Getting girls to play with/buy LEGO

[fred67]

I find it funnily ironic that I've read alot of comments in this thread about female stereotypes and pink blocks. Yet as soon as I posted identifying that I was female, what did you do but slap a pink star me!

I know you were teasing, but I always wondered why a woman would want to go out of her way to identify herself as a woman, as if on a mostly anonymous internet bulletin board about LEGO it should really matter. I feel the same way about the female AFOLs they highlight in brickjournal. I guess the thing is that you don't reduce racism/sexism/classisms by highlighting how someone is different as opposed to highlighting how someone is the same (sharing common interests).

In other words, it's a big deal because we make it a big deal, which only makes the divide seem larger.

[Gryphon Ink]

I agree with your sentiment, but perhaps the real question in that case should be "How do you promote Lego in a way that parents won't think of them as boy's toys?"

Well, assuming that TLG actually wanted to do this - which I think is a false assumption - they could...

Change the ratio of male to female minifigs, and stop short-changing the females in the background stories. Put the women in a much higher number of sets, so they don't only come in one of the most expensive sets in a theme. Let them have guns or bows like the men have, and don't only put them in stories where they need to be rescued. Make sure there is at least one theme each year where a woman is the actual leader of the team, and don't think "well, if a woman is the leader there don't need to be any other females in the group, right?" Because that's a cheat.

Design a wider variety of "civilian" elements in the existing themes. The City line needs hospitals, parks, shops, zoos, veterinarians, skate parks, school buses, houses, and more farms. The Castle theme needs taverns, healers, weavers, stables, witches. With civilian elements, it's a lot easier to add sets that fit with existing female stereotypes. You can use a wider variety of colors, add more animals, and have more power roles for women. The AFOL crowd would love it, too.

Change the advertising. Don't only show boys playing with Lego. Instead of having just the "WIN!" boy on the back of the instruction booklets, have a boy and a girl. Yes, I know that all toy advertising is designed with one specific gender in mind. It's still stupid, and it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Let's change the world, shall we?

Do some street-level marketing that showcases female Lego creators, whether they're adult women or teenaged girls. Get some women demonstrating Lego building in stores, meeting with Girl Scout troops, coordinating Lego days at summer camps.

The last one I suggest with some hesitation, because I don't like Disney much, but here's a thought anyway: use the Disney connection to create Lego themes based on "girls' movies." Simultaneously, pay for some decent product placement in those same movies. Disney and Pixar OWN girls' entertainment, whether it's movies or TV shows or books or video games. If Disney ever decided to go against the existing gender stereotypes, believe me, the existing gender stereotypes would change in five years. If Disney and Lego teamed up to change the stereotypes, they would be changed before you could blink. These companies are just that big. I doubt that the companies will ever do that, because both companies are quite conservative and not interested in facilitating positive social change. But they CAN team up to sell more toys and make money. A while back, somebody talked about a "Classic Disney" Lego theme featuring sets from all the movies. Something like that would make tons of money and bring in a lot of girls. Who here wouldn't buy some Lilo and Stitch Lego sets? Or the treehouse from Enchanted? Sets from the Nightmare Before Christmas? The Little Mermaid Atlantean palace? How about Incredibles sets?

[Zeya]

Good points, Gryphon. Although your post-apocalyptic scenario with full-on Disney Lego scares brown 2x8 bricks out of my rear end. They would of course sell ridiculously well, as most things Disney do. But that might force out original Lego themes from the product line... but I digress. I would also point out that I'm fairly certain I saw some Winnie the Pooh sets in a catalog leak. (Pooh is now owned by Disney, although it wasn't always.)

The Belville line is creepy. Or rather, the girl figurine is the creepy part. It's like they took a look at your standard minifig and asked how they could make it better, and then they turned it into a doll. Okay well, now you're competing with Barbie and countless other dolls, and those products are probably more robust with clothes and accessories. I'm guessing that their market research showed that girls wanted more interaction with "the little people", so they blew it up in size to make it better for accessories. Or rather, they didn't want to produce too many standard minifigures in a set, since they generally cost the most to churn out. But by blowing up the person, they made it so that Belville is separated from System sets. You can't bring the Belville girl into City sets because she'll be Godzilla sized! I don't know, it's all messed up. I guess Belville is still alive and kicking though, so there must be something to it.

