Friends "Controversy"

[EM4CZ]

That's pretty hilarious. Too bad that these girls do not notice the fire at all. I especially like the guy's behaviour (don't remember his name) - barbecuing like nothing's ever happened.

This was Olivia's house and her parents.

[Dreamweb]

Yes, I know, I just meant that I'm too lazy to check the father's name.

EDIT

Silly me, it's written on the box

[the enigma that is badger]

I don't know; in many cases misinformation starts as a lack of officially released information. This organization seems to have had trouble collecting the disparate sources that disprove them, but if that information is told directly to them from the heads of LEGO, they might come around. And as unlikely as it may be, if the organizers of the petition and spreader of much of this misinformation does a 180 and essentially says "we goofed", it could defuse a lot of the hysteria that has built up.

The Business Week article did a fairly good job presenting the origins and development of the Friends line. Quite honestly, much of the misinformation by various groups (particularly SPARK) seemed to hint their unfamiliarity with the offerings of the modern LEGO brand ("prebuilt" sets, prefabricated pieces, etc). It was clear the writers had no reference for LEGO beyond hazy childhood memories of brick buckets filled 2x4 and 2x4 brick.

One recent blog post I enjoyed reading makes for a nice showcase on how a better understanding of the entire breadth of LEGO's offerings puts the Friends line in the larger building context.

If there's one change I'd like to see LEGO implement based on all this discussion of building, gender, and making all LEGO products attractive to girls in the target audience, it's this: greater prominence of female figures on the LEGO site (they've got the quality designs to showcase!) and girls more prominent in LEGO marketing copy for all lines and themes. The Friends line is one excellent tool for drawing a wider audience to building, but also highlighting that other lines are equally as accessible to all genders would only add to that effort.

[xtremegoogler]

Just watched two youtube videos about Lego Friends and gender, don't know if they have already been mentioned, they might be relevant to this thread.

and

[lightningtiger]

I'm fuming now.....watching part one of that YouTube clip, lady do better research.....no housing or cafes in the city range....oh, no they never had city corner or 8403 house right. Imagination is the key, if a fire or police station isn't in Friend's then you do like 'LegoMyMamma' and a handful of others does MOC-build one !

Back to watching the rest of that goose of a presenter on YouTube.

Edit - I watch anymore of that crap I'll blow a fuse.....in part two she tearing stripes of Star Wars for not having enough female characters.....crap on lady, when are we planning a response because I'm getting a little tired of this Lego-bashing by those people (could use stronger words but I won't).

Edited February 18, 2012 by lightningtiger

[Haltiamieli]

I'm fuming now.....watching part one of that YouTube clip, lady do better research.....no housing or cafes in the city range....oh, no they never had city corner or 8403 house right.

[...]

I watch anymore of that crap I'll blow a fuse.....in part two she tearing stripes of Star Wars for not having enough female characters.....crap on lady

While it's not exactly honest to claim that there is no such things as housing or cafes in the City theme, it's not that far from the truth either. And even if the Star Wars films are already over-whelmingly populated by male characters and there's nothing Lego can do about that, I do find it slightly lacklustre that they have managed to put Padme, a core character of the prequel trilogy, in... three sets over the years? D'oh.

I don't agree with all of her arguments, some may be even quite stupid or uninformed, but I don't think she deserves that sort of angry bashing either.

Edited February 18, 2012 by Haltiamieli

[nemo]

I don’t see how statistically relevant the poll is (unless there’s some hidden way to exclude all responders who are not parents of girls). My feeling is that my opinion is probably irrelevant, but that of my six year old daughter probably is.

She likes the colours, is disappointed by the simplicity of the sets (but she’s made age 12+ sets on her own so she may not be representative), is irritated by all the fiddly “silly” bits (bows, hearts etc), and really dislikes the figures. Why does she dislike the figures so much? Because “you can’t bend the legs separately”, “they won’t stick down when sitting” and “you can’t move the hands”.

My feeling is that charging the same amount for the featureless 3183 Convertible (1 figure; no doors; ages 6-12) and 4431 Ambulance (3 figures; opening doors and roof; bicycle; medical equipment etc; ages 5-12) shows that TLG doesn’t just think girls are imbeciles, but their parents must be too.

Do not buy these patronising, insulting and overpriced sets. Demand TLG diversifies its existing ranges. My daughter has two Friends figures and doesn’t want any more. In contrast she has about 100 minifigs. But in addition to more female minifigs in sets, TLG needs more female designers, that is quite clear.

