def

M'Kyuun, a nice, well-thought out post About the gender-stereotype worries, I can tell an anecdote about when I worked at Toys R Us. It was during the time Sailor Moon was a big fad. Obviously, between the majority women characters, and 'girl' colors, it was aimed at girls. But, the anime was anime, and not overtly feminine (compared to something like Jem or She-ra, from my childhood). On more than one Christmas, I had dad's sincerely asking me if they should be worried that their son asked for something from the Sailor Moon line, usually one of the weapon type things, rather than the dolls. It was a serious worry for dads, that their kid could be asking for something kept in the aisle next to Barbie. Gender roles are still quite prominent. It's not something that comes up on this site much at all, but in this thread, you have some people discussing maturely, while others are using feminist as a dirty word and making all sorts of claims. I wonder if most have really considered the topic before. When I worked at Toys R Us, I was deeply reminded of gender roles, and this was when I was at university, studying sociology, history, and that sort of thing, so I really gave thought to how the store markets to children.(check it out, here!) And now that I have a daughter, I heavily consider it. The only American kids products I expose my daughter to so far is Dora the Explorer, since it's quite gender neutral. So, admittedly I had opinions on the larger issue before this topic opened up. But, if the topic is unenjoyable, by all means take a break

Why not show examples then? If you think that many comments are like this, prove it. I think it's a minority, and really, I haven't seen any. You are the one with the most outrageous hyperbole. And LEGO has no say in where stuff gets stocked I worked at Toys R Us. The End-caps, as mentioned in the business week article, are paid for by the toy company, and the location is chosen by the company. In fact, we were told that if we didn't have enough stock of the preset product, we needed substitutions from the same manufacturer, since the store would get in lots of trouble if something else was there. Got that, Hikaro, LEGO, not the RETAILERS. LEGO is a major manufacturer, and they have a lot of influence as to how and where their product is displayed in major retailers. If LEGO told target that Friends had to be carried in the LEGO section, I think Target would do it. Anyway, it's besides the point, since even if you simply blamed that aspect on the retailers, LEGO is already doing its own version of that on its website. Anyway, you seem to think boys should be able to play with pink things, then are fully supportive of the company making pink things and labeling them "girls" which only contributes to a world where boys find pink off limits. I find your position to be contrary to itself.

What? What does this mean? Are space-fans really comparable to girls as a market audience in any way, shape or form? I realize that Space-fans get stereotyped all the time, and have few decent role-models in kids culture, and are consistently offered stereotypical fare by the toy industry, and of course, are physically born as Space-fans so much so that their entire lives identity will almost always be deeply wrapped up in the fact that they are Space-fans, but other than that, I see little correlation between Space-fans and girls. I won't go so far as to call your analogy vacuous though What? Why not read what they say rather than imagine it? It's not like it's not there, just waiting there, dying for you inform yourself with it. Feel free to find out what these "likely feminists" are saying. And is feminist a dirty word to you? Why is an opinion negligible if it comes from a <gasp> feminist? Is it too much to ask that people read opinions before make hard statements on the topic?

That's not been my main concern at all. Actually, in one of my last posts, I'm pretty sure I encouraged LEGO to expand there themes to incorporate some of the ideas in friends. I'm certainly not trying to get girls to play with bulldozers. And while it's true LEGO has explored male themes over the years, they never felt the need to slap a massive BOY in bold letters over their stuff. This is the modern LEGO company that's doing it. Let's review one of the quotes from the company, from back when we fell in love with them as kids: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/lego-is-for-girls-12142011_page_2.html Now, the company is saying, This is for Girls, and this is for Boys. As has been said, that is a 20th century invention. Pink used to be a "boys" color. Look it up This is a LEGO website, not a site about dire problems in the world. Hence, a very appropriate place to discuss this sort of thing. If this was on the front page of the New York Times, I would consider that blowing things out of proportion.

You're only as poor as your last game People here have the memory of a goldfish.