I can't agree more that we need more female minifigs. And I know why Lego has the ratio all lopsided; it's just a shame though. As an adult, the female figs are almost always my favorites, although I wish more of them had pants with prints rather than a plain slope to simulate a dress.

You know, I never fully understood what the deal is with the color pink. And how can it be so universal? Go walk in the girl's toy aisle and look at the color. It's pink on pretty much every product. Sometimes there will be purple, which is really just pink, except a bit more sassy. I guess we as a society just inundate infant girls with pink items, and that becomes "how it is". Hmm.

[Brickdoctor]

Good points, Gryphon. Although your post-apocalyptic scenario with full-on Disney Lego scares brown 2x8 bricks out of my rear end. They would of course sell ridiculously well, as most things Disney do. But that might force out original Lego themes from the product line... but I digress. I would also point out that I'm fairly certain I saw some Winnie the Pooh sets in a catalog leak. (Pooh is now owned by Disney, although it wasn't always.)

Yup. We get Pooh, PotC, and System Cars in the next waves.

I know Mega Brands used to have the license for it, and there were PotC and princess MegaBloks for a time, but I would assume that contract no longer exists if TLG is making the PotC sets.

Edited February 2, 2011 by Brickdoctor

[Cara]

I realize this is a joke, but in response, you only get that if you ask for it, and it's a color that's easily identified. If we gave you a not-so-over-girly color like red, then you'd get confused with the Grand Dukes. Besides, think of all the poor male Dukes running around with purple stars!

Yes it was very much a joke - I tried to make that apparent.

I think this comes back to being included. I identified myself as a way of saying hey I'm here and I like the same thing you do - LEGO.

Pink is a colour like any other. Just as I don't want green or yellow to take over my block majority nor would I want pink to. I would look for LEGO to increase the diversity of the bricks any colour (including pink) comes in. Not forcefully impress, for example, a whole pink house on us. The exception is where people would be happy to buy a single colour set for the parts.

As the mother of a kindergartener that has female friends which like lego I fully concur that young girls do like lego And agree from my expeience that animal theme, faeries, light airy fantasy and female hero figures are all very good ideas.

Advertising which includes a girl in it even if it seperates the boy playing with his star wars set from the girl playing with her animals would be a good start. (Do the lego games adverts include girls?)

Making female figures more readily available in the <$20 price range sets is another key.

I think there is a good start in the new historical minifigure set. But it seems very expensive. My children would much rather save for two weeks then buy a ~$6 set that has two figures and some small play feature. They are young and into instant gratification. If they manage to save for something in the $10-$20 range it is pretty amazing.

Edited February 2, 2011 by Cara

[Gryphon Ink]

... your post-apocalyptic scenario with full-on Disney Lego scares brown 2x8 bricks out of my rear end. They would of course sell ridiculously well, as most things Disney do. But that might force out original Lego themes from the product line... but I digress. I would also point out that I'm fairly certain I saw some Winnie the Pooh sets in a catalog leak. (Pooh is now owned by Disney, although it wasn't always.)

I was actually really hesitant to even put that down as a suggestion, because I don't like the Mouse House at all. I hate what they did with every classic children's book they've ever touched, I hate their gender bias and many other biases that feature in so many of their movies. I hate the way they do business, annihilating their superior competitors by buying them out (Pixar) or buying the distribution rights (Ghibli) instead of improving their own offerings. And yes, that kind of alliance would really put the squeeze on Lego's non-licensed themes.

Maybe a healthier alternative would be for TLG to develop a fairytale theme. Personally, I'd like to put the fantasy back in the Castle theme, but a lot of AFOLs seem to hate that idea, and I can sort of understand their perspective. So I'd like to see a full-blown fantasy theme alongside the Kingdoms sets. Rapunzel's tower and an elven hollow hill, goblin mines and unicorns and fairy circles. Disney have made movies from a lot of these old stories, but they don't own the rights to the concepts. I think this could be a pretty cool theme.

[tedbeard]

I think we may have really hit on something here with the discussion of animal-themed sets. My little girl (8 years old) loves nothing more than to play with my "animal" drawer. She spends hours lining them up and trying to build things for them. This and building the Modular Houses Standard buildings with me seem to be her favorites. I think the Fire Brigade was particularly good because it had a female firefighter which was something mentioned in the older posts as a specific failing.

And for the record: I think she likes pink just fine but only for things like the minifigs "clothes" or accessories. The reason pink doesn't work for bricks is because very few houses or cars or even pieces of furniture in the real world are pink. I think my little girl wants to build more realistically.

