Gender in LEGO Themes

[dr_spock]

Funny thing is boys and girls wore pink uniforms in 19th century England. It wasn't until the 20th century did pink became more associated with female in western culture.

We tried gender neutral, no pink, with our daughter. It kind of worked from the time she were born to kindergarten. Then overnight, everything had to be pink and Barbie. I got her some Technic sets to compliment the pink. She built them but Technic wasn't her thing so they just sat around. She was more interested in ninjas and martial arts. She's now taking AP advanced calculus and prefers to drive a manual transmission car and not a fan of pink. So maybe the Technic worked after all.

I like the 1980's simple pig tails hair piece with generic smiley head to distinguish gender on minifigs. It was less complicated back then. Some times I wonder if we are making things too complicated for kids these days. Let's not forget children are much better at imaginary pretending type of playing than we are.

At the end of the day, it is really up to you, the parent, to choose the toys you believe are good for your child. Your child may have other ideas of what's good for them. Can't please everyone, you know. I am not sure how realistic is to expect that a for profit corporation to cover everyone's need or values.

[danth]

Why is it a cop out to change minifig identities. After all Lego is a building toy designed to be changed. That includes minifigs.

What I'm getting at is, I'm pretty sure if there was a set where all the boys were effete princes and the girls were warriors, there would be an epic storm of man tears. And if you think about how weird and alienating a set like that that would be to you, you can see why your suggestion is a cop out.

Edited October 15, 2015 by danth

[Lego Dino 500]

What I'm getting at is, I'm pretty sure if there was a set where all the boys were effete princes and the girls were warriors, there would be an epic storm of man tears. And if you think about how weird and alienating a set like that that would be to you, you can see why your suggestion is a cop out.

A "epic storm of man tears"? That seems to be a copout to blame men, gender roles, and the physiological differences in the brain between men and women. Because of these inherent differences, (not to mention the sexual dimorphism present in our species) boys are naturally attracted to building toys and play-fighting and competition, which is what draws boys mainly to Lego. Girls tend to play in different ways, focusing on roleplaying and imagination, which draws girls to things like dollhouses versus Lego. Because of this, Lego has naturally catered mostly to a unisex/boys demographic with their action themes like City and Castle and Ninjago because they're a company seeking to maximize profits, which is natural in the competition-like nature of capitalism.

Lego doesn't have to cater to your personal political views, and it will only do so where they can increase profits and the number of kids buying Lego. They haven't done that, because it hasn't and likely won't ever increase profit by altering the dynamics and designs of their main themes. This is why Lego compartmentalizes "girly girl stuff" into Friends, because there they can cater to the type of play and psychological differences that girls conduct and have, without altering other themes set designs and stories, where it would prove detrimental.

It is not sexism or exclusion like you claim to think, it's only the specific psychological differences between girls and boys and the way Lego has capitalized off of it. If you feel entitled to put your own personal experiences and beliefs over that of the majority to force them to cater to your demands, that's selfish and hurts everyone else. If you feel this way about Lego, you can stick with Megabloks or the basic bins as I said before.

Edited October 16, 2015 by Lego Dino 500

[MAB]

What I'm getting at is, I'm pretty sure if there was a set where all the boys were effete princes and the girls were warriors, there would be an epic storm of man tears. And if you think about how weird and alienating a set like that that would be to you, you can see why your suggestion is a cop out.

That is nothing like I suggested. If there are for example four soldiers, a king, a queen and a princess, then the set is interesting for boys. A girl can turn it into a set with two soldiers, a king, and a queen and princess (that can also be soldiers in disguise). There is no need for weak princes being saved by heroic female warriors which probably wouldn't sell so well.

However, it requires imagination to change it from how it looks on the box. That is what is sadly lacking these days.

Edited October 16, 2015 by MAB

[Peppermint_M]

You know, I was never happy with the generic smiley with a hair piece. I wanted a face that was printed like a female character. Pippin Reed, Alexis Sinster, Cam Attaway, Radia, Jet... I loved those characters. I really wanted more, but they were stuck in the big sets. Now? Now I can get cool faces from CMFs and at least a slightly more female face from the city sections (Even if they're not looking so bad-blocks as Jet and Cam did).

Here is something to consider: LEGO still appeals to girls who are similar to us AFFOLs who liked LEGO as children, catering to them even more so now that there are many new kinds of hairstyles and faces to use in their games. LEGO now also appeals to girls, the sort who never did want LEGO toys in the past for the exact reasons that Friends and Elves appeals to them now. It even acts as a gateway to the other LEGO, like City and basic bricks to expand with.

