Blast - thanks for the "feminist" info. Yeah, that makes sense re: the original article.

As I have posted up thread I am a big fan of Lego Friends, it is how I discovered the joy of Lego. I tend to be annoyed when people are intolerant of "girly" toys. I have 2 daughters a "princess" and an "adventurer", and I don't consider my girly princessy daughter's preferences to be less valid than her tomboyish sister.

I wanted to note some observations about crossover into other lego lines for those of us who were brought into lego through lego friends.

The minidoll/mini figure compatibility is a non-issue. They all live together in harmony in our heartlake city. Both girls like CMF's. But not the scary mean ones. We also have mini figs from some bricks and more sets.

As far as crossover, I have 3 sides, my adventurer, my princess, and myself as an AFFOL.

1. First of all my adventurer is a bit young for much of lego. But she is fairly advanced for her age (4). The sets she asks for tend to be vehicles, Stephanie's car and airplane, and the pet patrol ATV. The big sets she was most excited about this year are the pool and the boat. She loves Pixar Cars, so she has 2 of those sets. She also has the bricks and more Safari set. She has always been fine with shopping in the "boy aisle". We don't call it that, it is just the aisle where the cars and Buzz Lightyear are. This is speculation, but I don't think she would have gotten into Lego without the influence of her sister and I, it is a bit quiet for her.

2. My princess (almost 6 y/o and advanced in math) is the bigger lego fan and more vocal about her opinions. While she definitely has preferences for pink, rainbows, and glitter; she is also very mathy and also loves the outdoors. Lego friends hits all these sweet spots for her. She has also been asking me to build a castle for her. But when I showed her the new Lego castles she was not impressed. First she stated they were all boys. (That one locked up princess is barely visible). Second she was disappointed with the lack of interior. "There is nothing to do inside". When we walked passed the boxes in the store she told me she didn't like it because they were fighting and I should just build her one. Today we visited the lego aisles at Walmart and target. In the regular lego aisle they took an interest in the city sets. The discussion was interesting. My younger one was interested in the police sets because "they are stealing jewelry". My older one however pointed out that there were bad guys and we don't need bad guys in our city. So the cops and robbers sets were dismissed. However my older girly daughter fell in love with the garbage truck. "We need that to clean up our city." They also were enamored with the coast guard rescue helicopter.

So now we come to my princess's dilemma. There are so many awesome friends sets she can't decide which ones to ask for for her birthday. Now she wants the garbage truck too. She has to weigh the merits of the garbage truck verses the cupcake bakery, its a tough decision. The garbage truck does seem to be winning. But the helicopter will definitely lose out to the adventure camper.

3. I became an AFOL when I started to play with my daughters with Lego Friends. My definite preference is MOC's. I am more inclined to make purchasing decisions based on a combination of price per piece, and desirable pieces. I do also have a strong weakness for CMF's and poly bags (from any theme) since I can just throw them into my grocery cart as an impulse purchase. While I do like the Lego friends sets, I tend to find creator sets to be a better value for what I am looking for. Oh and the PAB wall is heaven on the rare chance I have to visit a lego store. :D

so, to draw some conclusions from my very unscientific observations of a set of 3:

-We have had some theme crossover: CMF's, bricks and more, CARS, creator, and now possibly city.

-crossover is somewhat limited by the high number of great friends sets. Most people are not going to buy that many sets a year, so they are not going to need to search out other sets. In our case if friends sets disappeared we would still buy lego, but not nearly as much.

-the violence/bad guys depicted on some traditional lego sets is a turn off for some girls.

- the lack of interiors and space inside is also a turn off for some girls. (Even my adventurer prefers an interior in a building)

By the way, I do question the idea that crossover is a goal. As if non-friends lego sets have some higher merit. Friends is a hit in own right, and I think it somewhat diminishes its well deserved accolades when we focus on it as a gateway. If someone only purchases friends sets, they still will have a pretty great lego collection.

Very good points made and interesting obvservations noted from your real world experience.

I will have to agree that Friends shouldn't be thought of as a gateway to other LEGO themes. Friends has a lot of great pieces overall. Some of the pastels may not be able to work with every setting, but it does bring in a lot of variety in color which helps the LEGO palette. It adds in a lot of useful pieces that may then later be made into other colors for other themes, but it is nice we get some of them at all.