[Zeya]

Making female figures more readily available in the <$20 price range sets is another key.

That's a really good point. I kind of enjoy knowing that some of my figs are rarer and worth more money, and I wouldn't want that to go away. But knowing that nearly all female figures are the rare, expensive ones? That's just not fair.

Maybe a healthier alternative would be for TLG to develop a fairytale theme. Personally, I'd like to put the fantasy back in the Castle theme, but a lot of AFOLs seem to hate that idea, and I can sort of understand their perspective. So I'd like to see a full-blown fantasy theme alongside the Kingdoms sets. Rapunzel's tower and an elven hollow hill, goblin mines and unicorns and fairy circles. Disney have made movies from a lot of these old stories, but they don't own the rights to the concepts. I think this could be a pretty cool theme.

That would be totally cool, fairytale sets. Most AFOLs want sets with minifigures that lack faction A versus faction B warfare.

Maybe we should start a Disney-bashing thread. It would be cathartic. (Just joking, let's not do that. Or am I joking? I don't know.)

[NickyBlade]

If they really want to get some girls into Lego... Twilight theme! lol

[Peppermint_M]

If they really want to get some girls into Lego... Twilight theme! lol

Oh yes, because the girls who read sparklevampire misogyny would totally be playing with toys too...

The fairy tales sort of theme would work very well. My sister and I would act out some stories using my Lego, and she had an interest in Belville when the tales told were some of her favourites.

[lightningtiger]

If they really want to get some girls into Lego... Twilight theme! lol

Twilight theme..........WTF ?

And are you serious ?

Even though Lego is promoted as a boy toy, girls just like 'Peppermint_M' love to create with our beloved brick. Lego, I feel is slowly waking up to this fact, just look at the city range in the last two years....a female chef running a pizza cafe, a female manager of a TRU store and now at least two female police officers plus a bank manager too.

Plus in Dacta's latest minifig collection for towns people, a female construction worker.

Still Lego must do more, but I don't mean everything in a shade of pink, but more sets that would interest girls would still having some appeal to boys....shops for girls to shop at, but crooks (for the boys) to rob or a sport car dealership....hey boys and girls both love sports cars....don't they ?

Maybe we should have a big think tank and give Lego a hand......maybe an ideas contest here on EB........what do you think 'Peppermint_M' ?

Brick On Everyone !

[Zeya]

Undead emo James Dean guy is begging for a Lego mold that will do justice to his sweet hair, that he spends an hour every morning sculpting.

[MinifigFreak2010]

The hair looks pretty close to the series 2 karate guy's hair.

[Izzy]

Stop already with the twilight stuff. It is totally off topic. TLG will never make it and we don't want them to. Move on and stop desecrating this beautiful site.

I love the Rapunzel style idea. As much as some girls don't like soft girls in need of rescuing characters. I think that would work really well. Princes, Princess and some cute mascots.

[autobrick]

I've said many, many, many times that I think the whole exaggerated dichotomy between girls' and boys' interests and tastes is a completely made-up, self-fulfilling prophecy.

Come now, don't tell me you really believe this. While I will concede that society can be blamed for stigmatizing those that go outside gender roles, to say that society 'programmed' girls into liking dolls and playing house and boys into soldiers and toy cars, is completely ridiculous. Have you not considered the possibility that boys and girls can (not always) have general likes and dislikes which are different, which would be reflected in their choice of toys? The effect of society is more of a reinforcing effect, as opposed to a directional effect. You can't get kids to play with toys they don't want to play with (they'll play with the box instead).

Anyways, I agree with the general sentiment that Lego should focus on expanding City to include civilian elements, preferably with a good amount of female minifigs. This would not appeal only to girls, but to AFOLs as well. I also think that creating a fairy-tale/animal-orientated theme would also draw in girls, (and AFOLs!) and this is an area that Lego is missing out on (see: Playmobil). However, I don't shoehorning female minifigs into every theme would work well (for example, having many female knights/pirates seems unusual to me).

Edited February 3, 2011 by autobrick

[ka.lego]

I've said many, many, many times that I think the whole exaggerated dichotomy between girls' and boys' interests and tastes is a completely made-up, self-fulfilling prophecy. Girls do not have to like pink.... Likewise, there's nothing inherently masculine about building toys. There is no reason to think that girls who are introduced to building toys wouldn't be interested in doing the same things with them as boys if society didn't teach them a bunch of stupid false values telling them that "girls don't do that". The reason girls like dressing up and putting on makeup more than boys do, is that we teach them to. Many, many little boys like to put on their mom's makeup and jewelry. And no little girl ever thinks anything about it. It's the adults who tell them, "no, no, boys don't do that."