The ones who do not realise/want to combine the sets or change up the figures? You get young boys like that, you get AFOLs who prefer to collect sets/mininfigs than MOCing. You get parents who prefer things to be kept like they came instead of mixing. (My Dad was like that. I ignored him).

I honestly think LEGO is doing very well for boys and girls these days.

[Vindicare]

I gotta admit, this is a bit tiresome. Of course a company that is out to sell their products is going to target the most likely consumer. That's not a bad thing. It's certainly not on a toy company to teach kids about gender norms, that's the parents. It's also no surprise that a lot of themes have a male majority, as spies, knights, (dino) hunters, cops, firemen, soldiers, etc, as they are most predominant in those areas.

[Legoaholic]

Hi ShaydDeGrai, i was interested to read your points. One of which is -

“The giant hole in these age old theories is that there isn't a single bit of hard evidence to support it. We know where 3D reasoning "lives" in the brain; we can scan for activity and structure and if a million years of evolution had really differenced men from women in this regard, we should have been able to find something by now -- but we haven't. Unlike many other evolutionary, gender-biased traits (strength v. stamina, body chemistry, skeletal proportions, etc.) men's and women's brains aren't built all that differently, we just don't exercise them properly/equally. Spacial reasoning is predominantly a learned skill (and, like language, best developed prior to the onset of puberty). Statistically boys _are_ better at it than girls, but that's because they are given far more opportunity to explore and exercise those skills than girls are.”

I wondered if you have any links to articles so that i can read up on it. I am interested in whether we can improve spatial skills after puberty and to what extent.

Overall i don't believe it's possible for lego to change societies views on gender. I do feel however that if studies are consistently showing that advertising of toys are deterring girls and boys from playing with supposedly boy or girl toys, then governments have both the obligation and need, to set regulations that prevent this. Along with removing boy and girl aisles from stores. Particularly as society need more people to pursue stem subjects, both male and female. In addition maybe some lessons throughout the school years showing the research on how gender differences come about, so that when they become parents they are less likely to perpetuate old beliefs.

As for personal observation, so not at all scientific. I have two daughters who i would have descibed as very girly when they were young. They loved pretty dresses, loved playing dress up, making up shows, loved disney, friendships, loved singing and dancing, and were totally uninterested in football, climbing trees or generally getting dirty. They had some of the then girly lego but got bored due to the lack of building. One however loved building the space lego. The other loved building bionicles. Neither played imaginarily with them. They simply enjoyed the building experience. Totally opposite to why we are told lego designed friends.

[rob-ot5000]

*snip*

I have young nieces within the age range of most LEGO products. The oldest niece is around 9, and was talking about how much she liked the cool ninjas in Ninjago sets. She specifically talked about how much she liked the Temple of Airjitzu. Then, she looked a bit sad and said "but it's for boys."

*snip*

This makes me sad. Makes me want to bring the Temple over.

*snip*

But I read this:

^^

And there's two things that immediately come to mind. The first thing is that it sounds entirely made up. Now, hear me out, maybe it isn't, but it sounds like a story any activist would come up with just to make a point. But, let's say it's true, let's try to think the best of each other and that we wouldn't exaggerate something like that trying to make some social point....

Even if true - TLG did NOT tell your niece this, they in NO WAY suggested it was only for boys, that she couldn't get or enjoy it. You know what it sounds like? Something a mom would say to a daughter wanting a $200 LEGO set, or something some of her friends might have said after finding out that she wanted it... she didn't get it from TLG or any store employees, she didn't get it from catalogs or commercials. You can't possibly lay the blame at the feet of TLG.

The fact that she looked a bit sad when she said sounds exactly like someone told her she couldn't get it and then made up an excuse.

*snip*

*snip*

Again, I promise the OP that nobody at LEGO ever told his 9 year old niece that she couldn't get Ninjago because it was only for boys. If it's a true story, it likely came from a parent that didn't want to spend $200 on a LEGO set.

*snip*

I highly doubt it's made up, since I happen to know the OP, and his niece, and her parents, and yeah, it sounds real enough. She's of the age and disposition where societal norms and roles are starting to become a more real influence. And no, nobody at TLG said that to her, nor did her parents. There's no way they're dropping $200 on that set for her, that's true, but they also wouldn't tell her it's a "boy's" set. Her dad is the bigger Lego fan over there, and they buy and build all sorts of things together. I think the biggest reason for her saying that, and coming to that conclusion ON HER OWN, is related to...