I think girls, like boys, have varied interests and if you expose them to everything and let them choose what they want to play with, it will be a lot easier in the world. Most people try to "force" their kids to play with specific toys that are aimed at a certain group, but not everyone wants gender specific or even gender neutral toys.

I love the Friends line, but I only buy some here and there for my daughter. She is only 3, but has been exposed to LEGO since she was born basically. So far, she loves Super Heroes, CMF, Friends, and Monster Fighters. Her favorite is the Haunted House set which has the nice added touch of opening up like a dollhouse and has an interior. But lately she has been building her own castle, or wants me to build her one. So I think her interests seem pretty varied in terms of market research, but in the end she is wanting to play/purchase LEGO so TLG wins out either way.

There are a lot of great Friends sets coming out every wave. It is hard to grab all of the sets one would want while still grabbing the other themes that are interesting. I think the school will be a big hit this year. I should look into that one myself.

Interesting thougths in recent posts.

Yes, many families DO "force" the "gender roles" - you know, the "no son of mine will be playing with dolls" or "no daughter of mine will be playing with violent toys"... So, they make sure to get their boys all the "war gear" and their daughters all the "doll and cooking supplies" and encourage the "proper roll-playing". This happens from the minute the child is clothed in pink or blue - wait, BEFORE the child is even born - the baby shower, the nursery, the baby toys..... I would think that people are as individual as there are stars in the night sky.... Or are we as different as night and day, boys and girls - that "polar"? What "drives the marketing" of toy companies? What makes girls want to "play house" and boys to "play war"?

Well, I suppose as long as we provide the "full spectrum" of toys for the kids it's all good - as long as we truly allow them to choose - without "penality" of being "socially unacceptable" or "wrong" in the eyes of the world. Gosh, pink was always a male color and blue a female color. Red was the color of blood - it was considered strong, warrior-ish and that of sacrifice. Blue was considered passive, calm, soft.... Funny how that all changed because of some marketing by a major department store not more more than one hundred years ago!

Food for fodder....

Such rage over Lego products made to look feminine and how they are "Supporting Gender Stereotypes" seriously just let the kids decide what they want to play with rather than complaining about how it looks like a typical girls' toy. Really grinds my gears that supposed "Feminists" have to pick at this rather than any other issues around the world.

This. Absolutely this.

I think a lot of the "controversy" over Friends was based on some people's worst fears of LEGO gender programming. Now that Friends has been out for over a year, I think it is clear that Friends is a positive thing.

I pulled these two facts from Wiki:

By February the Change.org petition had gathered over 50,000 signatures, and LEGO accepted SPARK's request for a meeting to discuss their concerns. The meeting took place on April 20, 2012. Bailey Shoemaker Richards said of the event, "We are thrilled that the LEGO representatives expressed such a deep passion for creating healthy play patterns for children, and we hope to see them meet our expectations in the coming years."^[7]

According to NPR, Lego Friends are "one of the biggest successes in Lego's history ... The line doubled sales expectations in 2012, the year it launched. Sales to girls tripled in just that year." The success has caused other construction-set companies such as Mega Bloks to introduce girl dolls.^[3]

The result we see with these sets likely includes feedback from concerned consumers. I think Friends is a balanced line that is good for kids and LEGOs bottom line.

Daisy: I saw the garbage truck this weekend (or was it recycling truck? I forget. It looked like a garbage truck) and I was really excited about it too. Haven't decided whether to purchase.

i REALLY want the Friends pool and that's a larger set so keeping me from pulling the trigger on other things I like.

But I hadn't seen that truck before and its quite tempting.

I don't want to add fuel to the fire, but I eventually found what I was looking for.

All these discussions about TLC being against females and pro-macho-man sounded very strange to me because I recalled the idea that TLC was very feminist.

I finally remembered where I found it.

Minifigures Character Encyclopedia, Page 98

"Despite her superior brainpower, she is very fond of her lovably primitive mate and does her best to protect him from hungry meat eaters (and his own inventions)."

This is very feminist, also very arguably sexist and offensive.

Here you can easily read about a girl that has "a superior brainpower" than her male counterpart, and that, role inverted from what I was reading, is the girl who has to protect the man.

