I dont agree at all with your statement. By nuancing like this you are basically discriminating against all men and woman who want to behave differently.

By claiming there might be a natural way in behaving seperated by gender lines. Which I believe there is not.

I believe there is a large grey area inbetween men and female gender. Only in the extremes you will find differences.

But that argument about extremes could also holds between people from different countries. But then it is called discrimination.

While taking the entirely opposite view leaves freedom for all individuals to behave as they think is best.

Since you stated we can not proof either one I think it is best to uphold the view which limits the fewest people.

Think you missed something there:

I don't agree with that at all. It's far more complicated than that. Stating that behaviour is completely learned is as ridiculous as stating that it is entirely down to our biology because it is next to impossible to separate the two. The issue is called the nature vs. nurture debate.

TLG aims its products mainly at boys and this may explain some of the difference. If it were simply a matter of making different sets it would appear as though they are missing out on a large market. They have tried various different product lines aimed more at girls (Clickits, Belville and whatnot) but they never really seemed to last very long or become very big. Do they simply suck at marketing to girls or are girls in general less interested in a construction toy (for whatever reason)?

Cheers,

Ralph

He isnt discriminating, he is stating that it is a mixture of nature (how you are when you are born) and nurture (how you are brought up).

My mum loves lego and duplo was one of my toys as a small child. When I was older I was allowed System planes and submarines, plain bricks and whatever other theme. I think the only time I was ever out right told to stop was when I was around 15 and mum wasn't sure, now she's fine with it. That is the nurture part, if i had never had lego, and mum had forced me to play with girl toys and other such things, i wouldn't be playing with lego.

The nature part is how my brain was hardwired, pre-birth, during birth and shortly after. My brain loves to work around bricks and shapes, I spend hours building with no plan other than "dump all the cool stuff in a pile and build" but i get a great result. If I wasn't inclined in such a way, like my sister, who had exactly the same chances to play with lego, she just declined, the most i can muster her to do is make a figure of herself, then I wouldn't still be playing lego. The nature of our brains is diferent.

There we go.

EDIT: I also have to add, gender roles have been defined through the centuries and only since the World Wars has there been any effort to change deeply ingrained notions on what bodies with certain "bits" can and can't do/should and shouldn't do. If there had never been world war we could still be plodding along the same lines Edwardians did! (Potted History: All the men were at war in the UK, so Women had to step into their jobs to get things done, after the war they liked where they were and what they could do, women had proven that they could do the same jobs as men, the wanted to continue doing so and thus actions were taken that have carried on to this day) Now, Lego didn'y originaly say it was a boys toy, society decided so, thus years of only boys being interested in/allowed to play Lego means we are stuck in a loop of Only Boys have ever wanted lego so it's no point making lego for girls = Lego is marketed and made for boys so girls shouldn't play with lego (repeat )that needs major effort to change majority opinion so that everyone is equal. Same in a lot of places, I colud go on for hours (Liberal Femmenist Sociology teacher meant a lot of femmenist theory) but I need sleep...

Edited June 20, 200915 yr by Peppermint_M

Think you missed something there:

He isnt discriminating, he is stating that it is a mixture of nature (how you are when you are born) and nurture (how you are brought up).

My mum loves lego and duplo was one of my toys as a small child. When I was older I was allowed System planes and submarines, plain bricks and whatever other theme. I think the only time I was ever out right told to stop was when I was around 15 and mum wasn't sure, now she's fine with it. That is the nurture part, if i had never had lego, and mum had forced me to play with girl toys and other such things, i wouldn't be playing with lego.

The nature part is how my brain was hardwired, pre-birth, during birth and shortly after. My brain loves to work around bricks and shapes, I spend hours building with no plan other than "dump all the cool stuff in a pile and build" but i get a great result. If I wasn't inclined in such a way, like my sister, who had exactly the same chances to play with lego, she just declined, the most i can muster her to do is make a figure of herself, then I wouldn't still be playing lego. The nature of our brains is diferent.

There we go.

No I didn't mis the statement, but i want to be absolutely clear in my point of view.

"Almost all behavior is culturaly influenced."

Our gender role models are cultural behavior too.

And one of the most important influences on gender behavior is not accounted for yet.

Peer pressure.

It might be that your sisters friends influenced her as well.