Would you buy your sons a barbie doll?

Would you like to see commercials showing boys playing with barbies? Should every boy play with dolls at least for some time? :)

If lego hadnt brought out themes targeted at girls people would complain. Now people complain that lego produces/markets some themes with a feminine touch and some themes with a masculine touch.

It is natural to advertise sets which are primarily intended to be played with by girls with girls.

Think about it, if lego advertised those sets with boys AND girls wouldnt it distort reality in some way? It would imply that boys want to play with dolls!

Imagine you have a bunch of girls playing with dolls, how many boys will be eager to join the bunch?

Thats just reality!

*snip*

*snip*

However, I take issue with their marketing. In commercials, it is always two boys who are excited to open their Airjitzu flyers, or two girls who are playing together with the Elves' treehouse. I feel like these sets themselves are intrinsically gender-neutral, yet by showing only boys or only girls playing with them, it shuts out the other gender. My sons think the Elves sets look neat, and my nieces like Ninjago. Yet what sets do they ask for as presents? The kind prescribed by Marketing.

Even though they would each privately enjoy the sets "designed" for the other gender, they don't want to be seen playing with a "boy's toy" or "girl's toy" because Marketing has branded them as such and made them taboo.

*snip*

...this sort of argument. Advertising. Gender-based marketing. Societal norms. Peer influence. Numerous factors. It's a vicious, complicated, circular affair.

In a previous career I was a professor at an engineering school with one of the highest (percentage-wise) female enrollment in the world (sadly, most engineering schools don't set the bar too high in that regard). Our university also had a college dedicated to child development and education, and I had a number of grants working with the child study gurus to address STEM education curriculum development, gender bias in basic skill acquisition and other factors that ultimately spoke to the question of "why are there so few women of note in engineering and the (hard/dry) sciences (as opposed to life/wet sciences, which, by comparison have been far better at attracting/producing accomplished practitioners who happen to be female)"

One factor (of, admittedly, many) is early development of 3D spatial reasoning skills. Traditionally, males have scored much higher than females and for decades the generally accepted explanation (given by male 'experts' in the field and affirmed by their male colleagues in related fields as intuitively obvious) was that it was an evolutionary bias: millions of years of men having to hunt, build traps, make tools and build shelters while women sat around breast feeding babies and cooking dinner had, supposedly, resulted in a gender based natural selection of brain development. Since women were "genetically incapable" of developing strong spatial reasoning, they were destined to be bad drivers, terrible engineers, and generally dismissed in the "male professions" whereas males were considered to have a natural affinity for such things (and even those who couldn't handle the math could at least go on to be brilliant painters and sculptures).

The giant hole in these age old theories is that there isn't a single bit of hard evidence to support it. We know where 3D reasoning "lives" in the brain; we can scan for activity and structure and if a million years of evolution had really differenced men from women in this regard, we should have been able to find something by now -- but we haven't. Unlike many other evolutionary, gender-biased traits (strength v. stamina, body chemistry, skeletal proportions, etc.) men's and women's brains aren't built all that differently, we just don't exercise them properly/equally. Spacial reasoning is predominantly a learned skill (and, like language, best developed prior to the onset of puberty). Statistically boys _are_ better at it than girls, but that's because they are given far more opportunity to explore and exercise those skills than girls are. Studies have been done comparing "tom girls" who played with "boys' toys" (Lego, lLincoln Logs, Tinker Toys, Erector Sets, etc.) at a young age and, guess what, they test out just as well as boys with a similar background with respect to spatial reasoning. (And as an aside, recent studies on boys raised on video games and screens rather than "hands-on" toys are showing significant retardation with respect to spatial reasoning compared to the age-peers a generation ago - so much for a million years of evolution).

More so than any wage inequality or glass ceiling being imposed by some cigar smoking old-boys-club (which are certainly issues, I'll grant you), the single-most thing holding (most) women back in Engineering and (certain) Sciences is the societal expectations and stereo types. We "expect" girls to play with toys of limited educational value and that may actually limit early brain development, then saturate them with messages (both overt and subtle) that bias future career options and interests at a ridiculously early age. Don't bother blaming the toys, blame the society that makes those toys seem desirable to young girls.

*snip*

This was an incredibly interesting comment. Thanks!