I hope this is clearly enough to end the discussion about lego portraiting pro-boy(man) figures.

Of course if TLC would have written about a man who had superior brainpower than his female counterpart, dozens of feminist video would have surfaced on youtube... we live in a very sad world.

I don't want to add fuel to the fire, but I eventually found what I was looking for.

All these discussions about TLC being against females and pro-macho-man sounded very strange to me because I recalled the idea that TLC was very feminist.

I finally remembered where I found it.

Minifigures Character Encyclopedia, Page 98

"Despite her superior brainpower, she is very fond of her lovably primitive mate and does her best to protect him from hungry meat eaters (and his own inventions)."

This is very feminist, also very arguably sexist and offensive.

Here you can easily read about a girl that has "a superior brainpower" than her male counterpart, and that, role inverted from what I was reading, is the girl who has to protect the man.

I hope this is clearly enough to end the discussion about lego portraiting pro-boy(man) figures.

Of course if TLC would have written about a man who had superior brainpower than his female counterpart, dozens of feminist video would have surfaced on youtube... we live in a very sad world.

Agreed. Some Feminists need to realise Men and Women are equal, not identical.

Agreed. Some Feminists need to realise Men and Women are equal, not identical.

"Equal, not identical."

I like it a lot. I will re use this if you allow me to.

All these discussions about TLC being against females and pro-macho-man sounded very strange to me because I recalled the idea that TLC was very feminist.

I finally remembered where I found it.

I haven't read many (if any) posts where LEGO is 'against females and pro-macho-man'. There are much stronger and more sophisticated arguments about Friends and gender and I think it is better therefore to focus on them. If you think 'anti-female and pro-macho-man' is the central issue here, could you explain some more?

"Despite her superior brainpower, she is very fond of her lovably primitive mate and does her best to protect him from hungry meat eaters (and his own inventions)."

This is very feminist, also very arguably sexist and offensive.

Here you can easily read about a girl that has "a superior brainpower" than her male counterpart, and that, role inverted from what I was reading, is the girl who has to protect the man.

I have no idea how this is 'very feminist'. Could you explain how? I understand feminism to be a form of thought and practice which sees gender as something which fundamentally structures people's lives and which historically (and presently) largely marginalizes women, though not universally so. Feminism aims at understanding the deep implications of gender with a goal on reforming the unjust divisions it entails.

I think the conversation would be better served by either addressing other people's specific points or specific feminists' points (linked, quoted, whatever). Referring vaguely to 'some feminists' doesn't really get the conversation anywhere.

Re: "Equal, not identical', I think this also applies to the wrong idea that all women have something in common which no men do, where this trait is somehow relevant to Friends and its implications.

EDIT: Also, the idea of 'equal, not identical' sounds awfully like 'separate but equal', with the same implications. I don't see the use of it except to justify assumptions about men and women.

Edited August 13, 201311 yr by GregoryBrick

I understand feminism to be a form of thought and practice which sees gender as something which fundamentally structures people's lives and which historically (and presently) largely marginalizes women, though not universally so. Feminism aims at understanding the deep implications of gender with a goal on reforming the unjust divisions it entails.

I actually don't think so.

I think the conversation would be better served by either addressing other people's specific points or specific feminists' points (linked, quoted, whatever). Referring vaguely to 'some feminists' doesn't really get the conversation anywhere.

Re: "Equal, not identical', I think this also applies to the wrong idea that all women have something in common which no men do, where this trait is somehow relevant to Friends and its implications.

EDIT: Also, the idea of 'equal, not identical' sounds awfully like 'separate but equal', with the same implications. I don't see the use of it except to justify assumptions about men and women.

The idea that all women have something in common which no men do is NOT wrong. it's ipso facto what it is, and that can be clearly seen every day. So until you fill this gap we can't communicate.

Men and Women are deeply different BECAUSE of their gender. I still fail to see why in 2013 there are people refusing this simple fact.

Edited August 13, 201311 yr by Itaria No Shintaku

I actually don't think so.

Well, without understanding what you mean 'feminism/feminist' to mean, then no, we probably can't communicate.

The idea that all women have something in common which no men do is NOT wrong. it's ipso facto what it is, and that can be clearly seen every day. So until you fill this gap we can't communicate.