And maybe her teacher, parents of her friends, classmates, television shows, commercials, etc.

There might be that she just is not interested at all in Lego, but I'm not saying that that is a bat thing.

I'm mearly proclaiming that our gender roles are very if not completely culturally influenced.

How many woman really want to only do the household, cook, clean, agree with her husband, and make babies.

Those were the woman gender role of just 30-40 years ago.

And almost everybody complied to this idea.

So don't think we don't still have those culturally dominated gender roles today.

I'm extremely cautious to call it "natural behavior".

I didn't ever play with Lego as a child. I played with other building toys. My mother and I were talking about it one day and she stated that she didn't think I could follow the instructions. This may sound discouraging, but she might have been right. She encouraged me to have freedom in my playing and not stay in the box, so to speak. Her misconception that nothing else could be done with Lego kept me from playing with it until I was 24 years old. I work in a female dominated field and am a designer clothes, handbag and shoe junkie. I identify very strongly with female gender roles in society, except the part about being a mother and cooking all the meals.

With that said, I do not think that Lego caters to males. The lines that are completely unappealing to me include Power Miners, Space Police, Mars Mission (except that one minifig with printed legs, Sandy Moondust). I find that Castle sets that include a woman are usually based in some sort of fairy tale scene, where my knight in shining armour comes to rescue me, the princess. Castle sets overall are appealing to me and have fantasy characters. Have any of you ever read fairy tales? Knights in shining armour, evil ogars, wizards, princes, knights on white horses. Harry Potter seems to have more of a female following as well. Spongebob wasn't exactly marketed to boys either. Paradisa was so obviously female system that it seems to be the only one that I identify with the stereotypical female gender role (I love Paradisa). The new Disney license may help open the door to some female fans as well. My favourite them is Town/City. Town/City has a gender neutral appeal to me. Sure it has police and fire houses, but it also has aesthetically pleasing components that everyone can truly appreciate. There are things in every theme which appeal to me as a woman. Shadows and I generally agree on what we like as far as Lego goes.

So the question remains unanswered. Why don't you see more women and girls on the Lego aisle? I'm not sure. Maybe we just use S@H.

I dont agree at all with your statement. By nuancing like this you are basically discriminating against all men and woman who want to behave differently.

By claiming there might be a natural way in behaving seperated by gender lines. Which I believe there is not.

I believe there is a large grey area inbetween men and female gender. Only in the extremes you will find differences.

But that argument about extremes could also holds between people from different countries. But then it is called discrimination.

While taking the entirely opposite view leaves freedom for all individuals to behave as they think is best.

Since you stated we can not proof either one I think it is best to uphold the view which limits the fewest people.

Read what I wrote again carefully before jumping to conclusions. You seem to think that since I disagree with your statement about the roles being predominantly culturally determined, I must therefore think that biology determines it. If so, you've got it completely wrong. You also seem to think that we can simply chose to believe in one point of view or another, based on what we like or what we don't like. That too is completely wrong.

The question of what determines human behaviour is actually a scientific one and most of the science that I am aware of indicates that human behaviour is the result of a combination of what we are taught and our biology. The reason why you can't separate the two is because they go hand in hand. There may be certain elements of human behaviour where one or the other dominates, but when it comes to the question at the start of this thread the only sensible answer is that the jury is still out.

Your point of view "it's mainly cultural" can also be grounds for discrimination BTW. Some conservative religious people believe that homosexuality, for instance, is a person's choice or a function of how they were raised and has nothing whatsoever to do with biology.

He isnt discriminating, he is stating that it is a mixture of nature (how you are when you are born) and nurture (how you are brought up).

Thank you for understanding my point and for your excellent example.

Cheers,

Ralph

Edited June 21, 200915 yr by Ralph_S

If I would be a young girl ( ) ... what female MF characters would be there for me to identify myself with?

More now than just one or two years before, yeah, but... nothing too exciting either. No female cop or fire fighter,

no ma´am on a mission to Mars if I remember right, a Castle (and Ork) queen consort but sadly no Jeanne d’Arc

for sure, one Agent in distress and one villain sidekick and I think one hidden female spacecop perhaps in the

Galactic Enforcer set too, but no prominent PowerMiner gal that I know and no Batgirl to see neither far nor wide...