* Dude, I'm an Eighties kid. The Sorceress was on the good guys' side.

Game, set, match?

You know, I was on the right track when I said I should leave this discussion. This...is heating up.

......

Why is it a cop out to change minifig identities. After all Lego is a building toy designed to be changed. That includes minifigs.

I forgot to quote it, but I am reminded of the post from the Polish (I believe?) Lego Store worker who suggested that many kids don't realize that the sets/builds/minifigs as depicted in the advertising, marketing materials, and box art can be changed however they want. Someone else suggested a lack of imagination on the part of today's kids, and I don't know how true that is, but I'd be more than willing to lay some of blame in the direction of advertising, and the way children recieve and interpret all of this information.

Let's be clear, it's a tricky subject and I have no answers or authority, only thoughts.

As for "having this conversation again", I'm new to these boards, and new-ish to the hobby, so it's the first time for me.

Edited October 21, 2015 by rob-ot5000

[Agent 86]

Q. What do you think of the way LEGO markets their non-licensed themes to boys and girls?

A. I think it's unnecessarily limiting.

Firstly, I don't like that there is now a "boy" Lego aisle (which also includes the arguably more gender neutral Town/City and Creator sets, as well as licensed sets) and a "girl" Lego aisle (which only includes Disney Princess, Elves and Friends).

Secondly, I'm not a fan of the minidolls because it creates an unnecessary division between the sets which contain minidolls and those which contain minifigures. Sure, the bricks will always be compatible, but the figures are not (although some parts are interchangeable). As female (and male) minifigures in CMF series and other Lego sets seem to appeal to girls, I'm not sure why it was necessary to create minidolls for the dedicated "girl" themes. And if they had to create a more feminine form, then I probably would have liked them to tweak the minifigure design with a different torso rather than creating an entirely new figure (although I'm not a big fan of the "painted" curves and cleavage on female minifigures as it is).

Finally, it would be nice if non-licensed themes were marketed in a more gender neutral manner, whether it is the colour of the bricks and boxes, the gender of the children in the advertisements or the gender of the minifigures/minidolls in the sets.

Personally, I find some of the"girl" themes more appealing than the"boy" themes, particularly Friends. But, I'm yet to buy any Friends sets because the minidolls seem like a waste of money. They wouldn't "fit" in my display, even though the builds themselves would (even with the pink/purple accents). I'm not sure what the right "fix" would be since Lego have embraced the minidoll. Maybe they could try a new theme directed at girls which uses minifigures? And if it is a success, slowly migrate back to minifigures across all sets?

[Prairie]

I hope LEGO continues to provide variety in sets. That's their job, just get the sets on the shelves. How they look and how they are marketed, I don't care much, since parents play the biggest role in allowing their children to choose whatever sets they want without shaming them for making the "wrong" choice. If parents/others shame the children, LEGO's marketing/packaging isn't going to undo this. I think it's easy to scapegoat LEGO rather than face that the negative things done to people based on what gender they are classified as is done by the people they interact with regularly, not companies.

[Sarah]

Why is it a cop out to change minifig identities. After all Lego is a building toy designed to be changed. That includes minifigs.

I don't think its a cop out. I grew up in the late 70s/early 80s. My sets were Homemaker, Space, and Fire. I lusted after the Yellow Castle, but my parents never bought it for me. (And probably could not afford it, looking back.) My space men were equally women and men. I didn't need any special head or hair or anything. It was all under the helmet. I don't know what they were "supposed" to be. I saw very few advertisements. Just the box and put the pieces together and played my stories (With my sister when I could rope her in)

Only the space sets got taken apart and put together in different ways. The fire house pretty much got used as a fire house -- though the lady drove the trucks just like the people with fire hats. The kitchen and bathroom were used to do house stuff. And all the minifigs got names, birthdays, likes and dislikes (written down on little pieces of paper). Some were girls, some were boys. And they became toddlers in our Barbie play and children in our dollhouse play.... we always ended up with way more kids than grownups. An orphanage or something.