Exactly! Perfectly put. As a high school teacher, soon-to-be parent, and spouse to a 5th grade teacher, I see this socialized gender-norming process every day. At an earlier age, it's definitely the adults teaching our kids that girls like x and boys like y, and rarely shall the twain meet. As they get into their adolescence and teen years, their peers and pop culture become bigger factors.

And no, it's not up to the parents exclusively.... It's impossible to keep society's ideals from growing girls. Don't blame parents. Blame parents and daycare workers and schools and TV and toy companies and fast food chains and everything. Blame yourself if, shopping for a niece's birthday present, you ever skipped over the Lego aisle or the bookstore and opted for some Hannah Montana trash or a set of hair accessories because you assumed her parents wouldn't want her to get Lego or books.

Again, agreed. I appreciate your entry. It really gets to the root of the problem. Like you, I do believe one solution for getting girls and young women to play with LEGO more is to surround them with LEGO and try to do your best to present them with a gender neutral environment as much as possible so as not to limit their concept of what's "acceptable" play for girls vs. boys.

This leads me to the important role a company like LEGO plays in, at least, lessening the divide between girls toys and boys toys by broadening their product line away from the stereotypical "girly" sets in contrast to "not-'girly'" sets, if you know what I mean. I'm not going to suggest they completely stop creating those sets, because they must appeal to some kids or TLC wouldn't have bothered, but perhaps do a lot less of this almost insulting stereotyping which is way too gender-narrowing. Some proactive ideas:

1. Aggressively work in more female characters into their existing "not-'girly'" / boy-biased sets, eg all System sets. Quality female characters, please. No more sideline, minor characters. Lets have some key female characters as leaders / sheroes of themes. And how about we get not just one, but two, three, or half of the figs in a theme be females? I've heard people counter this idea by saying something like, "They don't do it because when they do they don't sell." Personally, I haven't seen a good example of these hypothetical attempts. And if it is the case in focus group scenarios, I don't think that's the same as actually creating a line and seeing if it'll sell. I don't think anyone's ever really blazed the trail by committing to the idea of having more female characters in a toy line to be able to truly say it doesn't work. (Am I missing an example? Anyone know?) I think TLC is in a great position to take a risk and try it out with one theme some day. This won't bankrupt this thriving toy dynasty.
   
2. Be mindful of the stereotyping. Do we really need a Hula Girl and Geisha? (Troublesome on a couple levels...biting tongue.) Baywatch-esque Lifeguard? Cutesy/sexy Pop Star? Cheerleader? I take issue with these for several reasons, but I'm not saying we shouldn't have these at all so much as I'm wondering why TLC offers these before giving us at least one figure like a female ninja, female alien, female elf warrior, female skater, female zombie, female deep sea diver, female amazon warrior, female ring master, female explorer, female surfer (soon via series 4!...finally), female karate champ, female vampire, female traffic cop, female mime, female rapper, female gorilla suit person, female race car driver, female mummy, female pilot, etc. etc. etc. In other words, they released male versions of the characters I just listed when at least one or more could've easily been females all throughout series 1-3. Instead, for the token female figs they did create, most were these stereotypical female characters mentioned earlier. (The one exception being the female snowboarder...see, that wasn't hard, was it?) The overall message being sent by the current choices is the same old tired one that adheres to unnecessarily divisive gender roles.
   
3. Give us a choice! Many times all you need to do is replace a male minifig head with a female one to make it a cool female character. Why not pack in an additional female head with minifigs? Or go cheap and print one side male, the other female. (Throw us a bone and give us some hair too please...assuming there's not a helmet or other headgear.)
   
4. Consider the many points in this thread and elsewhere about a variety of modes of play (eg building, conflict-centered, action-oriented, playset, dress-up, games, etc. etc. etc.) and work these into existing themes. I actually think TLC sort of does this, for example, by having one set in a theme focused on a vehicle while another is more about building a cool building, etc., but it can be done with a more conscious attempt to attract a broader audience like young women, aka appeal to other demographics ($$$) without alienating your core.
   