Of course I could MOD such characters, but that´s not the point... there´re simply too less interesting and strong

heroine characters in LEGO sets 'straight out of the box', and if one lone cowgirl still appears, from time to

time, it´s a rather rare and most of the time pretty random looking kind of guest appearance...

Hmm... guess I´ll stick to my Barbie then. Ahem. If i would be a young girl that is... of course.

If I would be a young girl ( ) ... what female MF characters would be there for me to identify myself with?

More now than just one or two years before, yeah, but... nothing too exciting either. No female cop or fire fighter,

no ma´am on a mission to Mars if I remember right, a Castle (and Ork) queen consort but sadly no Jeanne d’Arc

for sure, one Agent in distress and one villain sidekick and I think one hidden female spacecop perhaps in the

Galactic Enforcer set too, but no prominent PowerMiner gal that I know and no Batgirl to see neither far nor wide...

Before the world of the smiley became muddled by 1000 different faces, it was simply the hair that determined male or female, and there were plenty of female characters.

There used to be female cops, doctors, there was a princess who was also a knight, 4 in space, a couple of female ninja princesses, a female Rock Raider, 3 or 4 in Adventurers, several in Agents, all of Paradisa. All the licensed themes have had them as appropriate, HP, SW, Batman had Cat Woman, Harley Quinn and Poison Ivy (villains are never helpless victims). I suspect we'd have seen Batgirl eventually. SW has had 8 including Princess Leia, Padme/Amidala, Mon Mothma, all strong leader types (honestly, SW isn't full of women)... oh hell, here's a list courtesy of Sandy.

It is balanced? No. But they have been out there.

(...) there was a princess who was also a knight

I know the one you mean I think... beautiful torso design.

It is balanced? No. But they have been out there.

What I said...

(...) there´re simply too less interesting and strong heroine characters in LEGO sets 'straight out of the box', and if one lone cowgirl

still appears, from time to time, it´s a rather rare and most of the time pretty random looking kind of guest appearance...

When I look at all the many boxes in the LEGO aisle, there´s simply not much there in terms of female MF characters to attract some girls.

And never was. Token women and some inevitable license characters, at best.

Interesting (and promising?) enough, the new Pirate line seems at least to come with one rather strong female character... maybe there´s some hope...

Edited June 21, 200915 yr by Asuka

No I didn't mis the statement, but i want to be absolutely clear in my point of view.

"Almost all behavior is culturaly influenced."

Our gender role models are cultural behavior too.

And one of the most important influences on gender behavior is not accounted for yet.

Peer pressure.

It might be that your sisters friends influenced her as well.

And maybe her teacher, parents of her friends, classmates, television shows, commercials, etc.

There might be that she just is not interested at all in Lego, but I'm not saying that that is a bat thing.

I'm mearly proclaiming that our gender roles are very if not completely culturally influenced.

How many woman really want to only do the household, cook, clean, agree with her husband, and make babies.

Those were the woman gender role of just 30-40 years ago.

And almost everybody complied to this idea.

So don't think we don't still have those culturally dominated gender roles today.

I'm extremely cautious to call it "natural behavior".

I wasn't saying it was all natural behaviour, but it isn't completely socialy influenced. What I am saying is that for both boys and girls, some are naturaly more inclined to some things over others. There is always going to be someone who bucks the trend and do something percieved as negative for their gender as socialy defined. However, there will always be someone who is prevented from doing something by a self inflicted or peer influnced reason. It is very very complicated what makes us tick and how gender is defined and "ologists" of all kinds have been debating the bare bones for centuries. If all things were to start from zero again we would all have equal opportunities, but sadly we have millenia of social baggage to lug around and be anchored by.

If all social history, and by extension gender roles, was wiped out, there would still be people inclined to one thing or the other.

I wasn't saying it was all natural behaviour, but it isn't completely socialy influenced. What I am saying is that for both boys and girls, some are naturaly more inclined to some things over others. There is always going to be someone who bucks the trend and do something percieved as negative for their gender as socialy defined. However, there will always be someone who is prevented from doing something by a self inflicted or peer influnced reason. It is very very complicated what makes us tick and how gender is defined and "ologists" of all kinds have been debating the bare bones for centuries. If all things were to start from zero again we would all have equal opportunities, but sadly we have millenia of social baggage to lug around and be anchored by.