FYI AS for the minidoll vs minifig argument... I guess it isn't a big deal for me because I've already gone through 1 change in figures. My very first Lego set was Farm -- with the heads with arms and you built them up with 2x2 blocks (mostly -- also trapezoids, I think -- or blocks that made trapezoids for skirts and plates sometimes). Then the Homemaker series had hte adults being build up figures and children being minifigs. Then you saw more and more minifigs and the built up figures just sorta disappeared. So I don't think Lego HAS to be minifig. But they do get a lot of sales from the minifigs -- so many they now sell them BY THEMSELVES! No set attached. I like the minidolls and the minifigs. My son (8-ish) prefers Mixels (which have eyes, etc. But no minifigs) and a very few licensed characters he recognizes -- but which one he prefers changes a lot. My daughter (age 4) likes to take minifigures apart and put them back together in different ways. But is probably more creative with Legos than any of us, within her skill level. She uses plates for hats on the minifigs, sometimes. And other times puts a flower up there. Her favorite "Figure" is a horse. She makes "cars" for her horse and "Airplanes" and even boats. (And houses... if you ignore the fact that it doesn't have a real wall going all the way around) All centered around one specific horse. She loves the bright colors of more girl focused sets and ignores the minidolls, for now. We will see what happens as time goes on. But yeah, I am not buying a $100 set for her. Her biggest purchase so far was the $40 (I think?) Lego Junior Castle set. She got halfway through the instructions of putting it together and wanted to play instead of build. Which of course is fine. But the pieces shortly thereafter got scattered and combined with other sets. It would be too frustrating for her to put together y the instructions now. So it will likely never be "Finished"

Edited October 21, 2015 by Sarah

[Soupperson1]

The thing that annoys me most about gender in sets, is how city females (besides the Artic and construction ones) need a hairpiece despite the males usually wearing hats or headgear. :S

Its a huge shame sets for girls get less characters, and they tend to reuse them a lot.. The hotel could've had more staff, Stephanie could've had a custom for her pizzeria, Emma could've had siblings in her house, a lighthouse keeper could've been in the lighthouse, Farrans parents could've been in the treehouse, the fairy godmother could've been in the carriage sets..I could go on forever! I can't see girls not wanting more characters for play, especially since boys can buy battle packs or minifigure bags to boost their figure collection girls have to buy more sets.

Growing up as a girl, it was embarrassing to buy LEGO it was in the boys aisle! That being said I did get my parents to buy it and eventually started collecting it. When friends was introduced I thought it was the worse thing ever, but then I realized it was pure (possibly a bit evil :P) genius. I would've ate the theme up as a kid! I love the theme now, it has amazing pieces and great builds! I'm glad the theme is doing well and if you get past the lack of leg and hand articulation the figures are great too, I like them just as much as minifigures now :)

I hope we get more mini doll themes, space, time cruises or an adventures type theme would be great! I hope the WW movie and DC Girls uses mini dolls in their sets as I believe it will empower girls, who don't like minifigures and give them more play scenarios to act out with the villains.

[gamejutzu]

Do you think I'm making a big deal out of nothing?

Nope.

Personally I think LEGO is going in the wrong direction. They've just made it worse. I don't see why instead of making Friends, a girl oriented theme, the could have just either put more females in themes like City and Nexo Knights (it's new, they still have time), or created new themes with both genders in equal consideration There was a silent split before. Now LEGO's made it public when they divided the main target consumers. Quite unnecessary in my opinion.

This is going to take a VERY long time to heal, and that's assuming LEGO actually wants to follow the supporting suggestions here.

And besides, I never really saw Ninjago as something that is boy and boy only. The colors of the sets tend to reflect actual Japanese culture, or the elements, or both. And the newest additions to the team was (in newest to oldest) Nya, water ninja, Skylor, amber assassin, and P.I.X.A.L, as well as Misako knowing spinjitzu. No males there.

In Ninjago's case, all they need to do really is add more female goons. The ghosts only had Bansha, while the skyrates appear to only have one female goon.

However you split it, everyone should agree that with the release of the minidoll and "girly" sets, it is not bringing the genders together.

Of course there could coexist female themes, male themes, and the gender-neutral themes, but realistically let's face it, that is not happening, (very) sadly.

Edited November 19, 2015 by gamejutzu

[fred67]

It may not be bringing genders together, but TLG has been at this for a long time and had a lot of failures trying to attract girls with "regular" sets.

With friends they may get minidolls, but the sets are still just plain old LEGO that can be combined and used with anything. A lot of adults (including men) buy Friends sets for the parts because they are ultimately pretty good sets.

What people want is for TLG to lose money (or lose potential revenue, rather) for the sake of their own social agenda - TLG doesn't set social agendas, it follows them. It's a capitalist company, it exists to make money. Whatever other nice things we may think about TLG, we can't expect them to lose customers just so their fit our ideals.

