Let's beat this dead horse again: Friends called sexist in Cracked

[Saberwing40k]

*Sigh* In a recent article on the comedy website Cracked.com, the Lego Friends line is, once again, called sexist. It's the 4th entry, read it here:http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/5-ridiculously-sexist-ways-toy-companies-are-targeting-kids/ and then start weeping. This guy talks about the Friends line as if it is something that is forced on little girls, but that's simply not true. What I've seen working at the Lego store is that very often, little girls, or their parents, go to the Friends section because that's what the girl wants to play with. Now, there are exceptions, but they are so uncommon that I cheer in my head when I see a girl going for City or Star Wars sets. That's why Lego made the Friends stuff in the first place, because they did market research and found out what most little girls want to play with. Now, some might argue that that would be catering to sexism, but I don't think that that is the case.

Also, I think that Friends is a lot better than Belville, or Scala, the previous girl oriented Lego themes.

So, what do you guys think?

[Ondra]

Sexist maybe?But what I really know that this series is full of stereotypes starting with colour scheme.

Lego doesnt have unisex theme one is full of cops, mechanics and construction workers and second is full of girls doing girls thing.I dont know why they dont do same friends buildings, camper vans and yachts in city theme in regular colours.This will be win win on both sides.

Im sad that there arent bellvile and scala anymore.Figures fits perfectly in technic and creator cars nowaday .

[Eggyslav]

I think the best Lego Theme aimed speciffically for girls was Paradisa, not only was it with regular minifigs, but also very compatible with Classic Town theme, if you disregard mostly pink/white colourscheme.

[Hrw-Amen]

Well, it is a bit feminine in its colour scheme I guess, but many of those colours are hard to get in quantity anywhere else and it does have some useful animals and bits like that. So I have bought sets (Being a man.) simply for those parts.

Also my wife (Being a woman.) is much more interested in collecting Friends LEGO than she is CITY or any of the other themes and has quite a large collection. She has recently asked for Disney Princesses as well, so you know the girls seem to like it.

How can that be sexist to give people what they actually want?

[Tarfful]

stereotypes exist for a reason. > O

|Tarfful

[Andy D]

How can that be sexist to give people what they actually want?

This make the most sense of anything else on the topic.

Andy D

[Vorkosigan]

Honestly I don't even want to click these kind of articles anymore, just by going to the site you're giving them what they want. Basically they're trolling.

[Luke_likes_Lego]

sex·ism noun \ˈsek-ˌsi-zəm\

unfair treatment of people because of their sex; especially : unfair treatment of women [Ref: Merriam-Webster]

Such unfair treatment of people - to put popular, brightly coloured (colored) themed sets on the shelf for people to choose to buy or ignore.

There seem to be some questionable statements in the article too...about the research institute being a "response" to consumers pointing out things about the FRIENDS line.

[Kalais]

I think the best Lego Theme aimed speciffically for girls was Paradisa, not only was it with regular minifigs, but also very compatible with Classic Town theme, if you disregard mostly pink/white colourscheme.

Yup, I think the same.

Friends is pure marketing. It is not good for developing young girls minds coz of building stereotypes and bad role-models imho. But it is for sure good for Lego company pocket.

[5imon]

Bad role models, yes! But imho it's not Lego to blame for them. Lego certainly does not "build" these stereotypes, they're already here, in our society. What Lego does is use them to sell stuff not only to boys, but also to girls.

I don't remember from my childhood days that a whole half of a toy store is made only of different shades of pink and all that princess stuff in it. The perception of how girls and boys are was much more natural in these days. And yes, girls had blue, green, orange and black toys and they didn't die from it or become boys.

But this has obviously changed. And it changed a long, long time before Friends was introduced, so once again, this is not to blame.

[ResIpsaLoquitur]

Cracked is a very funny website, but of late it has suffered from a trend of "social justce" articles which seem to have shoddy research. They seem to have critiqued the news about the Research Institute instead of actually researching Lego and Friends. (I.e., they complain that Friends is too "girly" while neglecting the Olivia is a scientist.)

If you read the comments on the article (sort by "popular"), a lot of readers called out Cracked and complained that Lego and Friends are much friendlier to girls than the article made them to be.

[MAB]

Well, it is a bit feminine in its colour scheme I guess

Are pastel colours feminine? I'm male and I have bought quite a few Friends sets just for those bricks. They fit in great with city MOCs. Extension of the colour palette was a huge bonus of the Friends line.

[Im a brickmaster.]