How do you get girls to play with Lego? You buy them Lego. You show them how to build some cool things, and set them loose. And you don't tell them girls don't play Lego.

Precisely. To expand on this, I'd like TLC to do a better job by giving us more sets that we wouldn't mind buying for our kids. I, for one, would feel a little hollow buying Ninjago for my daughter (or son for that matter) knowing that there's no female character in the main...just the one in a crowd of 15 boys (human and skeleton) who is so minor and secondary in the theme's narrative. I wouldn't want my daughter or son playing with a population of characters where only one is female, and a relatively unimportant character at that. What message would my kid be getting from that?

[Gryphon Ink]

Come now, don't tell me you really believe this.

Yes, I absolutely do. So do the overwhelming majority of women that I've discussed this with. And I'll bet you can't find a single major study proving me wrong.

While I will concede that society can be blamed for stigmatizing those that go outside gender roles, to say that society 'programmed' girls into liking dolls and playing house and boys into soldiers and toy cars, is completely ridiculous.

It's not ridiculous, it's exactly what happens. I've seen it in myself, in my two daughters, in several friends' children, and in my experience as a daycare worker. Preschool-aged boys love to play with dolls, and girls at the same age love to play with cars and trucks and construction equipment. Go to any daycare where they let the kids play whatever they want, and you'll see it. I've seen three-year-old boys dress up in pink princess dresses and pretend to put on makeup. I've seen a two-year-old girl bash another kid over the head with a toy truck when they tried to take it away from her. Sooner or later, the boys' dads or uncles (it's almost always the men in the family) have hissy fits about them playing dress-up, and the TV teaches the girls that proper girls play with dolls instead of trucks, and that the girls who like to wear jeans and no makeup are "tomboys" (or worse!).

What do you think "stigmatizing those that go outside gender roles" is, if not programming? Society rewards the kids that stay in the approved gender roles by praising them, and punishes the ones that don't by calling them strange or simply withholding praise. That IS programming. It's exactly how you train dogs. Call it "training" if you don't like the sound of the word "programming". It has the same effect.

You can't get kids to play with toys they don't want to play with (they'll play with the box instead).

Of course you can. Reward them when they play with the "right" toy, and withhold your attention when they don't. Kids crave attention from their parents more than all the toys in the world. Kids will stand on a stool washing dishes with their parents if they get positive reinforcement (read: attention) for doing it. And by the way, boxes are loads of fun. Basic equipment at any proper daycare facility.

However, I don't shoehorning female minifigs into every theme would work well (for example, having many female knights/pirates seems unusual to me).

While shoehorning wasn't really what I was talking about, is having a female knight any more "unusual" than having a wizard with a pet dragon in the supposedly non-fantasy knights' theme? Is a female pirate really less believable than a skeleton pirate or a cyborg with a heart problem who fights with four lightsabers?

[Brickdoctor]

While shoehorning wasn't really what I was talking about, is having a female knight any more "unusual" than having a wizard with a pet dragon in the supposedly non-fantasy knights' theme? Is a female pirate really less believable than a skeleton pirate or a cyborg with a heart problem who fights with four lightsabers?

Not to say that we shouldn't have more of them, but Princess Storm aspired to be a knight and had armor, and the last Pirates wave had a female pirate, so it's not unheard of.

[Peppermint_M]

@ Lightening Tiger: I think I'' keep that one under my hat for a while, I want to see what TLG are working on (unless I get impatient).

To the rest, bravo, Society does pigeonhole us entirely. Whether it be parents who surround their child with the "right" toys or well meaning but mildly harmful extended family or educational figures. By the time a child gets to an age when gender segregation in the media occurs, they are wired to conform. You'll notice the nuetrality of pre-school television which slowly gives way to blue for boys and pink for girls by about age four. With parents, some are determined to give their child free choices and none of the more genderised social norms. Other parents will treat a baby dressed in blue differently to a baby dressed in pink when said baby is still in the gurgle and expell liquids stage of life (I cite a sociological study) and they have no idea if the colour "matches" their gender.

A little cachet: My mum was determined to let us play as we wished, as such, I loved Duplo and System. I made planes and castles and siege weapons, spaceships and Adventures. My sister, in the exact same situation played house, wanted Belville and chose Barbie. We developed differently in the same environment, as such natural tendancies can also run through. My sister is a much more nerturing person than me, as such she preferred playing nerturing roles and playing house. I was more into scraping my kness in trees and pretending the rugby frame in the school field was a spaceship. Natural can affect a child too.

