Friends "Controversy"

[Palathadric]

I think it doesn't make sense to expect Lego to put a whole lot more females in their more male-dominated themes. For example, consider the "Pirates" or "Castle" themes. Historically, in those days, it was a very male-dominated society. Men were the warriors, pirates, guards, etc. There were very few female pirates, or rather, let me say, that the ration of female to male pirates in Lego is probably far greater than the ratio was in actual life. Are people, in this case, really expecting there to be as many female pirates and male ones? Even amongst knights, warriors, etc. In modern films and the like, there are often a number of female warriors fighting and even being the head of an army of fighters, but in European society in the middle ages (no doubt the time and area, roughly, that the "Castle" theme is meant to portray) there were no woman warriors, or, let me say, very few. It wasn't like Joan of Arc was leading an army where the ratio of men to women was 1/1 or even 100/1. It was probably 1/0 plain and simple. That's why it was such a big surprise. So unless one wants a whole lot more Princesses or Queens Duchesses or Peasant Girls (I wouldn't consider it a bad idea to have more of these, by the way, but in that case you would need more male servants and courtiers, and lords, etc. Thus changing the "Castle" theme into more of a "Middle-Ages" theme) then, they need to be fairly happy with the ratio of females to males in such sets.

Honestly, the "Friends" set are not my favourite, but I think that has more to do with the people than anything else. If they had proper mini-figs I would like them. However, I do know that a lot of girls who normally would not like Lego, will be attracted to the new figures and I do not think it unlikely that the "Friends" theme will add a lot of new customers to Lego. I have to admit that it is a good marketing scheme, in my humble opinion.

That saying, just because "Friends" is a toy more designed for girls' play, that does not make the rest of the Lego more of a boys' toy. Granted, there are more males than females in most other themes, but I do not think that prevents most girls from enjoying it all the same. Still, I think some themes, take "Town" for instance, could have a great ratio of females to males. What do you all think?

PS: I hope my post is somewhat understandable. Forgive me if it is not, or if it came off in an unsuitable manner.

[AndyC]

Your point here gets a lot of my issue with the series:

"...TLG fundamentally believes that boys and girls have entirely separate needs and desires. This is a harmful belief that we as a culture need to rid ourselves of."

Those might be fighting words to some, but they seem completely sensible to me. As a parent, I want to encourage open possibilities for my child, not streamed directions based on gender.

I think that's where we view things differently. I completely and totally accept the idea that, at a young age, children want to see gender seperation, because it helps them to understand themselves, their gender and what it means to them. And they undoubtedly play differently too, given the exact same Lego Castle sets a group of girls would come up with very different stories to those of a group of boys.

It is important, however, that in letting children play we don't enforce dated stereotypes that limit their potential. To that end I really like the way TLG have included Olivia's Workshop and I hope they'll take this further to bring in a much wider variety to the Friends line in the long term.

That is the only possible explanation I can think for so many AFOLs going full apologist for the mini-dolls. Considering they are no worse than Jack Stone, it is very hard to be supportive of them.

Are you joking? The Jack Stone figures were awful and accompanied by horrendously ugly and <insert that tiresome argument> builds, the Friends dolls are nice looking and accompanied by some of the best set designs TLG have done in years. The two things are light years apart. If this were another Belville or Jack Stone I'd be the first to critise, indeed I was initally very sceptical but actually seeing them my mind has been reassured.

Duplo is not really that successful. Bionicle sort-of succeeded in its early days but then not so much. Bionicle and HF don't count anyway as they are not minifig themes (duh) but constraction figures.

Duplo has been going for decades, I don't quite know where you're getting the idea that it isn't successful. Do you really think TLG have kept it going for fun? As for Bionicle, much as I dislike those sort of sets, it is unquestionably one of the most successful product lines TLG ever ran so isn't something you can simply dismiss.

[LegoMyMamma]

Updated information on current actions by "No Pink aisle" campaign -- their letter to TLG dated Jan 20, 2012

To: Legocrazy81 -- I did notice someone has created some type of petition (certainly not me, for I think they are not the most effective means) and placed a link to it in several response comments to some of the many blog & web site articles they have plastered online. Here is the link: http://www.change.org/petitions/save-the-pink-legos-pro-choice-on-lego-colors

---------------

FWIW, I did not blindly accept the new theme simply because it's aimed at girls -- I was skeptical too. Then after seeing some people put TLG on a pedestal, merely for the purpose of knocking them off, well, I bought some sets. I instantly liked the new mini-dolls. My only problem at first was building to their scale, since I still had that gigantic Bloomberg photo-shopped image of Stephanie stuck in my head.