Ok. Since buying lego in general is open to everyone girls, boys, mutants, etc. Most girls like Star Wars or marvel comics/movies so they buy those too. Friends was created to draw in PEOPLE who isn't drawn to the other themes! Like little girls. Or grown AFOLs.

They'd probly complain if there was NO "girl theme" or what ever the frick there argument is...

End of thesis.

Fool.

Edited December 18, 2014 by Im a brickmaster.

[Sarah]

Sexist maybe?But what I really know that this series is full of stereotypes starting with colour scheme.

Lego doesnt have unisex theme one is full of cops, mechanics and construction workers and second is full of girls doing girls thing.I dont know why they dont do same friends buildings, camper vans and yachts in city theme in regular colours.This will be win win on both sides.

Im sad that there arent bellvile and scala anymore.Figures fits perfectly in technic and creator cars nowaday .

If these (pink, white, teal, yellow, purple) are sexist "girl colors" What are the corresponding sexist "Boy colors"?

Or are only some colors sexist and the rest are gender neutral?

How can that be sexist to give people what they actually want?

I REALLY want to like this

I see all these articles as trying to restrict girls from liking whatever they want. They may not MEAN to be doing that. But when there is a steady drumbeat of how sad it is that girls like Lego Friends, Barbies, etc... What other lesson can you take from that?

AS for those who wish Friends was the "Original" Minifigures -- Minifigures are NOT the original people. If Lego isn't allowed to change, we'd still be making people up from bricks. That's REALLY getting back to their roots. (And perhaps even farther back they had different people). You can't just stop the development at one point and say "This is the pinnacle and we shouldn't do anything new or its sexist/not being true to the company."

Edited December 18, 2014 by Sarah

[Darth Punk]

Seems to me you could turn this argument on its head by saying why doesn't pink and pastels appeal to boys. Why do we automatically assume that pink only appealing to girls? Cannot boys play with dolls? The original G.I. Joe figures were dolls.

At one time in history pink was a boys color. Red represented war and manhood and pink represented a future warrior.

Colors have only the value that we place upon them.

So the real question that should be asked is why can't boys like pink too? If some are truly worried about color stereotypes then children and adults should be able to like any and all colors. Otherwise you are only focusing on half the issue.

[Artanis I]

Talking about boys & pink, in the 80s bright colours were in fashion. Boys (& girls) had pink clothes. Went out of fashion after a time, hasn't come back yet. 10-15 years ago orange went from being a no-no for boys to in fashion, and back out again.

[Zarana-X]

I bought the beach buggy set, because, Dune Buggy! Then I found a complete Juice Bar at a yard Sale. My only gripe is the figures aren't compatible. I rebuilt the seating in the buggy to accompany a minifigure.

[Faefrost]

Cracked has apparently abandoned actual humor and instead seems to be trying to remold itself into a full blown Social Justice Opression Olympics clone of Gawker. "Hey everybody where can we find a hidden 'ism today?"

[dr_spock]

A dead horse called cracked?

[Peppermint_M]

Yeah, I was frustrated by the article, it ignores all the incidental female characters from the Lady Thief (with her dirtbike!) to the Arctic Explorer with everything inbetween from just this year, right on to the named/story characters and characters from the licensed sets too. Not to mention the CMFs and those figures from the past.

Friends was made to attract a market that used to ignore LEGO and has been quite successful in that regard. It all boils down to the different ways children of both genders play.

As ever in a situation like this I can cite my sister and I growing up. My younger sister is just over a year younger than me, our next sibling is our brother who is four years younger than I. Mum bought Duplo from my birth on (She loves the stuff and is quite miffed there are no more kids so she can buy the Princess and Superhero Duplo). When I was old enough that she didn't worry about toy-eating I had my first system LEGO, sets I chose (An airplane/boat and two Aquazone impulses). My sister wanted a Polly Pocket. We had been raised in the same way with the same TV, books and treatment from our parents. I wanted LEGO, she wanted Barbie. It took until Belville for her to actually choose any LEGO for herself.

This was reflected in our play together too. My minifig had the motorcycle and an Aquashark torso, her minifigure was a "custom" she had drawn princess decorations on and painted with glitter nail varnish and liked to shop or eat at restaurants. So, while I built race-tracks and footbal pitches she made highstreet shopping and houses. I had a Ken doll in Action Man gear, she had Barbie. Today I am an AFOL and she collects Pullip and Ever After/Monster High dolls. About the only thing you can say is similar is that we are both pretty nerdy/geeky.

I can safely say, if we were growing up now, she would love all the minidoll themes, Mum still does! Half my minidoll purchases are spurred by colourscheme, the other because Mum would like to build the set.