Thanks. The sales tax is there, but it really is a big difference from country to country. In my native home, Canada, it's illegal to advertise with the tax included, while in Japan it's bad business sense not to include it. A third price reference is a good idea. Of those there, I'd say an iPhone is best, since, like LEGO and McDonald's, it's an international company that adjusts prices by region. The iTunes store is the best example of this, since a song that costs $1 in America costs double that in Japan, and there really is no way to justify that other than for profits' sake. Maybe, but it depends on the ubiquitousness of the toy. I'm guessing Cars is popular around the world. The reason I chose food was because it reflects the cost of living in a place. Average income is again, good, but I didn't bother simply because of the situation in Japan. People under 35 in Japan make far less than those over 35, but even in 20 years time, they will probably make relatively less than the generation before. But, the people buying LEGO, either as AFOLs or parents, tend to skew young. I'm assuming a majority of this site is under 40. I am, and I'm poor But, I'll add that in Thanks. The cheeseburger was chosen simply because McDonald's is an international company with standardized products, as I mentioned above. The other suggestions you have are solid, but some I couldn't use because of living in Japan. For example, a "loaf" of bread in Japan is six slices with no crusts. It's much less bread than in Canada, but about the same price. Milk is not a staple food here, dairy in general, so it tends to be a little expensive. Rice is the standard food. Apples are pretty universal, so I chose that, but milk or beef would be fair enough, and if people want to add other prices, it doesn't have to be a very standardized list Though almost only America judges it by the pound. Here it's by the gram. Any of it is informative. Gas is much harder to gauge, since it is so extremely taxed. America has extremely undertaxed gas (the will of oil companies the people), so as an example of cost of living, it greatly depends on the region, and doesn't reflect the fact that all over much of the world, the car is not a central mode of transport. In Japan, it is trains, and train travel is cheap compared to the States... Gas, beef, milk, bread... You have never been to Japan It's just a matter of finding actual international comparison points, which is hard. And the taxes in America are relatively low. People in other countries tend to pay far more, so salary is hard to judge anywhere. Thanks for the input, I'll update it with all your ideas

I can vote now

I still can't vote in the poll though, I literally have no answer to questions three and four. My idea of a better solution is creating more variety in existing lines, like have variety in City and Town mean more than Fireman/Policeman/Construction Worker. Perhaps have some of the ideas of Friends be integrated into the Town and City lines, like a greater variety of diversity and color. And the use of narrative in the characters is quite fine with me. There's a lot of ideas to like in the Friends line. The part about narrative in that business article was a real puzzling one; the claim that boys play in the third person and girls in the first. If that's the case, why does LEGO go out of it's way to create narrative's for the boy-targeted Ninjago line? Anyway, I think it would be quite nice to create a suburb for Town, which could have families with stories, or something like that, rather than the general focus they have now on action professions and vehicles. The only part of the Friends line which is really incongruous with the rest of LEGO is the focus on nine ethnicities of people, since the yellow mini-fig has always been race-less. For personal reasons, I prefer that to fleshies, but it would be an interesting shift if the company decided to give mini-figs their own race. It would deeply change their international appeal.

My apologies, it was some frustration over the direction of the thread in general. Realistically, I don't think a single person would genuinely choose the option that pink monster trucks are the way to go to make things more egalitarian for LEGO. The use of a and a were at those points they were attached to, and hopefully the rest of my post, which was done respectfully and in depth show the extent of my for you :wub: I appreciate the support you're offering this topic.