In the meantime, this is eating into my Friends building time

[def]

I think that's where we view things differently. I completely and totally accept the idea that, at a young age, children want to see gender seperation, because it helps them to understand themselves, their gender and what it means to them. And they undoubtedly play differently too, given the exact same Lego Castle sets a group of girls would come up with very different stories to those of a group of boys.

It's fair enough to disagree, and I respect that (You're disagreeing in a mature, respectful way) For me though, I was an atypical boy, and found a lot of stress in 'boys' toys'. I hated GI JOE. But, I also knew that to enjoy girl toys was a form of social suicide, even at age eight or nine. Which I guess lead to me having the attitude I have now (that plus the five years I worked at Toys R Us reinforcing those stereotypes).

I've been a teacher for years now, and I do think boys play different than girls. Around age five, there is a strong difference in how they tend to play. But it's not uniform, and some boys are relaxed, and some girls are aggressive. And I do think they are susceptible to the messages sent by adults (ie. marketing from companies). So when they are trying to learn what gender means to them, it is forced through a filter of what it means to adults first. Which, in the case of LEGO, means no Ninjago for girls, but a special edition of the LEGO Club mag covering only 10% of their product line, including LEGO Friends. By age three, kids tend to reflect the messages sent to them. It's great to consider a "be yourself" message, but realistically, a lot of kids don't have the self-confidence to be 'unique'. So, boys do what other boys do, and girls do what other girls do.

I think it's great that there is variety in the LEGO line, I just wish they would leave the gender stereotyping out. By labeling things as they have, by color coding it, they have instructed kids how to understand it.

[Gryphon Ink]

It is getting frustrating that it seems that LEGO fans have taken it their obligation to join the bandwagon of defending Friends because they see the controversy (In fact, it begins with the tendency to belittle the topic by constantly putting the word controversy in quotes. Guess what? This is a controversy, we are still discussing it and it has been weeks already. )

Hear, hear. I disagree with some of your points, but yes, there is a controversy. It's not all good, and belittling those who find the theme problematic isn't going to magically make it all good. Something is rotten in the kingdom of Denmark.

[AndyC]

Hear, hear. I disagree with some of your points, but yes, there is a controversy. It's not all good, and belittling those who find the theme problematic isn't going to magically make it all good. Something is rotten in the kingdom of Denmark.

I don't agree that because something generates controversy that there is something inherently wrong with it. The first feminists were extremely controversial. Most things of merit are, in some cirles, considered controversial.

[LegoMyMamma]

tl;dr: To paraphrase the great Seinfeld show, the mini-dolls don't offend me as a feminist, they offend me as an AFOL.

---

This is the first time something from AFOLs I read about the topic actually mentions the source of the controversy. Finally I can actually look up to the SPARK petition and figure out if their claims are outrageous.

If they offend you as an AFOL, well, that is your issue -- because they weren't developed for AFOLs, they were developed for kids.

That you say fallentomato is the first source to pinpoint the source origin of the so-called controversy demonstrates to me you over-looked my posting on December 26th

http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=63559&st=180&p=1153221entry1153221

and the amount of care I have taken to compile & document the sources of the campaign, and their offspring of activity.

In their current actions, they are insisting TLG set up a meeting with them: http://www.sparksummit.com/2012/01/20/our-letter-to-lego/

Besides, in order for you to "figure out if their claim is outrageous," you need to see the contents of the letter sent to change.dot.org members: http://www.paganomation.com/2012/01/the-ongoing-lego-friends-controversy/

Which I also included in the compilation blog, about a week ago. Am I invisible to you?

[The Cobra]

Friends will hit the Italian shelves in 40 days, but they already hit the 2012 1H catalog. (please click thumbnails for larger pics)

Here's the "regular front"... (bottom right corner reads "flip the catalog: New, for baby girls"

And here's the "other front": (New: Lego world for baby girls)

A folding page shows "Two new Duplo sets made for girls, who love to take care of pets and imitate mom when she bakes the sweetest cakes" (images of Duplo sets 4623 and 6785)

The other side of the folding page shows the Disney princesses: "Endles ways of playing. Welcome to the fantastic world of fairytales. Play with your favorites characters from Disney fairytales..."