Friends was created for girls like my sister, (by whatever reason) they like to play house and "real-life" and prefer a colour palette of azures, lavenders and pinks. Whatever societal pressures people want to claim are around can be an issue for some girls but this pair of sisters didn't notice it and we're still who we are by our choice. She is still at the base of a tree making daisy chains, I'm still climbing up it and getting warned not to get stuck!

Sorry for the ranty long post, but hey, the title warns you I'm a grumpy moo!

[TheLegoDr]

Every child is different, whether gender roles are there or not. As Peppermint_M pointed out, people can like a variety of things, regardless of what society/parents tell them to.

My daughter loves princesses, but in the same breath wants to shoot her bow and fence with me with our lightsaber blades (all while wearing a dress and fancy jewelry)..I see nothing wrong with this. She prefers dresses/skirts, but likes other "boy" activities, does that make her a boy? No. Does it make her less of a girl, or less feminine? No.

Cracked has had some problems lately. I quit reading it a few years ago because the research quit being as thought out as it was when I first started reading it. Maybe different management/editors/staffing? I don't know.

Either way, Since the Almighty LEGO said it be so, we should abide. The dude does.

[mccoyed]

Friends Lego is problematic, but I wouldn't say it's out and out sexist. Lego is trying to capture a market that would exist even without their involvement, since people generally raise their children to perpetuate gender norms. Where social justice comes in is at the point of questioning how much responsibility Lego has to not participate in the perpetuation of this behavior at the level of broad culture. Lego has no legal responsibility and certainly no economic responsibility to embrace an agenda of gender neutrality/equality in its design and marketing. They may, however, have a social responsibility. Whether they do or not is in the eye of the beholder. Some in this thread obviously don't think corporations have a social responsibility to reject harmful norms. Others think that Friends is not part of that and not harmful, for a variety of reasons.

The thing that many fail to realize, in their rush to absolve Lego of any responsibility that might cast a shadow on our enjoyment of their product, is that Lego does feel they have a social responsibility and they do act accordingly. Maybe they don't go far enough for some, and that's fair enough, but it is inarguable that they do practice certain policies that have no economic or legal justification, and are based purely on what Lego feels is their social responsibility to promote values that they feel are in the collective good.

This include gender equality. Though Lego Friends is problematic, most of their products in the past have been much more so. As some have said, Lego didn't create gender norms, but they have been very responsive to the progress toward better equality and better representation of women and girls in their products. They didn't do the Research Institute for no reason. They didn't improve the ratio of male to female minifigs even in the series marketed primarily at boys for no reason. Lego does acknowledge a level of social responsibility as a toymaker. They have shown a commitment to developing that further while also trying to capture markets where they've been traditionally less successful (girls!). The nuance is found here, actually. Lego Friends may embrace gender stereotypes in its use of color, the shaping of its figures, and in the activities the narratives of their toys are set around, but they also transgress many regressive stereotypes at the same time. The girls of Friends are, as people have noted, scientists and karate experts and so on. There's a give and take here. That's important.

Another way Lego has shown their attitude toward social responsibility is in their disposition toward realistic (by their standards) war Lego. This attitude has also slipped with the market, but they have a policy in place which they believe addresses a balance between economics (they'd make tons of money selling war Lego and we all know it, just as they would catering to more pernicious stereotypes in the girls' toys market... see Bratz and the like) and their moral stance on selling war imagery to kids.

My personal stance on this is that Lego is a poor target for social justice issues as they are a relatively responsible company. I usually get agitated in these discussions when people reveal themselves to have hostile attitudes toward the very notion of sexism, misogyny, feminism, and social justice. There has been some of that in this thread, but I won't engage that.

[Tariq j]

I really dislike reading articles like this. Friends is a good line which can benefit lots of collectors in different ways.

[Slobey]

As a father of 2 lego loving girls (and 1 boy), people really need to get over it.......now......

My girls love MOCing with the pile of bricks we have but also love friends and Disney princess sets. I think it's time we stop expecting our kids to grow up in a gender neutral world and let them embrace being who they are. Just because they play with "girl" toys doesn't mean they will grow up to be accepting of gender inequality. Give kids a break

[Risgrynsgrot]

The Friends debate is DOA because the main thing is that Friends is specifically made to cater to and get money from the group of girls that don't like original LEGO. Hence the doll-like figures and bright, "girly" colours. Now the reason why some girls are drawn to this is an entirely different subject on it's own, and one that affects our society as a whole.