Men and Women are deeply different BECAUSE of their gender. I still fail to see why in 2013 there are people refusing this simple fact.

So what is the only thing all women have in common which no men do, and how do we know this determines toy preference? Even things like karyotype are not exclusive to and universal to women (unless you think women with androgen insensitivity syndrome are obliged to identify as 'men' or something).

I apologize if this appears off-topic, but if someone wants to assert that toy preference follows from essential and universal sex/gender traits which LEGO can and should use in their product development, I'd like to know what those traits are - I don't know of any.

EDIT: Yes, of course men and women are different because of their gender, that is circular and self-evidently true. However, gender is mutable and not in a direct relationship to biology (which itself is not a binary system for all human beings). These complicated facts do not compel me to conclude anything about how LEGO should design and market toys.

Edited August 13, 201311 yr by GregoryBrick

I think the friends line is refreshing for the TLG. For many years girls I believe have been excluded from Lego as a toy of choice for them. I found both Daisy and The LegoDr's comments very insightful and exactly what we need to hear. They should be encouraged to pick what they want but also have some catering to them as well just as boys do. (Chima would be fair to say is a boy's line) In the end though kids will play with what they want. So long as there is a choice, I welcome it.

Edited August 13, 201311 yr by Wodanis

"Equal, not identical."

I like it a lot. I will re use this if you allow me to.

Go for it :)

My 3-and-half year old boy wants the Friends boat. It has Dolphins.

"TLG should / shouldn't reinforce gender stereotypes" is a nice first world problem to have eh?

EDIT: Yes, of course men and women are different because of their gender, that is circular and self-evidently true. However, gender is mutable and not in a direct relationship to biology (which itself is not a binary system for all human beings). These complicated facts do not compel me to conclude anything about how LEGO should design and market toys.

Actually, that's true but unrelevant. Since it's not fully binary, but nearly, exceptions to the rule are so few that can be put out of the argument.

On your ID card you have either "male" or "female", there's no third option, so in most sites you can choose either Male of Female and so on.

So it can be considered easily binary for all purposes.

So it can be considered easily binary for all purposes.

Except in Nepal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender#Nepal

I have not read the rest of the argument in this thread, so have no idea what ideological / semantic debating points you're having such fun with. Enjoy yourselves

"TLG should / shouldn't reinforce gender stereotypes" is a nice first world problem to have eh?

No, actually. The deprivation of women's rights and rigid traditional gender stereotyping are rampant problems in many developing countries, so the question of how women's roles are portrayed in toys are definitely not a first-world problem, but a whole-world problem.

No, actually. The deprivation of women's rights and rigid traditional gender stereotyping are rampant problems in many developing countries, so the question of how women's roles are portrayed in toys are definitely not a first-world problem, but a whole-world problem.

Actually today the problem is more male-bashing than female stereotypes, to me.

Minifigures Character Encyclopedia, Page 98

"Despite her superior brainpower, she is very fond of her lovably primitive mate and does her best to protect him from hungry meat eaters (and his own inventions)."

I personally don't agree with your statement. Seeing how this biography is about a Cavewoman, it makes a little bit of sense to me, because Cave people are seen as primitive. It's also worth note that the Caveman was set up in a way to sound as if he has low intelligence, a common cave person stereotype. All it's saying is that she's smarter than her husband. The entire bio on her is set up to sound like she has a higher intelligence than her male counterpart, so I personally don't mind this statement at all, when you look at the entire bio as a whole. I can see where you come from, but I simply don't agree, and that's just my opinion.

I personally don't agree with your statement. Seeing how this biography is about a Cavewoman, it makes a little bit of sense to me, because Cave people are seen as primitive. It's also worth note that the Caveman was set up in a way to sound as if he has low intelligence, a common cave person stereotype. All it's saying is that she's smarter than her husband. The entire bio on her is set up to sound like she has a higher intelligence than her male counterpart, so I personally don't mind this statement at all, when you look at the entire bio as a whole. I can see where you come from, but I simply don't agree, and that's just my opinion.

I respect your opinion but I find it very stilted.

The idea that all women have something in common which no men do is NOT wrong. it's ipso facto what it is, and that can be clearly seen every day. So until you fill this gap we can't communicate.