If all social history, and by extension gender roles, was wiped out, there would still be people inclined to one thing or the other.

That is true. My point is that the gender roles in our culture are verry dominant.

The ancient Egyptians had more gender equality than us. And I'm warry of making generalizations.

I'm trying to analyse the question.

A friend of mine once said:

"Men get all the cool toys. Woman merely get a doll which becomes more real as they grow up."

And I have noticed that given the chance, woman enjoy a lot of stuff which is considered mens stuff in our culture.

Just a simple cross culture example. Here football (soccer) is considered a mans sport.

While in the US it is totaly excepted that it is played by woman.

I'm not trying to change anything, I'm rather trying to analyse the origin.

Is it really that girls don't like Lego because they are girls, or is it that they are told not to like Lego so much that they believe they don't like it.

Personally I believe the latter to be true. In all fareness given a totaly level playng ground there might be more boys than girls liking it.

But, I believe it could also be the other way round. And that possibility would alter our gender preference debate.

Than again I don't believe Lego can break social stereotyping so the situation will remaine as it is for some time to come.

From my personal experience; I haven't had a negative reaction from a girl or girlfriend on Lego yet.

And my biggest fan is the grandmother of my girlfriend.

Girls are attracted to that thing in your signature, not Legos .

But hey, more of us ..

little girls dont dont grow up wanting to be a fireman, policeman, clonetrooper, adventurer, spaceman, knight, pirate,...... i can go on you know. for some reason lego just isnt a barbie doll formated toy company. a little girl wont have fun popping a wig off a minifig, putting a new one on and saying, wow mommy, shes beautiful.

im starting to scare my self a bit now

Personally, I feel that the reason that there are far more male lego fans than female lego fans is very simple: because TLC has for years had a preconcieved notion that they should only market general lego products to boys. Instead of making products that appeal to both genders, they focus almost entirely on action heavy themes that feature lots of conflict and shooting devices.

I agree with this completely. I would agree that little girls might not be naturally drawn to lego, but TLC itself perpetuates this by marketing sets geared toward boys. This continues the cycle of parents believing that lego sets are for boys.

Fortunately when I was little girl, my parents didn't give a crap about gender stereotypes and nobody told me that I would not enjoy lego because I was a girl. My brother also had a cabbage patch kid and he turned out okay.

I do wish that TLC would focus more on lines that are not conflict driven. Bring on modular city. Bring on the zoo with lots of animals. Bring on the hotels and boutiques!

So that way, when I come busting out of my office job with my designer handbag slung over my shoulder and awesome strappy heels on, I have something to look forward to when I get home. Seriously though, I'm so far off of TLC's demographic they can't even see me. And it doesn't help that they're not exactly looking at my gender for new customers. You would think they would work a little harder to bring in little girls...I'm hopeful that Disney will have a more widespread appeal.

Finn

From my personal experience; I haven't had a negative reaction from a girl or girlfriend on Lego yet.

And my biggest fan is the grandmother of my girlfriend.

It's the same way with me. My mom, sisters, grandmother, aunts, and teachers are amazed by the things I come up with with Lego. I think it may even be something of a turn-on

I always thought that being a Lego man was the origin of being a 'stud'.

Sorry for interrupting a serious thread, but Lego is a fun outlet for me. My wife finds it amusing, but has no interest in building. So be it, I'm not into shoes.

Of course we know the real reason boys like lego:

Building it and then throwing it down the stairs to see how well it stays together.

...

The very few girls that I know seem to like lego. Actually, they still have a little bit. When a small group of friends came over to watch V for Vendetta, one of these girl friends commented on how cool lego was now and built a little bit during the movie.

I personally have no quarell with girls and Lego. Any more would be appreciated. I suppose it's like men playing with lego - it's generally percieved to be wrong.

Though my family quite admire what I can do with lego; my 2 older brothers and m,y sister played with lego from the age when they could. Hence my lego collection being from the 70's to the present.

And yes, I'm generally percieved to be a "nerd"; I prefer to call it "actually bothered to learn something other than how to beat baddies on the XBox"

In my opinion, society is generally sexist (though they insist they aren't). When I was at college [Electronics, before you ask], the only female students I saw were the 2 on my course and another 2 who were studing about telecomms. If your female and tell someone your interested in engineering or manufacturing in anyway and normally you either get stared like your an alien at or tutted. Yet I've met some older working women (like at a power plant) who actually seem to do their jobs better than their male counterparts...

