batman and Robin (TV show) (I even wrote fan fic in the TV Batman and Robin universe). I also enjoyed the Star Wars movies and watched the Star Trek TV reruns obsevively (Fanfic written here too). (And Scarecrow and Mrs. King, Little House on the Prairie, Brady Bunch, TNG, Babylon 5... etc. This is not an exhaustive list)

I can't recall ever wondering where the female superheroes were or trying to insert extra girls into my written works because of some perceived lack of them, etc. When I chose what books to read, I read what I enjoyed, no matter if the protagonist was a girl or a boy. And I wonder if more girls are like me than boys. Or if I'm just really unique not to care at all if there is a true gender balance in my consumption?

Edited February 14, 2014 by Sarah

[naf]

PS Does anyone else who remembers their first sets ever thing to compare the building techniques in today's sets to then?

I remember a LOT Of placing block on block. I don't remember a lot of the cool techniques I see now. Like making a piece and clicking it on to a bar, then flipping it back to put it in place. The flatter bricks are much harder to pull apart -- but they allow a lot more flexibility in the building.

Yup, I've built every one of my old sets I had as a kid, it's part of what took me out of my dark age. I was actually surprised by how well the old sets stand up to the newer ones. But then again, I'm looking at them through biased eyes since I have so many fond memories with them. The first run of Lego pirate ships still look good today. I think the biggest difference is that modern sets use more SNOT techniques, achieving a more rounded shape in some models, and the use of technic pieces in system sets to either strengthen a model or to add movement.

[AmperZand]

Gender separate marketing works great, that's why Lego uses it.

Exactly. What the article inadvertently suggests is that a generation of counter-stereotypical gender socialisation hasn't worked. Boys and girls still have different toy preferences that, by and large, fall along gender stereotypical lines. Could it be that the reason for the divide is biological? I have argued elsewhere on EB that is indeed the reason and there's mounting evidence to suggest I'm right. As seen in the article, the socialisation school of thought in contrast relies on anecdotes and supposition. Proponents of socialisation can rail against Mother Nature all they like. It won't make any difference and marketers including TLG's know it.

[naf]

Exactly. What the article inadvertently suggests is that a generation of counter-stereotypical gender socialisation hasn't worked. Boys and girls still have different toy preferences that, by and large, fall along gender stereotypical lines. Could it be that the reason for the divide is biological? I have argued elsewhere on EB that is indeed the reason and there's mounting evidence to suggest I'm right. As seen in the article, the socialisation school of thought in contrast relies on anecdotes and supposition. Proponents of socialisation can rail against Mother Nature all they like. It won't make any difference and marketers including TLG's know it.

A generation of counter-stereotypical gender socialisation? I find this to hardly be the case. I'd argue that gender segregation is stronger than ever. It's the kids that are starting to break these molds. My Little Pony is a great example. It's a toy most definitely targeted towards girls, yet there is a large male following. See my Ninjago example above, my step-daughter loves them. And she's been exposed to Lego Friend's, she played with them but never asked to have any of them for her own. She asked for the Samurai Mech for her birthday this year.

I don't think there's any biological reason for children to fall along stereotypical gender lines. I would be interested to see your mounting evidence, because I haven't seen anything that suggests this.

I don't want to be misrepresented as thinking it's wrong for girls to like pink, or Lego Friend's, or anything that is traditionally girly. I think there's a place for it all. My criticism is that Lego has created this one "female friendly" line, while seemingly ignoring the fact that there are plenty of girls out there who would prefer the other themes, and would probably enjoy seeing some stronger female roles in those sets.

[Sisilisko]

I totally agree with Naf saying:

"A generation of counter-stereotypical gender socialisation? I find this to hardly be the case. I'd argue that gender segregation is stronger than ever."

I also agree with what I understood naf to say that: the kids are breaking new ground. I live in a very liberal community. We have girls dressing up as spinderman, boys going all princessy and all in between. Seems it is very bossy little men who go all in the Princess stuff. Go figure.

Research has shown that there are more similarities between any male or female brain than any pair same sex brains. [Janet Shibley Hyde, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA].

Socialization is key. Children respond emediatly to our signals: concious and unconcious.

I find it so odd how we problematize "girly toys" saying we don't wanna label girls pink. But we willingly put our sons to the stakes of violence Of Ninjago or Chima or LOTR or SW. Go figure?!

I prefer my boys playing stables, solving physics problems and learning to cooperate any day over having them go on a crusade of violence. But do they have freedom to choose? Yes. They do play war and fights. It's ok.

Do I as their guardian provide choice? Yes.

Do I influence them? Yes. I try my best being a in my opinion positive rolemodel.

Do I always know when I influence them? No.

Lego is one toy that could be gender neutral and when boiled down is. It is plastic bricks stuck together.

We can create anything.

It is about the joy of building!

Edited February 15, 2014 by Sisilisko

[GregoryBrick]

Exactly. What the article inadvertently suggests is that a generation of counter-stereotypical gender socialisation hasn't worked. Boys and girls still have different toy preferences that, by and large, fall along gender stereotypical lines. Could it be that the reason for the divide is biological? I have argued elsewhere on EB that is indeed the reason and there's mounting evidence to suggest I'm right. As seen in the article, the socialisation school of thought in contrast relies on anecdotes and supposition. Proponents of socialisation can rail against Mother Nature all they like. It won't make any difference and marketers including TLG's know it.

I'm curious to know who is doing this research. Some names and links would be much appreciated.

[naf]

We can create anything.

It is about the joy of building!

It really is all about this. I took my kids to see The Lego Movie this weekend (awesome movie, btw). I had a little treat for them when we got home - I got them the melting chamber and cloud cuckoo sets. I have a son and daughter, and I let them choose what they wanted to play with. My son went for cloud cuckoo immediately, and my daughter went for the melting chamber. They built the models and then immediately took them apart to start free building. I was surprised because they never really did that before, they mostly play with the minifigs. It was fun to watch.

[Herbnosis]

Hi, new here, only my second post, feeling a little like ordinary Emmet right now!

Contributing a tiny bit of useless information here: my two-year-old checked out a Lego Friends book ("Friends Forever" by Helen Murray) from the library, one that I had the pleasure of reading to her before bedtime. Within the first few pages, the reader learns that Olivia, the new girl in Heartlake City, wants to be a scientist, inventor or engineer when she grows up. Later, we learn her mother is a doctor.

Does the backstory of a Lego minifig (are the Friends people really minifigs? A discussion for another thread, I suppose) in a book separate from the set add anything to this conversation? I don't know, but I thought it was worth mentioning that someone at Lego (in 2012, per the year of publication of "Friends Forever") approved the idea to create that backstory somewhere.