For the record, I would love to see more female figures in "regular" sets - and I think minidolls are terrible (and I'd buy some Friends sets if it weren't for the minidolls - not only don't you get female minifigures, you get useless figures - in my opinion, of course, which makes the premium prices not worth it at all).

For the record, again, I never told my daughter what she could or couldn't get - we're in the LEGO store and she asks if she can fill a PAB cup, and I say "sure!" She gets pinks and purples. Then she picks out a set.... this one:

Would she have gotten it if it had a regular minifigure? Yes, I actually think she would... I wish they would not deviate from standard minifigures. But they did their testing and research, and most girls preferred minidolls over minifigures. I don't personally like it, but then TLG does a lot of things I don't like (Nexo Knights instead of a regular castle theme?), but it's their product, and they do what they think will make the most profit. Period.

[gamejutzu]

I never told my daughter what she could or couldn't get

Would she have gotten it if it had a regular minifigure? Yes, I actually think she would.

It's going to take much more explaining than that then.

What people want is for TLG to lose money (or lose potential revenue, rather) for the sake of their own social agenda - TLG doesn't set social agendas, it follows them. It's a capitalist company, it exists to make money. Whatever other nice things we may think about TLG, we can't expect them to lose customers just so their fit our ideals.

Who said it will lose money?

LEGO didn't even try stuff like this, how would they know?

What they could do is, keep the boy and girl targeted themes, but introduce one or two equal female-male ratio themes (Maybe called, say, Adventurers). The draw for these sets is that the builds are spectacular! They have the consumer's attention, and they can't really say that "its for ____".

Then people will realize that gender balanced themes are great!

For the record, I would love to see more female figures in "regular" sets - and I think minidolls are terrible (and I'd buy some Friends sets if it weren't for the minidolls - not only don't you get female minifigures, you get useless figures - in my opinion, of course, which makes the premium prices not worth it at all).

I despise those minidolls, it just screams isolation. I'm quite surprised it is doing so well.

But even if the Friends sets came with "regulars", I'd still stray away. The builds are quite missing something, too simple. And there's pink in every build. Ninjago, a "boy oriented" theme doesn't do that.

[Aanchir]

I despise those minidolls, it just screams isolation. I'm quite surprised it is doing so well.

There are probably a number of girls who despise the classic minifigure. Or, at least, who have little to no interest in playing with it. It is a bit frustrating that girl-oriented and boy-oriented themes have different styles of figures, but neither figure is inherently better than the other, and kids shouldn't have to love the traditional minifigure to deserve a LEGO building experience as rich and exciting as those who do.

The mini-doll is the first LEGO figure that girls tend to love as much as boys tend to love the minifigure. LEGO Friends is not popular in spite of the mini-doll. In fact, I'm sure some of the theme's success can be attributed to the mini-doll's popularity.

But even if the Friends sets came with "regulars", I'd still stray away. The builds are quite missing something, too simple. And there's pink in every build. Ninjago, a "boy oriented" theme doesn't do that.

The LEGO Friends builds are just as complex as any LEGO City builds. Several of them arguably more so — Pop Star Tour Bus is far more complex than any LEGO City set its size (note the age recommendation 8–12 instead of 5–12 or 6–12; it's that way for a reason).

There are a number of Friends sets that use very little pink or none at all, like Heartlake Skate Park, Heartlake Private Jet, First Aid Jungle Bike, and Mia's Magic Tricks. And really, you could make the exact same color argument about LEGO City with the colors red and yellow. Pink is not an inherently worse color than red or yellow. Some people just have an irrational phobia of it because they consider it "girly".

Edited November 19, 2015 by Aanchir

[Zoshi]

I'm kind of torn on this. While I get that they are targeting a demographic and that there are people out there who like pink and princesses and girly crap like that(I do too, to a certain extent), I feel like it's supporting the gender stereotyping that girls can ONLY like things like that and ONLY girls can like them. Just the other day my little sister asked me why I bought "boy" Lego sets. I don't necessarily blame Lego for it, they're just supplying more options, as a lot of people have said before I believe the problem is from a society that raises people to believe they have to like a certain thing based on gender, age, etc. So while I don't think it's causing a problem, it's probably supporting a bigger problem.

As for my thoughts on Friends, Elves, etc., they just don't appeal to me simply because minifigs are a big part of the hobby for me and I cannot stand the minidolls.