My 2½ year old daughter loves lego (duplo), and not just playing with the characters either - she loves just sticking bricks together and building 'houses'. I actually have to encourage her to make the figures interact, to encourage her to learn about people and social relationships.

There've been some really interesting comments about gender roles and cultural influences on this thread, (I also studied Sociology!), and I don't believe that young kids are biologically predisposed to play with one thing or another, not along gender lines anyway - it's more how it's marketed and how parents interpret how it's marketed to start with. When my little girl moves up to Lego System I don't know what Lego I'll buy her; I'd love to get her castles, but I'll have to hide the swords/weapons, because I don't want her play to be all about fighting. If there was a Lego zoo, I'd definitely buy it for her, because animals are good!

So I think how kids are socialised is the main factor in what makes them want to play with Lego, whether they're boys or girls. Incidentally, I'll be wanting my baby son to play with the same Lego as my daughter when he's old enough.

Also my wife loves to help me build my Star Wars Lego, even though she won't admit it.

I personally have no quarell with girls and Lego. Any more would be appreciated. I suppose it's like men playing with lego - it's generally percieved to be wrong.

Though my family quite admire what I can do with lego; my 2 older brothers and m,y sister played with lego from the age when they could. Hence my lego collection being from the 70's to the present.

And yes, I'm generally percieved to be a "nerd"; I prefer to call it "actually bothered to learn something other than how to beat baddies on the XBox"

In my opinion, society is generally sexist (though they insist they aren't). When I was at college [Electronics, before you ask], the only female students I saw were the 2 on my course and another 2 who were studing about telecomms. If your female and tell someone your interested in engineering or manufacturing in anyway and normally you either get stared like your an alien at or tutted. Yet I've met some older working women (like at a power plant) who actually seem to do their jobs better than their male counterparts...

Have to say I have never had that issue.

My grandparents are all really proud and keep telling me what an excellent career I chose (Civil Engineering).

Out on site I get lovely old chaps coming over to find out what the council are doing in the area and always end with a "It's lovely to see a young lady in this profession" There were six of us on the course in uni.

I guess it depends on the area you live in.

Why does Lego appeal more to the male gender than the female? I know there are some female members here but most of them are male. Even when I go to stores, I see all these little boys crowding around the Lego but no girls. Why is it this way?

I don't think it has as much to do with which demographic Lego sets are aimed at as people think. Yes they are mainly geared towards boys but there is a very simple reason for this. In general boys like building and constructing things more than girls do. For many reasons to do with spacial awareness, insticts from when we were cavemen and so on they just....do. That is why they are geared more towards boys, because they are easier to sell lego to. I hate "political correctness" especially when a simple truth must be distorted to become PC. The truth is boys and girls are different. That doesn't mean to say that Lego should not release some sets that are aimed towards girls because of cause they should. I just wouldn't expect the same kind of sales figures that you would get from some other products aimed more towards boys.

So in short this aiming of sets towards boys is not a causal effect, but a reactive effect of boys likeing Lego more than girls. Thats just the way we are.

So in short this aiming of sets towards boys is not a causal effect, but a reactive effect of boys likeing Lego more than girls. Thats just the way we are.

I agree with you that boys and girls are different, and they're generally attracted to different types of toys, but that's all generalization. There's always going to be girls that like cars and building sets, likewise there will always be boys who prefer dolls and skipping ropes.

So the question remains, how should TLG approach the demographic of girls that are into building? It would certainly be wise to take them into consideration, if only with one theme. Belville was their answer to the question for a decade (even though it didn't involve much building, really), but now it has run its course. So what next? Or are they going to just leave the girls hanging, make them settle with the action-themes they offer to the boys?

My point is, just because (assumedly) most of the girls don't like to build with LEGO, should TLG not try to reach out to girls at all? I sincerely hope they don't think so.

I agree with you that boys and girls are different, and they're generally attracted to different types of toys, but that's all generalization. There's always going to be girls that like cars and building sets, likewise there will always be boys who prefer dolls and skipping ropes.