Anyway, more animals or fairy tale themed sets will certainly attract more "nerturing" girls, boys who want animals and AFOLs who buy it all anyway!

[slopemodified]

Hmm, I think we've got part of the ongoing debate about nature vs nurture on here. It sounds like the first few years of a child's life are a crucial period in deciding what they will like as they grow up. But after that, many of the habits will have set in, possibly for years to come. They can change, of course, but it would be due to the major influences in their life so far, including: family, peers, school or the media. Judging from recent posts, they affect the child in various ways.

Would anyone agree with that assessment?

Speaking of unusual figs, how about that Troll Queen? She was weird one

Edited February 3, 2011 by slopemodified

[MinifigFreak2010]

"Be mindful of the stereotyping. Do we really need a Hula Girl and Geisha? (Troublesome on a couple levels...biting tongue.) Baywatch-esque Lifeguard? Cutesy/sexy Pop Star? Cheerleader? I take issue with these for several reasons, but I'm not saying we shouldn't have these at all so much as I'm wondering why TLC offers these before giving us at least one figure like a female ninja, female alien, female elf warrior, female skater, female zombie, female deep sea diver, female amazon warrior, female ring master, female explorer, female surfer (soon via series 4!...finally), female karate champ, female vampire, female traffic cop, female mime, female rapper, female gorilla suit person, female race car driver, female mummy, female pilot, etc. etc. etc. In other words, they released male versions of the characters I just listed when at least one or more could've easily been females all throughout series 1-3. Instead, for the token female figs they did create, most were these stereotypical female characters mentioned earlier. (The one exception being the female snowboarder...see, that wasn't hard, was it?) The overall message being sent by the current choices is the same old tired one that adheres to unnecessarily divisive gender roles."

How about instead of complaining the roles of the girls in the sets, be thankful that there is actual FEMALES in the sets?

out of 64 figs(including series 4) there is 12 girls. In each set, theres 3 girls. that's almost a 1:5 ratio on females in each set. That is WAY better then normal. I found an article that talked about lego trivia(that i now can't find) how the ratio of Female to male minifigures is about 1:18.

Plus, if you're into altering the sets, get some female heads and switch them out. tada females.

[fred67]

Of course you can. Reward them when they play with the "right" toy, and withhold your attention when they don't.

Coercing kids into gender roles is the problem, and your solution is to... wait for it... coerce them into doing what you think they should do... (this is not eating vegetables, after all).

Sorry, boys and girls are different. No, I'm not denying "nurture" has played a significant role, but the debate should never have been about nature vs. nurture, it's how much is it our nature, and how much is it our nurture, because it's ALWAYS a mix of the two, and our nature is what determines how much nurture will affect us.

My anecdotal story is that my daughter is 2.5 years younger than her older brother, who she really looked up to. She played all sorts of his "card" games (like Pokemon and Yu-Gi-Oh) only because that's what he was into; she played the same games, wanted to do the same things... they both did Gymboree and Little Gym when they were little - then my son started taking martial arts. However, when my daughter was old enough, she said she didn't want to (never mind the fact that the class my son was in was half girls - so it's not like she saw it as a "boy" thing). She wanted to take ballet... which grew into tap and jazz and now hip-hop. She wanted to take gymnastics. Now she's on the competitive team for both. It's what she wanted and worked for, neither of us "pushed" her in that direction, we asked her what she wanted to do and then helped her do it.

Sometimes she plays with LEGO, sometimes she doesn't - it's up to her. She probably plays with LEGO more than my son, and she's very creative with it - but nobody coerced her into it, and that's all I'm arguing; if kids want to play with LEGO, let them play with LEGO. If they don't, they don't. Why do you think it's up to you to manipulate them? You don't want to force gender typing, but you want to force your own agenda. I can't disagree with that more.

Now I'm not arguing most LEGO sets aren't gender biased, but you're not going to change things overnight... compare gender stereotypes now to how they were 20 years ago; then 50, then 100 - and tell me things haven't gotten better and still are.

And I will argue, like I did in the other thread (with ka.lego) that sometimes (often) the things we want are male biased. Tell me an industry (that LEGO would reasonably produce a set for) that is female biased? If we want to build an army then, with few exceptions, it's biased male. If we want history, then it's biased male (the females are usually relegated to being queens or other non-primary roles). And then you need to use your head... is the LEGO company going to make more money making Queen Elizabeth sets, or Attila the Hun and Viking sets?