[Redhead1982]

You have a point in a way. These sets are aimed at much younger population than the average EB user. Why our opinion is irrelevant, on the other hand, makes no sense to me.

I don’t see how statistically relevant the poll is (unless there’s some hidden way to exclude all responders who are not parents of girls). My feeling is that my opinion is probably irrelevant, but that of my six year old daughter probably is.

I like some of the sets for the same reasons as your daughter and I'm planning to buy those regardles of the ladyfigs (which I dislike) and some fiddly 'silly' bits (as you put it).

She likes the colours, is disappointed by the simplicity of the sets (but she’s made age 12+ sets on her own so she may not be representative), is irritated by all the fiddly “silly” bits (bows, hearts etc), and really dislikes the figures. Why does she dislike the figures so much? Because “you can’t bend the legs separately”, “they won’t stick down when sitting” and “you can’t move the hands”.

[LegoMyMamma]

I don’t see how statistically relevant the poll is (unless there’s some hidden way to exclude all responders who are not parents of girls). My feeling is that my opinion is probably irrelevant, but that of my six year old daughter probably is.

She likes the colours, is disappointed by the simplicity of the sets (but she’s made age 12+ sets on her own so she may not be representative), is irritated by all the fiddly “silly” bits (bows, hearts etc), and really dislikes the figures. Why does she dislike the figures so much? Because “you can’t bend the legs separately”, “they won’t stick down when sitting” and “you can’t move the hands”.

First off, I agree about the Poll function on topics like this -- especially when they are at the beginning of the featured set reveal, such as when a review is posted -- if there's even a need for a poll, it should go after the first entry -- after viewers have seen photos and read the review. Even then, the polls are more a fun interaction than to be considered with any scientific relevance.

As for your daughter & Friends. Since she already has LEGO sets, and an AFOL parent, she isn't the main target customer for Friends. What we have to factor in here is that this theme is about attracting girls who did not have LEGO, or interest in building, before Dec 31, 2011. TLG's goal wasn't merely to provide girls like your daughter another theme choice (although many girls like your daughter do like Friends), yet, to get more girls to build.

The only way to ever end up with more Astrid's in the world is to get more females to engage in LEGO building. A silent revolution occurring now is that many grown-up-girls are coming out of dark ages to build again. I took the time to re-build the City Cafe set into an alternate model, with constraints of using only that set, and a few bits which come in any brick bucket, to demonstrate what it could be like for a girl whose first ever LEGO is a Friends set: http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=66420

The mini-dolls are certainly a matter of personal taste. When I saw photos, at first I didn't like them either -- yet, when I had one in real life, realized just how small and unassuming they are, I now prefer them to MiniFigs. You could suggest for your daughter to use a jumper brick for mini-dolls to stand on plates at an angle. I have been able to get them to sit on studs and tiles. (Feel free to look through my other MOCs using the mini-dolls, I have put a list on my profile page.)

Price points are also a matter of personal taste; some people have already complained about the new Town Hall price -- yet, for me, the dark orange bricks are worth it

[Lyichir]

I don’t see how statistically relevant the poll is (unless there’s some hidden way to exclude all responders who are not parents of girls). My feeling is that my opinion is probably irrelevant, but that of my six year old daughter probably is.

She likes the colours, is disappointed by the simplicity of the sets (but she’s made age 12+ sets on her own so she may not be representative), is irritated by all the fiddly “silly” bits (bows, hearts etc), and really dislikes the figures. Why does she dislike the figures so much? Because “you can’t bend the legs separately”, “they won’t stick down when sitting” and “you can’t move the hands”.

My feeling is that charging the same amount for the featureless 3183 Convertible (1 figure; no doors; ages 6-12) and 4431 Ambulance (3 figures; opening doors and roof; bicycle; medical equipment etc; ages 5-12) shows that TLG doesn’t just think girls are imbeciles, but their parents must be too.

Do not buy these patronising, insulting and overpriced sets. Demand TLG diversifies its existing ranges. My daughter has two Friends figures and doesn’t want any more. In contrast she has about 100 minifigs. But in addition to more female minifigs in sets, TLG needs more female designers, that is quite clear.