I can't vote in that poll. It frames the issue way too much. I really don't think the "controversy", if it's really that, is that it's effeminate in appearance. It's that by making a "girls" LEGO, they are de facto calling the rest of LEGO a boys toy, and also being stereotypical in its marketing. This is emphasized by the LEGO website, which has a massive variety of sections, and one called Girls. The meaning of this is that all others are meant boys. Or the fact that Target will not stock Friends in the LEGO section. It might work as a gateway to LEGO, but it's as likely to make Friends be a girls ghetto, where they are uncomfortable with non-girl LEGO. I never considered LEGO a tom-boy toy, but these sets reinforce that idea, as did Paradiso and Belville. LEGO has developed a lot of 'boy' themes, so I understand that the company has shifted its own demographic to boys somewhat, but series like City, Toy Story or Harry Potter are a lot more gender neutral (though City can be boyish, for sure). Your poll solutions seem more about sarcasm than anything that anybody would implement. (Yes, pink monster trucks is the way to go ) A question like this: Do you think keeping the Friends promoted only among girls toys in store and not with LEGO will reinforce the impression that LEGO is a boys toy in general? Do you consider LEGO to be a unisex toy? -Yes -No -It used to be -Was always for boys etc etc If your answer was yes, do "girl" sets take away from the idea they are uni-sex toys? I read a few of the articles linked to in the first post, and none of the ones I read were complaining that pink is girly. So I don't know why that's the notion taken with this poll As I wrote to a number of people here, it's easy to win an argument if you make up what the opposing side is saying. I don't know why I've spent so much time writing in this thread, since nobody seems to care what's being said at all, and just write off the cuff comments based on their gut.

I say this to you, but it could be to a lot of other people in this thread. Who is making "such a rediculous fuss" over this? The people not caring for it have all expressed moderate opinions on the matter, while a number of people have joined in the thread to say they are "so" upset, crazy feminists and whatnot. I challenge anyone else making this sort of statement (and there have been lots) to, at the least, quote examples of what they think is so ridiculous rather than make sweeping statements. I find this type of 'discussion' pretty ridiculous, all these people ridiculing the other sides position and how they're expressing it without paying any attention to the points made, much less the degree they've been made. Frankly, all it's doing is making me think this is a thread full of TFOL opinions with a (very) few adult ones peppered in. Has anybody said girls shouldn't play with pink houses? Anybody? A single person? One? Your argument here is that if girls want to play with that, it's okay. Who is on the other side saying that's not true? That's not aimed at you specifically either, but it seems like most of the Friends supporters are proudly arguing against an opponent that doesn't exist.

If you check it out, it was mainly a product of marketing in the 20th century. Blue did not used to mean boy, and the same for girls. And of course, that's only in Western culture. Colors have different meanings around the world. The blue and pink meaning have become more global thanks to America's influence though.

Who's saying this? It's not anybody in this thread. I don't think anybody has claimed it wasn't a free-market economy The things I and a few others in this thread have stated was that it was a disappointing thing coming from LEGO. Reading that business article on it, about how target won't be keeping it in the LEGO section... Well, that's only going to contribute to gender separation in kids, as boys won't set foot in the girls toy section for fear of the bullying that comes with it. As a kid, I loved Star Wars, but I hated G.I.Joe. I would rather have played with a Barbie, but even at that age, I knew to stay away from it, for social reasons. I was a sensitive boy. So then you think the Friends toy line shouldn't be kept in a "GIRLS" section of their website and in the "GIRLS" section of the toy store? Because this toyline is being explicitly labeled as girls toys, and is pink and frilly, and placing it in that category will help keep boys from even considering buying it. As for women liking pink being weak and submissive, you're the only one here I see writing that, so I wonder why you need to repeatedly attack an idea nobody is promoting. Are you a Barbie collector? Are you an Adult Fan of Barbie (AFOB)? No? Hmmm. LEGO is beloved by us for many reasons, but I'd like to think one reason is that it isn't generally a patronizing, lowest-common denominator company. It's a brand of excellence. Would you say the Barbie toy line? I personally have zero-respect for Barbie as a product. And I feel the same way about most toy companies. I think most of them have a real lack of respect for the consumer. And in general, I don't feel that way about LEGO. So, I hold them to a higher standard. Reading some of the non-AFOL opinions of people on the Internet, I get a real similar feeling. People respect LEGO in a way they don't other toy companies. Looking over the articles linked to, the key thing which I agree with is that question: LEGO is a boys' toy? On top of that, I haven't even seen any hatred aimed at the line. Discussion of it, but no hate, no extreme rhetoric.