Oh, sure... how about Joan of Arc? That'd be interesting, right? Except you still have hundreds of male figures to the ONE female figure that would be part of that story.

Cleopatra? One female.. with how many males?

Sorry - history is just that way. Not interested in Susan B. Anthony LEGO sets, and it's not because she's not a great historic figure, it's because it would be BORING, for both boys AND girls.

Plus, if you're into altering the sets, get some female heads and switch them out. tada females.

I disagree. I mean, while most of us can easily do this - in fact, I gave out martial arts figures to some kids and a female instructor at our academy and just gave them the closed pouch along with a female head and hair - it's not something most people can do.

Here's a bright idea (and don't tell me it would cost too much - TLG raised CMF prices here 50% from series 2 to 3, you cannot tell me it's not PURE profit), why not just include both female and male heads in what otherwise would be gender neutral figures?

Edited February 3, 2011 by fred67

[Gryphon Ink]

Coercing kids into gender roles is the problem, and your solution is to... wait for it... coerce them into doing what you think they should do... (this is not eating vegetables, after all).

No, you misunderstand me. That wasn't my solution at all. That was just a rebuttal to the claim that children can't be convinced to play with toys they don't like. My "solution" to the whole thing was to let my kids choose what they wanted to play and be, within certain boundaries.

[Gryphon Ink]

Expanded reply: at this point I think we're close to derailing the thread, but I would hate for anybody to be left with the impression that I've coerced, manipulated or brainwashed my girls into following my radical feminist agenda, so I have to respond to this in a little more detail...

Coercing kids into gender roles is the problem, and your solution is to... wait for it... coerce them into doing what you think they should do... (this is not eating vegetables, after all)... Why do you think it's up to you to manipulate them? You don't want to force gender typing, but you want to force your own agenda. I can't disagree with that more.

Generally speaking, it's not a good idea to open your argument by accusing people of manipulating and coercing their children. That's rather insulting. You are talking to a father who has spent thousands of hours playing Barbie and Littlest Pet Shop, braiding his daughters' hair, painting their toenails, buying them every Polly Pocket set available and dozens of books about the Rainbow Fairies, Disney Fairies and whatever other fairies are out there. I do not believe in coercing children or turning them into Mini-Mes, I believe in nurturing them. Yes, I have tried to encourage the things that I consider positive behavior. Do you know any decent parent who doesn't do this? But I haven't done it by forcing them to follow my agenda, or denied them the freedom to do the things that the other kids all do. If either one of them wants a toy or a book and I don't think it's completely out of line or totally worthless (and if I can afford it) I buy it for them. More often than not, I also play with the toys with them. My eldest daughter has accumulated six or seven Barbie and Barbie clones, and my younger one already has two of them. They also both have numerous puzzles, books, and Lego. Nobody in this house is forcing any kid to play with certain toys or conform to certain roles.

All we have done is make sure they understand that all roles and all possibilities are open to them.

And I will argue, like I did in the other thread (with ka.lego) that sometimes (often) the things we want are male biased. Tell me an industry (that LEGO would reasonably produce a set for) that is female biased?

Dude, I don't even have to think about this one: veterinary medicine and animal sciences. Overwhelmingly male until about 20 years ago, now majority female. Nine out of ten veterinary technicians, and probably at least two out of three veterinarians, are now women. Numerous animal control officers, zoo personnel, park rangers and biologists are women. With animals, a variety of vehicles and many different settings, this could easily equal the perennial Police theme in popularity amongst boys, girls and AFOLs. In fact, Lego have done several Duplo sets with zoo and vet themes. They just haven't moved it up to System yet.

If we want history, then it's biased male (the females are usually relegated to being queens or other non-primary roles). And then you need to use your head... is the LEGO company going to make more money making Queen Elizabeth sets, or Attila the Hun and Viking sets? Oh, sure... how about Joan of Arc? That'd be interesting, right? Except you still have hundreds of male figures to the ONE female figure that would be part of that story. Cleopatra? One female.. with how many males? Sorry - history is just that way. Not interested in Susan B. Anthony LEGO sets, and it's not because she's not a great historic figure, it's because it would be BORING, for both boys AND girls.