Finally we have a two-page intro to the Friends theme and the girls and the "regular" 4 pages with the sets. The littlest surprise is that the link to the official italian page lego.it/friends does not work. It surely will in a few months (just like it happens with boyish Italian subsites).

[Grimmy]

My lil niece went straight to the Freinds section in the store. She was amazed and exited like never before. Lego is her favorite toy and she liked the sets before but now she is begging for Friends sets. But my niece has also gone mainstream and was Hannah Montanna crazy. I like the Friends sets. She got a kids sewing machine for Christmas from grandma and in Jan picked out a Friends Fashion Designer Emma set which comes with great tools and house objects which she incorporated into her Lego House. The sets may not appeal to everyone but I think they will appeal to most. While I don't think Lego needed to create and stick to these new colors, it's what what grabs the kids attention at the store when there is a spot in an isle with matching pastel color boxes.

[fallentomato]

The opposite in fact. Yellow minifigs are race-less. The excuse for peach and racial differentiation in licensed sets is that they have to look like the characters. There is no workable excuse for racial differentiation in Friends. And is in fact quite lame if we consider that the businessweek article mentioned how LEGO thinks that girls are supposed to identify themselves with dolls.

I'm not going to get into depth here about my views on the racial problems of the minifig (that's for a future Thinking Brickly post), but suffice it to say that I disagree with your assertion that yellow minifigs are race-less. It is much easier for some races and ethnicities to identify with yellow human-like figures than it is for others. Yellow minifigs may not be specifically white, but they are definitely not black or brown.

Consider the "Pirates" or "Castle" themes. Historically, in those days, it was a very male-dominated society. Men were the warriors, pirates, guards, etc. There were very few female pirates, or rather, let me say, that the ration of female to male pirates in Lego is probably far greater than the ratio was in actual life. Are people, in this case, really expecting there to be as many female pirates and male ones?

I personally don't believe Castle or Pirates sets need to be historically accurate, but that's an enitrely separate debate. So yes, I personally would like to see a better gender balance in these sets.

[Gryphon Ink]

I don't agree that because something generates controversy that there is something inherently wrong with it.

The fact that we don't all agree on it is what makes it controversial. "Controversy" means "disagreement". There's usually not a lot of controversy about things that everybody agrees are bad.

The first feminists were extremely controversial. Most things of merit are, in some circles, considered controversial.

Yes, many changes are controversial at first and gradually become widely accepted, but it doesn't follow that every controversial thing is a thing of merit. Other things that are extremely controversial: racism (most of us agree that it sucks, but many disagree about what exactly constitutes racism, and it still happens all over the world), dogfighting (most of us hate it, but again, still widely practiced), circumcision (again) and Greedo shooting first. Would you say those are all things of merit?

Racism is actually the best example for illustrating the controversy here, because it's an issue that has popped up in Lego form before and it's an issue that the "correct" answer to depends very strongly on who you're talking to. There is currently a very strong sentiment throughout the Western world that racism is bad - you will have a hard time finding someone who will publicly admit to being a racist. With this mindset, you might think that racism is quite, quite dead. And yet, institutional racism continues to divide our country, there are incidents of race-based hate crimes every day in every town, and there are dozens if not hundreds of blogs and websites dedicated to pointing out the many ways in which racism continues to infect our society. There are provable facts and statistics showing that racism is far from dead - but nobody approves of racism.

How is this possible? Because the definition of racism depends on your point of view. To some of us, the fact that multiple studies have proven that two equally qualified job candidates will have different success rates in their job hunting based solely on whether they have a "white name" or a "black name" is clear evidence of systemic racism. Other people will bend over backwards to explain that there are many different reasons why this could happen. If all else fails, they will attack the validity of the studies. Any explanation, anything at all, will do, as long as it doesn't involve admitting that there is still quite a bit of racism in our society.

Similarly, the controversy over Lego Friends exists because we do not all agree in our basic philosophies. To some of us, the fact that Lego is largely seen as a boys' toy that "doesn't sell" to girls, justifies their attempts to reach out to the female audience with gender-divisive marketing and a new kind of minifig. To some of us, it is obvious that a pioneering and idealistic company like TLG should have known better and should have tried harder to rise above the pink-vs-blue gender divide and market to boys and girls equally. Some of us think a company's first moral priority should be making money, while some of us think the first priority should be social responsibility. There isn't a right answer. It depends on your point of view.