Features don't determine price; the cost of production does. The convertible has a decent number of parts (including new molds and old molds in new colors). This leads to the price you see, which in my opinion is fair. As for diversifying the product line, do you honestly think LEGO didn't think of that? They walk a fine line between marketing only to boys and alienating the boys who make up their target market. And their market is more diverse now than ever, with the most even gender ratio in lines like CITY. But if your girl dislikes these sets, it's because they're not for her. She seems to be a blossoming LEGO fan, and you should be proud for raising her that way. But these sets are targeted largely at the girly-girls who up to now have all-but-ignored the entire LEGO aisle. All of a sudden they are presented with these sets, which have the aesthetic of the dolls and playsets they love but have the added benefit of exposing them to the joy of LEGO. And I, for one, am all for that.

[David Thomsen]

My feeling is that my opinion is probably irrelevant, but that of my six year old daughter probably is...

(but she’s made age 12+ sets on her own so she may not be representative)...

The less representative she is, the less relevant her opinion is... you're basing your dismissal of the 'Friends' theme on the opinion of a girl you admit is somewhat precocious.

Lego have done their research, they wouldn't have released the 'Friends' theme if it wasn't what the majority of girls wanted. The video of the girl ranting about pink toys on YouTube isn't popular because she represents all girls, but because she reflects adult values.

TLG doesn’t just think girls are imbeciles, but their parents must be too.

TLG didn't create 'Friends' based on what they think girls want, but what their research has shown girls want. Which means, by your logic, that girls are imbeciles.

And maybe they are. I remember when I was a kid and I wanted all of the Ninja Turtles just because my friends had all the Ninja Turtles. I didn't even really like Ninja Turtles, and I still feel guilty about pressuring my parents into buying toys that I neither needed nor wanted.

This feels like a very moot argument to me. Toy designers make pink toys for girls because that is what they want... girls buy pink toys because that is what is sold to them. It is an endless loop. At the end of the day, the only people capable of breaking or enforcing the loop are the parents.

[Aanchir]

The less representative she is, the less relevant her opinion is... you're basing your dismissal of the 'Friends' theme on the opinion of a girl you admit is somewhat precocious.

Lego have done their research, they wouldn't have released the 'Friends' theme if it wasn't what the majority of girls wanted. The video of the girl ranting about pink toys on YouTube isn't popular because she represents all girls, but because she reflects adult values.

TLG didn't create 'Friends' based on what they think girls want, but what their research has shown girls want. Which means, by your logic, that girls are imbeciles.

And maybe they are. I remember when I was a kid and I wanted all of the Ninja Turtles just because my friends had all the Ninja Turtles. I didn't even really like Ninja Turtles, and I still feel guilty about pressuring my parents into buying toys that I neither needed nor wanted.

This feels like a very moot argument to me. Toy designers make pink toys for girls because that is what they want... girls buy pink toys because that is what is sold to them. It is an endless loop. At the end of the day, the only people capable of breaking or enforcing the loop are the parents.

Well, that's the point of contention for a lot of activists. Who can better influence these "feedback loops" we see in society: the parents who influence individual girls more directly, or broader influences like toy companies whose message can reach a wider number of girls? I definitely think there's only so much TLG can do without submitting to the pressures of the industry and the market-- they're not going to influence girls with products they don't want, and they're not going to influence other toy companies with products that don't sell. A company like Hasbro that already has successful girl-oriented toys is in a better position to make a difference, but unlike a company that lacks a successful girl-oriented toy, they have more to lose if they take that risk.

Really I don't think any company, or any parent, is in a position to make a huge societal difference. That's why I appreciate Friends for what I see it to be: TLG's way of moving towards a gender-balanced product line in small measures. Simply showing that a building toy aimed at girls can be successful would be a big step, and would open up the potential for developments that further defy toy industry stereotypes. And whether TLG or a competitor takes that next small risk, I optimistically feel that the industry will drift towards further innovation, and that further innovation will inherently involve changes in the status quo.

Could TLG do more? I'm sure they could, but they're taking a fairly significant risk as it is by introducing yet another girl-oriented product when so many of theirs have failed. They are intentionally creating a product that has a very small overlap with the interests of their already-secured fanbase (primarily male). They're marketing this one more heavily than I ever saw them market their girl-oriented themes in the 90s and 2000s, although this is probably less because they are certain of its success and more because they are in a better financial situation to take that risk than they were during those years. And I think the existence of a controversy around the theme shows that they are being heard a lot more clearly than they were with previous themes, although this could in part be because their 90s and 2000s attempts were perceived as desperate, flailing measures by an already-failing company.