I've heard this song before. "Sorry, we really did want to support balanced gender roles, but we just can't put girls in action roles because it's not historically accurate." Goodness knows, historical accuracy has always been the main consideration in designing Lego themes. That's why all the Viking figures have horns on their helmets. That's why there are dragons in the Vikings line and multiple Castle lines, the pirate ships all have roughly the proportions of Captain Hook's ship, the castles are all designed with completely impractical fortifications and defense systems, and every lineup of knights contains weapons and armor from multiple historical periods spanning hundreds of years. And except for a few Viking purists, nobody much complains.

Do you know why they don't complain? Because it's a toy, not a history book. Nobody expects it to be historically accurate. Even a geek like me! I'm super fond of complaining about how inaccurate things are. But that didn't stop me from buying the architecturally ridiculous Prison Tower Rescue, and it wouldn't stop me from buying the Queen Anne's Revenge set if I had enough money for it. AFOLs and parents buy historically inaccurate toys by the million every day of the year.

For that matter, there are a number of ways that women could be represented in exciting, conflict-oriented themes without sacrificing historical accuracy. Historical examples include: the ladies of Sparta (yes, SPAAAAAAARTA!!!!!) who fought with their princess Arachidamia against Pyrrhus; the "Dahomey Amazons", a female regiment that numbered about 5000 soldiers - one third of the Dahomey army - and fought against the French Foreign Legion a the end of the 19th century; the Cimbrian women who fought as archers aiding their men against a Roman legion and continued to fight to the death after the men were slaughtered by Roman reinforcements; the Scythian women, who fought alongside their men to comprise about 20% of the total Scythian fighting force; the "Molly Pitchers", camp followers in the American Revolution who started out as water carriers and often ended up "manning" the cannons; Wild West heroines and outlaws including Calamity Jane, Annie Oakley, Belle Starr and Laura Bullion; Boudica and her daughters; and probably many more that I've forgotten. The annals of the Roman Empire record case after case where the legions were sent out to crush some local tribe and found that the local women fought back in organized forces.

Want pirates? We got'em. Obviously, the vast majority of pirates were always male. But history has many colorful examples of women who plundered the seven seas. Look up Alvid, Lady Mary Killigrew, Jacquotte Delahaye AKA "Back from the Dead Red", Anne Bonny, Mary Read, Rachel Wall; Queen Sayyidah who commanded the corsairs of the Western Mediterranean; "the Red Lady", an English pirate captain who played on men's prejudices by disguising herself as an "entertainer" so that they would invite her on board, where she would take off her dress to reveal pants, shirt and weapons; or Ching Shih, who assembled one of the most powerful pirate federations in Chinese history (She's actually represented in POTC!). With all these femme buccaneers, you'd think we could do better than having 1 (ONE!) 1 "Pirate Wench" in the entire 2009 Pirates line, after who knows how many years where the only females in the theme were Governor's Daughters and the like.

In folklore, which obviously isn't always historically accurate but fits well with the very-loosely-historically-based tradition of the Castle theme, there are dozens of examples including the Amazons, the shieldmaidens of Scandinavian tradition (inspiration for the Valkyries and Eowyn), female Pictish warriors, and female monks who supposedly invented several varieties of martial arts and led peasant rebellions at various times throughout Asia.

If you want to find archetypes of women who can reasonably exist alongside the heroic male minifigs in historical and action themes, the examples are there to be found, despite the significant male bias. Susan B. Anthony is not the only famous woman in history, or the most interesting one.

Here's a bright idea (and don't tell me it would cost too much - TLG raised CMF prices here 50% from series 2 to 3, you cannot tell me it's not PURE profit), why not just include both female and male heads in what otherwise would be gender neutral figures?

Here's something we agree on. I love this idea.

[Peppermint_M]

Well saud Gryphon Ink, and fred67 here's a real shocker: We are "coerced" into speaking our native language Small children are like a sponge, yes? Once they get past the first month or so of being small and yowly, when they start noticing the world. they soak up everything. An undamaged child will mimic your hand movements when you play with them, they try to walk because those around them do so. Eventually they will learn to talk and will certainly speak the language they have been surrounded by. My friend's son speaks English and French fluently, his mother would speak her native French to him all morning, and English all afternoon when he was a toddler. As such inculcaing (brainwashing, coercing) him into being bi-lingual.

Now, can we go back to a discussion on what TLG should be making to attract girls? A Vet surgery would be a great idea, popular with girls and boys. That or TLG will need to make system for girls that only appeals to girls, but not the boys.