Well, Pie, you now have an arsenal of experience from which to work with next time

You were already calling town sheep, so it's not like you were being overly courteous to begin with I had no interest in saving you. I was just interested in saving the investigator. And whether you like it or not, I wasn't a leader of town, I was simply logical with my points, in this case, it's better to lynch Catwoman than the investigator. Saying that you couldn't organize a lynch on Croc is defeatist thinking. I was quite sure I couldn't get the lynch on you, and had no expectation to save sok, but I tried it anyway, and see how that turned out? At no point did I consider saving you. I gave you some friendly advice, to be nice, but I wasn't going to argue for you in thread. You needed to do that yourself.

Well, you called them sheep in a different way, simply for being quiet in thread. But it wasn't part of your "defense". I'm not offended by the sheep, and there's no problem for the town to be insulted as a whole. Whatever problem there is is because it's really bad gameplay. It doesn't replace a defense. Using Pie's example, rather than make a fair argument, false claim, or better suggestion, he just insulted the town. There's no problem of hurt feelings, just bad gameplay. (sorry Pie ) And, not to criticize without offering up alternatives, let's reimagine day one, with Pie on the chopping block, replacing sok. His strategy: we should lynch the investigator, and everyone is cocksuckers. Nobody was going to shift their vote for that. Instead, he could have played up the "roles are connected to abilities" angle, which scum had figured out. He could have claimed to be a thief, then suggested, perhaps, Killer Croc (already with a vote or two). Plausibly, giving away some of his role could have bought him a day, drastically altering the course of the game. But the moment he leaned on the reasoning that everyone was sheep, I think he'd lost the game. So, it's not the feelings of town that are hurt, it's a question of good play. If anything, scum should have been joining in, calling the scum whiny babies. It would have made great camouflage.

I worried about that though. I'm fine if somebody tries to rattle me in a game now, but when I was 17, I wouldn't have been able to take it graciously and maturely. Nothing wrong with being sensitive to the real life situations of others. I think it goes beyond the "mature" content idea.

Really though, I read it on your Writeboard, and didn't get that. There were tantrums. Any of the scum who got angry at "the sheep" were pulling tantrums, in my opinion. Rather than create a devious, lying defense, they just insulted the whole of town and said it was because everyone was following me. But they weren't. I was in PM conversations with all of them. And the scum played that angle too hard, the reason being that you were all dwelling on it together, seemingly from day one. Like, with the lynching of Pie, it wasn't because people followed me, as much as Pie liked to make fairly grotesque cock-sucking analogies. I gave reasons he was scummy, and the other lynch target claimed to be the investigator. I was not being a dictator and having town follow me. But that was the narrative scum had constructed in their heads. And I think it got worse as days went on. In your writeboard, it was written that I was suspicious of the scum for no reason, just lucky, etc, and I wasn't. I was pooling info. So, the scum attitude in thread and in PMs just made them look guiltier to me. Scorpiox's being offended, which was entirely based on the way I was treating his scummates, and not players in general, was most definitely a tantrum, and worse than Pie's. About the whiny comment, and I'll address the metagaming comment from the Writeboard with it; Flitwick accused me of metagaming in thread. My immediate thought was this 1) It's not metagaming to see someone's name reading the thread but not posting 2) If I never hear another complaint about metagaming on EB again in my life, it'll be too soon. I find metagaming complaints (or whines, shall we say) entirely weak. For example, before the game had started, all the scum had decided they had to kill Kiel and I. That is class A metagaming, targeting me for something I haven't done in game before it even starts. In light of this, Flitwick's attempted call out of me metagaming is incredibly hypocritical. Anyway, when I started calling him a whiny baby, it was because of that comment. When I called him a metagamer, it was a nonsensical callback to that comment. The day ended shortly after that, but if there was a call to explain it, I would have. It infuriated Scorpiox though, so I scored a point there With all the scum, except you Brickdoctor, they all called the town sheep, to a greater or lesser degree, to justify their lynch. I do think that's a tantrum of sorts. At the very least, they've thrown reason out the window and given up. There were tantrums, to be sure. I didn't see the case against you on day one. The scum or dumb mantra is much more meant for players who misconstrue fundamentals. Like, day one, I make a case for placing votes and trying to gauge reactions. Scorpiox, either genuinely or scummily, completely misrepresented it, and did so repeatedly. He then went on to say, if we select ten people to lynch, we have a 10% chance of catching scum That makes zero sense. If six of the ten people were scum, we'd have a 60% chance. At that point, my only reaction is that either he's trying to make day one more confusing, or he doesn't understand mafia games well. And, to be fair, in my earlier days, I would trot out unsound theories as a scum on the basis that I'm "dumb" as an excuse to vote poorly. I can't get away with it now. I don't think your being suspicious of the wrong people is dumb behavior. Nobody is going to have a 100% scum hunting track record. I think your play in the game was fine. You were put in the hotseat day one, and you revealed your role, as you should have. You survived and that allowed Kiel and Tammo to copy your ability. So, things worked out well for town, and your death wasn't in vain.