As for what I think of TLG's research, I have a lot of confidence that it will pay off. I'm neither a girl nor a parent of girls so I'm in no position to claim that girls and boys have inherently different play patterns, or if they do whether this is a consequence of nature or nurture. I feel it definitely has elements of both, but I don't know the balance of these elements. I do know that the nature vs. nurture debate doesn't really have any bearing on how TLG should best appeal to girls. By the time girls reach the age range for LEGO Friends, both nature and nurture would already have had enough time to influence girls in a way a toy company like LEGO could not simply undo. The only ethical concern TLG should have regarding LEGO Friends is whether they are doing further harm, either on an individual or a societal level, and I think bad decisions regarding Friends will sooner harm the theme's own profits than harm its customers.

[ACWWgal2011]

I heard that lego is supposed to be holding a conference regarding a petition with 50K signatures. Does anyone know when the conference is supposed to be? I'm really hoping that the petitions will encourage lego to either get rid of the friends line or modify it. Not sure if it's the same petition or not but on change.org, there is one with 52,849 signatures.

[Ricecracker]

I'm really hoping that the petitions will encourage lego to either get rid of the friends line or modify it. Not sure if it's the same petition or not but on change.org, there is one with 52,849 signatures.

Care to expand on that..?

[ACWWgal2011]

As far as the petitions, i hope that the sheer number of them plus all the posts will show lego that aiming products at girls in these weird stereotypical girl likes is NOT the proper way to go to getting girls into lego products. Just because someone is female doesn't mean that they love pinks and purples or love having their hair done or baking for example.

[LegoMyMamma]

As far as the petitions, i hope that the sheer number of them plus all the posts will show lego that aiming products at girls in these weird stereotypical girl likes is NOT the proper way to go to getting girls into lego products. Just because someone is female doesn't mean that they love pinks and purples or love having their hair done or baking for example.

The petition to which you refer was inflated with "virtual" signatures influenced by false information sent via change(dot)org's mailing list, see that info here: http://www.paganomation.com/2012/01/the-ongoing-lego-friends-controversy/

Before that mailing there were barely 3,000 signatures, even after weeks of the Spark-related groups bantering for all their members.

The fact that one core RadFem of the so-called backlash is on the STAFF at change(dot)org is almost hilarious in the context of any type of objective petition or consensus amongst rational adult behavior. Shelby Knox lives her life for this type of opportunity to showcase their "agenda" and the Friends theme became square in their crosshairs.

Notice their continued "money-shot" of the Splash pool they so desperately want to call a Hot Tub, and the ice cream float they want to call a cocktail. Any perceived "sexualization" of girls in this situation has been caused far more by SPARK, et al, that any benign LEGO set image. Shame on SPARK.

As for any non-verified, non-objective online petition possibly signed by people who aren't even real LEGO customers causing LEGO Friends to be cancelled -- don't hold your breath! Friends is selling like hotcakes everywhere! The Friends Launch & Build event I attended had loads of girls new to LEGO very happy! Several customers were seeking some sets which were already sold out at that store!

The funny thing about any "meeting" with the petitioners is that TLG sent them a reply Sunday Feb 5th, yet they continued their harassment Monday & Tuesday (after they finished harassing the Super Bowl commercials via NFL) and they began to create yet another letter-writing campaign (by the woman who called TLG executives "***hats") while the whole time they didn't even realize TLG's response was sitting in their Inbox. (All is verified by publicly posted info.)

So, like I predicted in a post on this thread a while back -- these "barely casual" LEGO fans get to cut in line in front of more dedicated fans. They get to waste time on something that helps their agenda. That time could be better spent on real issues affecting girls' lives in a real way. That time could be spent on TLG's clock continuing to listen to actual fans on topics of bulk bricks, games, LEGO stores, etc., etc.

If you don't like Friends, don't buy them. Just don't deny that today there are more girls building with LEGO bricks than before December 31, 2011. That's what it's all about.

Stereotyping is in the eye of the beholder. There are millions of women on this globe who own & manage hair salons. Are they less female-worthy than you?

Also, I see you are enamored with Anita. Too bad she skewed information to aid her little project. This whole notion that "all LEGO had to do is make more female MiniFigs" to solve getting more girls into LEGO building is obviously not a valid claim. Last year TLG did include more female MiniFigs

Anita is just another re-mixer of other people's creations who sees a way to make a few $$ off the coattails of the backlash. Yawn.

Also, for the people who try to say if only TLG uses those non-gender ads, then girls will flock to LEGO: well, aside from the 1981 ad spammed online ad nauseum, the 2006 silhouette ads where very well done -- yet, obviously that wasn't enough to persuade more girls either. I would rather trust TLG knows how to garner its own anthropological research than a bunch a hyper RadFems.