Personally, I see good things and bad things in Friends, and what I think is good and bad about it is not the same as what you think. It's not even the same as what other people who are largely "on my side" in the debate believe. For example, vexorian hates the minidolls and hopes they will die a quick death. I love the minidolls and think they make minifigs look clunky and old-fashioned, although I certainly agree that there are a few things that need to be improved in their design. Someone who basically agrees with me might say the tools in Olivia's Lab are awesome, I say they're frackin' PURPLE.

And yet, I still like the Friends theme overall. I've bought two sets for my girls and one for myself, and if money wasn't so tight here I'd be considering several more of the sets. Olivia's house is seriously the most awesome non-exclusive Lego house in years, bringing design elements from the modulars into the standard retail sets for the first time ever. I love it even in those awful colors. What don't I like? I don't like the marketing. I don't like the purplishness of it all. I don't like the gender and racial stereotyping going on in these sets. I don't like the fact that there is a girls' theme in the first place. I want my Lego unisex, free of racism and open to all.

And you (meaning you, hypothetical plural, not you personally) are free to disagree with me on all those points. But you are not free to deny my feelings on any of them. And you are not free to deny that there IS a controversy. Because if I say one thing and you say another thing, then by definition there is a controversy. Putting scare quotes around the word "controversy" doesn't magically resolve the disagreement between us.

[Palathadric]

Well said, Gryphon Ink. A lot of this stuff is debatable and it depends on what each person considers to be "right" and "wrong".

Honestly, I do not see anything inherently "wrong" with the "Friends" theme. I think of Lego wants make toys suited for boys and toys suited for girls, let them. I do not think it's sexist to make pink blocks for girls and blue blocks for boys. I think it's ridiculous to continue having the mindset that "girls like pink" or whatever, but at the same time, if Lego wants to think that way, then the loss is theirs. I do not think you can call a company "wrong" or condemn them for having the stereotypical image of what boys and girls like. Of course, one would think that they would be able to move on and change with the times, but I do not consider it particularly bad if they do not. I do not know, I am not a parent, but do most parents really care whether their daughter plays with pink bricks or blue? I doubt it, and if they do, then I don't see why they should, but it is entirely up to them.

I think it's interesting what you mentioned about rascism, because it is a very big issue in the modern western world. I, personally, think it's ridiculous to look down on someone because of the colour of their skin. But how "wrong" is it? Of course, I think like you were saying, if someone denies someone else a job on account of their skincolour, I think that is very wrong. Nevertheless, it is my opinion that if the aforementioned rascist person, does own the company, he should be able to hire whomever he chooses. If he wants to hire an uneducated person over an educated one just on account of the person's skin colour then, once again, the loss is his.

There is a lot of controversy in the football world right now, over the "Suarez-Evra" racism. I do not know if any of you are familiar with it. In my opinion, what Suarez did was wrong. Obviously, he didn't mean it in a playful manner or anything. He was trying to wind Evra up, plain and simple, and attacked him verbally with his rascist abuse. Nevertheless, however insulting his comment was, it was still just an insult, as far as I am concerned. It should not have been said, but at the same time, if one is going to disallow such insults, than is it not hypocritical to allow other insults? It's part of team's strategies these days to try to wind up the other team's players by insulting them or suchlike. Is that really fair? Why should Suarez be given an 8-match ban and another player gets to walk away scot-free after, more or less, the same offense was committed. In my opinion, all abuse on the field should be stopped, but this would be an almost impossible task.

Anyhow, I could write on and on, but suffice it to say, that for this time, these topics are very debatable but it's always interesting to read all the different sides to the story. I find it interesting anyway.

PS: Once again, forgive me if I have offended anyone in my comment. Please let me know if I have done so and please also know that it was in no way my intention. GB!

[Fuppylodders]

Why people are pointing the finger at TLG for creating a bigger gender gap, and not the parents for stereo typing their kids into which toys are 'their (gender decided) type' is beyond me.