This post is an incredible strawman argument. I don't think anybody has implied that LEGO was oppressing women, so to bring up the treatment of women in Muslim countries is ridiculous. The topic is about LEGO and its marketing to girls. Also, I haven't seen people saying that pink is a weak color. I've seen defenders of this toy line make claims that it's not weak, but I haven't (in this thread, at least) seen that to be a basis of complaint. You'll have to highlight that fact if I'm wrong. It's really easy to prove your point if you make up a fake argument to go after

Just to highlight what the problem is, I took this screen grab from the current US LEGO site. Now, some of you might think it's silly, or ignorable, but the context I get from this is that all those categories (except preschool) are for boys. Girls have their own section, that's pink and girly. This is not something whipped up casually. This is a multi-million dollar company, and these things are considered quite deeply. This style of branding will encourage the notion that LEGO is not a toy for girls, hence they have a little pink ghetto to play in, if they even bother to venture into the boys' toys section. Feel free to justify it with market research or standard practices, but I can't help but see it as patronizing and retro. It's a shame.

Again, I'm sorry. In retrospect, I can see why that was a biting remark, but at the time it wasn't meant to be anything more than a razzberry If someone said it to me, I'd just grit my teeth and yell bastard at my screen, but I wouldn't take it to heart. But, I've played at least 20 games, so it's easier to put in perspective. I understand why it was a nasty thing to say to someone playing their first full game. I'm sorry.

No worries from me, I'm just thinking out loud

I think it's fair to say, that it can be intimidating to new players. I chatted with a few players, both in PM and in thread, and both are important to sincerely (privately) and humbly (publicly) make sure things are good. I fully hope the three scum I bullied around, Nightshroud, Rumblestrike, and scorpiox go out of the way to get their revenge on me in a future game. I'm more confident that Pie, Flitwick, and Brickdoctor will play in the future. Actually, only a few games back, I considered Pie a sort of sensitive type, but now he's pretty rough and tumble in the games It all depends on the type of thing said though. I think I wrote somewhere already that it shouldn't be personal. I spent a fair amount of time calling the scum babies, and making dirty diaper jokes. I had no clear idea who the scum were, so it really wasn't aimed at anyone in particular. Just generic insults to unite the town against our mortal enemies I think in that case, it really is the friendly kind of trash talk. What I'm going to curtail in the future is teasing the scum after I declare them scum, since that starts to turn into more personal sounding stuff... and to an extent it is, since I'm tailoring it to them That's what I'm going keep my eye out for next time. And not getting mad at Oky

Okay, just ignore it then Thanks, added Australian currency has been so wacky the past few years. I used to buy LEGO in bulk from there, when the currency was right in the toilet maybe four years back. Those were the days, buying Aussie dollars with yen