No where has anyone said girls can't buy any set TLG offers and build anything their imagination can conjure. I say, do that and don't worry about what's on the other girls' plate.

[def]

So, like I predicted in a post on this thread a while back -- these "barely casual" LEGO fans get to cut in line in front of more dedicated fans. They get to waste time on something that helps their agenda. That time could be better spent on real issues affecting girls' lives in a real way. That time could be spent on TLG's clock continuing to listen to actual fans on topics of bulk bricks, games, LEGO stores, etc., etc.

Didn't someone say that the Friends line is about getting people who don't play with LEGO playing with them? Hmm. I recall something like that. Hmm. Maybe it makes a lot of sense for TLG to pay attention to people who aren't actual fans. After all, the "actual fans" are already buying.

If you don't like Friends, don't buy them. Just don't deny that today there are more girls building with LEGO bricks than before December 31, 2011. That's what it's all about.

Ah yes, new customers People who weren't "actual fans."

Of course, if people don't like things, they should speak their opinion and have their voice heard, not merely refrain from buying things. After all, that's one purpose of public discussion

[LegoMyMamma]

Didn't someone say that the Friends line is about getting people who don't play with LEGO playing with them? Hmm. I recall something like that. Hmm. Maybe it makes a lot of sense for TLG to pay attention to people who aren't actual fans. After all, the "actual fans" are already buying.

Ah yes, new customers People who weren't "actual fans."

Of course, if people don't like things, they should speak their opinion and have their voice heard, not merely refrain from buying things. After all, that's one purpose of public discussion

That's fine to create a discussion, yet to inflate a "petition" on those pretenses and then flaunt it as a "win" for the RadFems is what I am referring to in that post. Yes, they have sites for posting their "wins" they have achieved with their spreading of false, skewed information, and implementation of block & delete tactics.

Of course new customers will voice their opinion with their wallets. That Friends is selling well is one sign of that. Besides, new to LEGO customers can use established channels to voice their opinions/concerns! TLG has gone to great lengths to create and staff those channels!

New LEGO customers don't need a grandstanding virtual petition.

This isn't even about a civilized "discussion" at all. It's about abuse of platforms.

Most of the RadFems behind this don't merely say something like, hey we don't want what Friends offers; they go further on to claim they know better than TLG as to how to garner what girls really want in a construction toy -- even if they don't have daughters, don't own LEGO bricks, or understand the history of TLG, etc. That they truly think TLG doesn't have access to "developmental psychologists" just blows my mind.

They started throwing around the ads and the MiniFig ratio -- which sadly is more true-to-life than I believe they want to fathom. Why don't they go ahead and become female firefighters, police, mechanics, wizards, dino hunters, and all the professions they claim aren't represented by TLG's figs? Instead, they spend their time remixing other people's creations. Also, they can go ahead and customize a fig into what ever female character they want. That's another cool thing about LEGO!

Since I'm backing posting here, I'd like to add that the individual interpretation of the commercials and marketing material is so very subjective. My opinion is that it's an opportunity for a learning moment (or teaching moment) to open dialogue with your own child (not speculate about what that 'other' parent's child wants/thinks) and listen to their interpretation. What a great chance to possibly learn your child's viewpoint and maybe realize they aren't so easily persuaded as you thought. Or, use it as an way to demonstrate what 'you' believe to be casting girls in a societal stereotypical way. This is also a chance for girls who don't feel they are like the girls in the Friends ads to realize that those girls who do connect with Friends have a right to build with LEGO bricks too!

Yet, for anyone to say the Friends marketing is plain wrong is casting their personal opinion over other people's viewpoint and preference.

This is a open discussion. The petition is/was not.

[Pencil_42]

As far as the petitions, i hope that the sheer number of them plus all the posts will show lego that aiming products at girls in these weird stereotypical girl likes is NOT the proper way to go to getting girls into lego products. Just because someone is female doesn't mean that they love pinks and purples or love having their hair done or baking for example.

I'd have to say that while some do not, there are also those that do. My daughters (5 and 2) have absolutely loved the Friends series. They head straight for the Friends display in the LEGO store to play with the new colors of parts - and that display / building station is one of the busier parts of the store, so it's not just them.

If they ever made fairy and mermaid Friends, my kids would go out of their mind with excitement :)

The minidolls have grown on me to the extent that I think I'd like to see them replace the traditional minifig. The minifigs just look short and stumpy in comparison. Unfortunately, even if they did, it would be quite some time before there was anywhere close to the amount of variety that there is with the minifig. Maybe LEGO could do a series of collectable minidolls....