All TLG are doing is trying to reach into the female market of lego to bring the females into what has naturally become a male orientated dominant market. Why has it? Because of Parents/society's stereotyping creating a guide to a child's instinct of what to them is acceptable. Once they have reached out to the females, they will then ascertain (through their researchers, because despite the outcry at gender gapping, imho they are actually trying to close this, by having to DEFINE where it is first by reaching to the extreme opposite, to set the very basic start line) whether they would prefer more technical builds, or easier ones they can just whack together to play with.

It has for ages been a known fact more boys like lego than girls, and that a lot of sets were marketed/aimed at boys once it became recognised more boys preferred lego than girls. It has been this way for years. How is a company supposed to combat stereotyping? By bringing it to a definition in which it can then be tweaked to make both genders acceptable of enjoying lego at their own choice.

It is rather hypocritical yelling gender targeting when something is made to be aimed at females, when those creating the fuss are actually promoting stereotyping by defining it as a female only item.

(Rhetoricly)Why are Friends female orientated? What **IS** wrong with a male playing with the Friends themed lego sets? If you do see a problem with it, then you are the cause of this stereotyping problem which has caused this 'gender gap'.

If you do not see a problem with males playing with it, then you have accepted that it is for males to play with too and thus there can not be an issue for a gender gap as it is seen as an acceptable unisex toy.

Its ok, I have my flame suit on :) I am entirely open to opinions and having mine changed if I see a justifiable opinion which shows im thinking wrong :) But I currently do not think I am ;)

[Siegfried]

We've got a vast topic on this here. I'll merge this a bit later.

[Fuppylodders]

We've got a vast topic on this here. I'll merge this a bit later.

Thank you! I did try to search for it but ocnfused exactly where to put my thoughts on it :( I can repost in your link if you like?

Dammit where is the delete thread button...

I have reposted my post in that Vote thread =D

Edited January 22, 2012 by Fuppylodders

[Fuppylodders]

*edited out to remove double post from thread merged*

Edited January 22, 2012 by Fuppylodders

[Palathadric]

I'm not going to get into depth here about my views on the racial problems of the minifig (that's for a future Thinking Brickly post), but suffice it to say that I disagree with your assertion that yellow minifigs are race-less. It is much easier for some races and ethnicities to identify with yellow human-like figures than it is for others. Yellow minifigs may not be specifically white, but they are definitely not black or brown.

I personally don't believe Castle or Pirates sets need to be historically accurate, but that's an enitrely separate debate. So yes, I personally would like to see a better gender balance in these sets.

Very true. Yellow minifigs definitely are not brown or black. And definitely the lighter population of the world will identify with them more than the darker population. Perhaps this is way such toys as Lego do not seem to be such great hits in African countries...although I seriously doubt that this is the real reason, I could imagine that making more brown minifigs, may boost sales in such places. Who knows?

I definitely do not believe the Castle or Pirate themes have to be historically accurate as far as the ratio of females to males are concerned. After all, they are not very accurate in other ways as well. However, I don't think we can blame them for having a greater ratio of males to females in those sets, because that was the way it was at the time. It's therefore, in my opinion, the obvious choice. Nevertheless, I would also like to see more female minifigs in these themes...maybe just more minifigs in general.

[Delta 38]

Interesting read. What qualifies as a "gender-neutral" figure, though?

I looked through my minifig collection, and aside from non-human figures, everything appears to be either male or female.

Also, on the yellow skin tone point, I thought it was used because it's a "generic" skin tone. Though effective in licensed themes, flesh-coloured minifigs in all themes would look really odd.

[Fuppylodders]

Also, on the yellow skin tone point, I thought it was used because it's a "generic" skin tone. Though effective in licensed themes, flesh-coloured minifigs in all themes would look really odd.

The thing is, and this is what really gets me. There are soooo many colours in the spectrum that it is probably near impossible to find the EXACT middle of the range of colours between every skin tone. I challenge anyone here to define the middle/neutral between yellow/black/brown/pink/white/red/orange.

Where is the middle in that? Mix them all together and see what colour appears? <.>

Whatever colour they chose was going to be wrong regardless.

If they chose to implement a colour tone for each race available it would cause even more racial inequality in my opinion as it is then targeting different races and stereotyping them. Do you expect them to decide that the same sets that contain yellow minifigs should be filled with brown minifigs too for the eastern/african countries? Which means making the same sets include multiple skintoned minifigs? What about if an african person wanted to have a chinese person themed minifig, or a westerner themed minifig? so TLG should make multiple sets with every racial skintone available? Do you see how silly/rediculous and unmanageable this is getting?