I was thinking about this topic for a bit after discussing it here: http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=62243 I think everybody knows the prices are different all over, for whatever reasons, and I'm not interested in bitching about it But, saying it's different from region to region doesn't mean that much, when there are so many other factors. My idea was this: we have members all over the world, all with different prices. Let's compare them, but also comparing the cost of living. I live in Japan, so the cost of living is generally higher, but so is the average salary. So, Lego is expensive, of course, but not outrageous. I'll start, using Japanese pricing. I encourage you to do the same for your region, and I can add them to this post so it's easy to compare. I added the price of a McDonald's cheeseburger and an apple, so you can get an idea of the general cost of things. If you have something else to add to the index to make it better, feel free to suggest it Australia: Sales tax: 10%, always included (in price) $1 US ~ $1 AUS (1.00251 AUD) A McDonalds cheeseburger = I have no idea, maybe $2 An apple= about $1 each 8Gb Ipod touch = $219 (includes GST) Collectible Minifig = $4.99 10222 Winter Post Office = $109.99 10218 Pet Shop = $269.99 Full-time annual earnings in Australia averaged A$68,791 (Income tax (in summary) $4,650 plus 30c for each $1 over $37,000 (not including other levies such as medicare). Canada : Sales tax: 15% (Quebec), sales tax in Canada vary from province(territory) to province, the average is about 10-11% $1 US ~ $1 CAD (.97 CAD) A McDonalds cheeseburger = roughly 1.50 An apple= about .50$ each Collectible Minifig = $3.99 10222 Winter Post Office = $79.99 10218 Pet Shop = $199.99 Japan: Sales tax: 5%, always included $1 US = 77 yen A McDonalds cheeseburger = 120 yen/$1.53 An apple= about 100 yen/$1.29 Collectible Minifig = 300 yen/$3.87 10222 Winter Post Office = 10,500 yen/$135.36 10218 Pet Shop = 26,250/$338.40 Norway (Non-EU but Common Market): Sales tax: 25% on most, including toys (15% on food, most books are excempt). $1 US ~ 5.91 NOK (Norwegian krone) A McDonald's cheeseburger = 10 NOK = $1.69 An apple = about 5 NOK = $0.84 8Gb iPod Touch = 1500 NOK = $253.66 Collectible Minifig = 25 NOK = $4.22 10222 Winter Post Office = 649 NOK = $109.75 10218 Pet Shop = 1599 NOK = $270 Average pay per month before tax was 36,700 NOK ($ 6206) - but that's only counting employed workers that were actually paid (in 2010), the number would be lower if you included the unemployed. But the unemployment rate is only 3.3%. The income tax on this average salary would be about 32% - more if you are paid more, less if you are paid less. Slovenia (EU): Sales tax: 20% (VAT) $1 US ~ 0,77 euro A McDonalds cheeseburger = 1euro = $1.30 An apple= 0,25 euro = $0.32 each Collectible Minifig = 1,99 euro = $2.60 10222 Winter Post Office = 60euro = $78 10218 Pet Shop = 150euro = $195 Average salary is around 12.000euro/$15000 per year (after tax) and 19200euro/$25200 before tax. South Africa: Sales tax: 14%, always included (in price) $1 US ~ R8 ZAR A McDonalds cheeseburger = $3.20 An apple= about $0.50 8Gb Ipod touch = $220 Collectible Minifig = $3.00 10222 Winter Post Office = $100.00 10218 Pet Shop = $275.00 - Our currency varies up and down per quarter. R6 to $1 for a couple of months, to R8.50 to $1 for the next. - Licensed Lego appears more expensive. Example, 4182 Pirates Cannibal Escape is $60 to $75. Sweden (EU but not €): Sales tax: 25% on most, including toys (12% on food, 6% on books). $1 US ~ 6.92 SEK (Swedish Krona) A McDonalds cheeseburger = 10 SEK = $1.44 An apple= not sure, 5 SEK maybe = $0.72 Collectible Minifig = 25 SEK = $3.61 10222 Winter Post Office = 699 SEK = $101 10218 Pet Shop = 1849 SEK = $267 Average pay per month before tax is 28 400 SEK ($4 103), while the median is about 25 300 SEK ($3 655). Then 34%-29% income tax is deducted leaving about 19 500 SEK/$2 817 (avarage) or 17300 SEK/$2 500 (median). UK : Sales tax: 20% (VAT) $1 US ~ £0.65 A McDonalds cheeseburger = roughly $1.50 An apple= about $0.45 each Collectible Minifig = $3.10 (£1.99) 10222 Winter Post Office = $78 (£50) 10218 Pet Shop = $186 (£120)