I do see signs that LEGO isn't abandoning girls that prefer traditional LEGO series. Look at the increasing role of Nya in NinjaGo, for example - going from a stereotypical 'sister to be rescued' to building and piloting her own mech that can beat all 4 ninjas at once.

Curtis

[lightningtiger]

I feel the real issue is caused by that old evil....TELEVISION, yes, TV...why you may ask ?

Shows like 'iCarly' or 'Hanna Montana' and alike paint a similar image as Lego Friend's does.....and for those FemRad's to attack Lego only is weak of them. Lego is an easy target, fighting TV networks who have stacks of cash and legal teams......go figure.

The ideas shown in TV program are not new, the image set in Barbie concrete, but there is nothing wrong with girls wanting to have a girly cafe session or beauty spot treatment and then do a grease and oil change on a hot rod, plus wire up a sub-woofer in the boot.

Simple, let children be children....they must find their own paths in life, and Lego is help tool in their development along those paths.

I have a saying.....Learn, Live, Life, Lego......Learn to Live Life through Lego.

[kermit]

I saw this in the newspapers today concerning the controversy over the Friends theme. Here is the article below and a link to the article in the newspapers , http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/lego-sit-activists-angry-sexist-line-made-girls-article-1.1062430

Activists who think Lego’s new just-for-girls sets are sexist scored a sitdown with executives — but not much else.

The toymaker has already decided to expand the line.

“The line is off to a very strong start,” said Michael McNally, brand relations director for the company behind the iconic plastic bricks.

“Consumer feedback from children and parents who are trying the product is very favorable.”

The company rolled out the Lego Friends line in December as a way to attract girls to a brand that had become dominated by boys. It features LadyFigs, curvier takeoffs on the traditional boxy figurines who live in a place called Heartlake City.

Construction sets include a hot tub, a splash pool, a beauty parlor, a dog show and a “cool convertible” — but also an inventor’s workshop.

The girl-power group SPARK Movement was appalled by what it called gender stereotyping. It declared the figurines’ noticeable bustlines an example of sexualizing girls.

“We find it very sexist and offensive,” said the organization’s Brooklyn-based executive director Dana Edell.

An online petition drew 55,000 signatures, and Lego bigwigs have agreed to meet with Edell and two young women from her group in Manhattan on Friday.

She said the goal is to convince Lego to include girls in its boy-dominated marketing campaigns and put more female figurines in traditional sets.

“More than 80% of the characters are boys,” she said of the original packages, which often have action-adventure themes.

Parents browsing in the Lego aisle at Target in Starrett City on Monday were divided about whether Lego Friends were the enemy.

“Barbie has boobs and she’s been around forever,” said Evangelina Lopez, 31, pushing her youngdaughter in a shopping cart.

“I'm a nurse and I think that this a part of the female anatomy that girls should know about.

“I think it's sexist not to sell toys like this for girls because boys have any type of Lego they want.”

But Jennifer Torregrosa, 24, who also has a daughter, said the bosomy figures were a case of too much too soon.

“At the age you play with Legos you’re not even developed yet," she said. “It would be better to keep Legos like that off the shelf. There’s already enough stuff out there like that. You don’t need more.”

The folks at Lego apparently disagree, saying the public simply wants pinkalicious toys.

“We look forward to expanding the collection to engage even more children in the positive benefits of Lego play,” McNally said.

I personally do not understand where all the hate for this theme as being sexist comes from. The activists say to include more female figures in regular sets , but by count there are already many female minifigures.

One case in point is that I do not see anyone complaining about the female minifigures in the medieval market set, for example, that show lots of breasts.

[Rufus]

I saw this in the newspapers today concerning the controversy over the Friends theme.

I'll merge this shortly with the Friends Controversy thread.

[kermit]

I'll merge this shortly with the Friends Controversy thread.

Thanks I was searching for the thread but couldn`t find it.

Edited April 17, 2012 by kermit

[fallentomato]

Activists who think Lego’s new just-for-girls sets are sexist scored a sitdown with executives — but not much else.

I think it speaks volumes to how open TLG to feedback that this meeting is happening, despite the invalidity of many of the signatures on the petition. Way to go TLG! I hope it is a useful meeting and look forward to hearing about it.

[vexorian]

She said the goal is to convince Lego to include girls in its boy-dominated marketing campaigns and put more female figurines in traditional sets.

Wow, is this the radical feminism that everyone was so opposed to in this thread?

Such radicals.