They chose one colour as basic minifig skin colour and stuck with it. It doesnt matter if they initially chose brown and stuck with that, there would be outcry regardless what colour they went with.

They are trying to be as neutral as they can, while managing a toy that is freely playable for everyone to enjoy without offending people.

Unfortunately these days everyone jumps on the bus to yell about some sort of inequality/human rights breach and so this whole nanny state of affairs begins.

I personally dont disagree with the recent flesh tones: brown/western pink etc because they are representing actual characters that people want to identify with and so to do so, have to match more closer. But I do disagree with people expecting TLG to bend over and cater to every damned outcry that there is.

Edited January 23, 2012 by Fuppylodders

[LegoMyMamma]

Someone who basically agrees with me might say the tools in Olivia's Lab are awesome, I say they're frackin' PURPLE.

And yet, I still like the Friends theme overall. I've bought two sets for my girls and one for myself, and if money wasn't so tight here I'd be considering several more of the sets. Olivia's house is seriously the most awesome non-exclusive Lego house in years, bringing design elements from the modulars into the standard retail sets for the first time ever. I love it even in those awful colors. What don't I like? I don't like the marketing. I don't like the purplishness of it all. I don't like the gender and racial stereotyping going on in these sets. I don't like the fact that there is a girls' theme in the first place. I want my Lego unisex, free of racism and open to all.

An interesting correlation to the color purple in relation to gender, girls, Friends, etc: Angela Zhang of Cupertino, California, the girl who won the national Siemens science contest with her project on designing a way to cure cancer by attacking only the cancerous cells, not healthy ones, spent the first bit of her $100,000 prize money on purple shoes!

Ditto on Olivia's house.

[Palathadric]

The thing is, and this is what really gets me. There are soooo many colours in the spectrum that it is probably near impossible to find the EXACT middle of the range of colours between every skin tone. I challenge anyone here to define the middle/neutral between yellow/black/brown/pink/white/red/orange.

Where is the middle in that? Mix them all together and see what colour appears? <.>

Whatever colour they chose was going to be wrong regardless.

I personally dont disagree with the recent flesh tones: brown/western pink etc because they are representing actual characters that people want to identify with and so to do so, have to match more closer. But I do disagree with people expecting TLG to bend over and cater to every damned outcry that there is.

Yes, TLG should definitely keep the yellow skin-tone. Trying to make all sorts of different races and things would be a bit ridiculous, in my opinion. Yellow is such a nice happy colour anyway.

I agree with you entirely...I think.

[fallentomato]

Interesting read. What qualifies as a "gender-neutral" figure, though?

I looked through my minifig collection, and aside from non-human figures, everything appears to be either male or female.

Also, on the yellow skin tone point, I thought it was used because it's a "generic" skin tone. Though effective in licensed themes, flesh-coloured minifigs in all themes would look really odd.

One of my footnotes on the article explains the criteria I used to classify figs as feminine, masculine or nuetral. I gave TLG the benefit of the doubt, so I classified as gender nuetral alot of figures that might generally be considered masculine. Han Solo for example.

[CopMike]

Info from TLG about the Friends issue:

LEGO Group commentary on attracting more girls to construction play

[Delta 38]

One of my footnotes on the article explains the criteria I used to classify figs as feminine, masculine or nuetral. I gave TLG the benefit of the doubt, so I classified as gender nuetral alot of figures that might generally be considered masculine. Han Solo for example.

Hmm, I see. I'd say many of the figures classified as neutral are actually male, which would scale up the ratios.

I see your point in doing that though, because in some themes (such as City) the minifigs are somewhat ambiguous.

You could switch out the heads so the figure could be either gender, and it's the closest to gender-neutral in a minifig.

[De Sandman]

I like the friends sets although i'm a male afol, there are many useful pieces even male AFOL's can use.

I don't mind the "weird" figs as throughout the whole history of Lego there where other figs than minifigs (like the ones in technic Lego), i also like that there is more Lego for girls as they are usually less interested in Lego than boys (my doughter for instance ).

Well i think this is a useless discussion for the controversy part, Lego is originally designed for kids ! get over it, buy those d#mn friends and use the pieces for your MOC's and throw away the figs (if you don't like them).

Edited January 24, 2012 by De Sandman