So the question remains, how should TLG approach the demographic of girls that are into building? It would certainly be wise to take them into consideration, if only with one theme. Belville was their answer to the question for a decade (even though it didn't involve much building, really), but now it has run its course. So what next? Or are they going to just leave the girls hanging, make them settle with the action-themes they offer to the boys?

I suppose there are a few ways. One is to create a line that's just for them (like belville was). I wonder if it would be best to make it totally girly with pink everywhere and ponies and princesses in castles and such. Or would a completely different approach be better like a theme that revolves around a group of female spies. What do you think?

Another way is a little more subtle whereby they realease sets aimed at girls within an existing theme or many themes like city (or bionicle. They could have a pink one!) It would be interesting to see what ideas people here have for sets within existing themes that might appeal to girls. There could be lots of city sets (that boys might want aswell so that the countless police and firemen, er firepersons, might have someone to save!) like:

the vets with lots of animals or a zoo,

a california beach (with womens volleyball!!!!!!),

a hairdressers/salon/spa thingy,

an all girl rock band on stage with a large audience/ticket office/backstage area/food and drinks vendors/etc (think of all the minifigures!),

a shopping mall,

a school maybe?

or just some nice suburban houses with gardens (including instructions to build ten different looking houses with the same peices).

What do ya think?

>SNIP<

a california beach (with womens volleyball!!!!!!),

>SNIP<

I think that would appeal to both genders.

Sets that would appeal to girls I know (a gaggle of 10 year olds): Pet Shop, Vet, Pony Center, something classical princes-ey. Fairy Tales but in normal Lego not Bellville (they have polly pocket for those sort of doll figures).

A sort of garden or park series, flowerbeds, park keeper, fountain. Things like that.

In my opinion, society is generally sexist (though they insist they aren't). When I was at college [Electronics, before you ask], the only female students I saw were the 2 on my course and another 2 who were studing about telecomms. If your female and tell someone your interested in engineering or manufacturing in anyway and normally you either get stared like your an alien at or tutted. Yet I've met some older working women (like at a power plant) who actually seem to do their jobs better than their male counterparts...

This was exactly my case...Purdue University Mechanical Engineering 1997 - 1999. I was treated like an anomally. If I wasn't beating back the advances from the male engineers, I was trying to show them that I was just as good (if not better!) than them with regard to our major. The final straw was when I was asked not to contribute to our sophomore design project and instead "just write the final report." I switched my major to management and never looked back. Now I spend my time supervising a bunch of civil engineers. Who says fate does not have a sense of humor!

I will say though, that there were two engineering majors that seemed fairly wide open to females. One of them was aerospace and the other was civil. And at the civil engineering firm I now work at...our project manager male to female ratio is almost 50/50.

I agree with you that boys and girls are different, and they're generally attracted to different types of toys, but that's all generalization. There's always going to be girls that like cars and building sets, likewise there will always be boys who prefer dolls and skipping ropes.

So the question remains, how should TLG approach the demographic of girls that are into building? It would certainly be wise to take them into consideration, if only with one theme. Belville was their answer to the question for a decade (even though it didn't involve much building, really), but now it has run its course. So what next? Or are they going to just leave the girls hanging, make them settle with the action-themes they offer to the boys?

My point is, just because (assumedly) most of the girls don't like to build with LEGO, should TLG not try to reach out to girls at all? I sincerely hope they don't think so.

I think that there is a lot of opportunity with the city line to expand TLC offerings toward girls. Many of these have already been mentioned, but how about boutiques and shops, more houses with yards and gardens, outdoor fountains, a zoo, a horse stable, etc. I think a vet office is a great idea. And I love the beach volleyball suggestion!

I also am surprised that TLC has never tried to market more of their castle line toward girls. It seems like the castle line would be a natural fit for some of the fantasy princess fairy tales that lots of little girls grow up hearing. I'm not saying that it has to be an all girly castle line, but just add some sets that feature princesses prominently. How about an elaborate carriage with horses? A tower for the princess to live in (and be rescued from if need be)? A ballroom set? More civilian type sets like the Medieval Market?

I'm hopeful that the TLC will use the disney license to market more to little girls. It seems like with the disney license there would be a lot of potential. And I think it should all be system type sets. Having a line like Belville that does not really fit into the system world is awkward.

Finn

Well, boys don't like dolls but girls do. Even if we do have female figs, there are male dolls for girls too. Do you know what I mean?