This is true, but the issue here is that I don't think gender differences are nearly the most important differences between men and women or boys and girls in terms of personality, behavior, play patterns, etc.

There's this one study that was done once to analyze what genetic differences there were between people of different races. The results of the study revealed something that surprised some people though: there were more differences WITHIN individual races than BETWEEN members of different races. So to use a particular example, black people are more different from each other than they are from people who are white, Asian, Native American, or Hispanic. In other words, race is largely a constructed concept, not something that's genuinely useful in determining differences between people except on a very superficial level.

Now, sex is not as much of a constructed concept by a longshot, and the physical differences between men and women tend to be obvious. But at the same time, as far as personalities are concerned, sex does not play nearly as great of a role. If you took a male athlete, a female athlete, a male "bookworm", and a female "bookworm", chances are the two bookworms would have more in common with each other in terms of personality and lifestyle than the two men, and the two athletes would have more in common with each other in those terms than the two women. Throw in the issue of sexuality and gender identity, and things get even more muddled.

The notion that men are macho protectors and women are more precious commodities has genuine historical roots, but in the modern day it is not anywhere near as relevant as it has been historically. Personally, I'm thin as a rail and I have never had much athletic ability. I also do not have the best coordination or stamina. I'm sure there are plenty of women who would be physically more equipped to protect me than I am to protect them, even if on average women have less upper body strength than men. Beyond that, we live in a society where things like physical strength no longer matter nearly as much as they once did and things like period or menopause symptoms can be treated with medication.

There are personality differences between men and women, and the whole "nature vs. nurture" question comes into play. Some personality differences between men and women are almost entirely a result of their cultural/societal context and upbringing, such as the ways they prefer to dress or the types of sports they play. Others are based on genetics, and these can be a lot harder to pin down. You can't isolate a person from their upbringing and societal context (not ethically, anyhow) and so really the question of which traits are genetic and which are genetic/hormonal is practically null and void.

However, at the same time, neither cultural influence NOR genetic influence is absolute. Just because a guy is built like a tank doesn't mean he'll necessarily be interested in sports, and just because a person is brought up in a very traditional household doesn't mean they can't decide to break away from those traditional expectations. And it's not wrong to follow your own path or to teach your children to do the same, regardless of their genetic and cultural predispositions. If a girl wants to play American football, is physically capable of it, and is in a school system that allows that, that's perfectly fine. If a boy wants to wear pink or wants to be a stay-at-home dad when he grows up, that's fine as well. We are not slaves to our genetic makeup OR our upbringing, and even if it's an extraordinary challenge to go against one or the other, that decision shouldn't be criticized if a person is willing to rise to that challenge.

In short, you're right, men and women are NOT interchangeable. But NO two people or groups of people are interchangeable, no matter what their sex. Every single person on the planet is unique, and no matter how many societal barriers are broken down, nothing anybody does is ever going to change that. There's no sense in treating feminists, disabled rights activists, or any other group of that kind as villains unless they are trying to place limits on human individuality. And for most, that is not the case.

Couldn't agree with you more, we should never assume by looks that someone muscle bound is a sports freak or slim and pretty isn't into hunting or extreme sports. These days stereotyping is not pushed on to children at the school level these days.....next year my son is entering high school in a performing arts (acting, music & dance) home group......mostly girls in that group but they all must do tech studies.....woodwork, metalwork and electronics along with their arts subjects.

I'm wondering when this topic will see an end, because it does seem to be going around in circles in a way.

The simple fact is we should always consider all humans as equals, also that people are different and there can be plus there isn't a stereotype for everyone. It's intolerance and fear that causes many problems in the world, just seeing people for who they are and what they what to be is what we all should aspire to.

While Friends might recreate old-fashioned gender roles, Heartlake City also doesn't seem like a very contemporary place (except for the laptops etc). Many of the sets have a vintage look; if there were more boys, HC could totally work as a setting for Grease or, even better, The Graduate. However, that doesn't mean Lego is reactionary, the line just reflects a retrosexual trend in society. People buy vintage clothes, products with a retro look, and watch shows like Mad Men. A less negative attitude towards old-fashioned / traditional gender roles is linked to this trend.