Friends "Controversy"

[Itaria No Shintaku]

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.

This is the point that I think it's important.

Nowadays, if a girl wants to become just an "ordinary housewife" she should be entitled to. Instead probably she would be seen as wrong.

And what if a BOY wants to become a "househusband"? He should be allowed to, instead he would be seen VERY wrong, 100 times more than the girl.

What you suggest about the freedom to do whatever we want to do is interesting, even if I find it theoretically right but practically utopian (I don't think my parents or friends would accept me in quitting my job of programmer after years of study in computer engineering for becoming a clown...)

Bias are in all directions, in fact we started all argument this because people is doing exactly what you are suggesting to be wrong: they are criticizing TLC for the roles they give to girls in the Friends theme.

This is the main point: you insist that everyone should be allowed to do what they want to do with their life without being criticized.

But... the same time you (and most people here) are criticizing TLC designers for the Friends line.

This is nonsense, I hope you get me right.

It's not any more the male vs female argument, it's about freedom to act and choose a job or more.

In the same time I would like to add two points:

1 - Genetic and society are not influent at 100%... ok... but at 95% yes.

We would have had no Beethoven if his family wasn't about musicians.

We would have had no Chopin if his family wasn't about musicians.

We would have had no Mozart if his family wasn't about musicians.

I can go on forever... but three of the best talents I get to my mind in music were the best just because their family lead them that way. You can tell me that sons of great musicians may not have become great musicians themselves, that's true, but in the meantime it's more unlikely to find famous artists/painters/musicians/sculptors and so on that followed their path to art coming from a family of NO artists.

Just for fun, if we take the Ninja turtles' inspiring artists...

Raffaello Sanzio was son of another artist.

Michelangelo Buonarroti wasn't, but he was given to his nanny which was from a family of stonecutters.

Donatello Bardi is a particoular case in which this doesn't apply/work.

Leonardo da Vinci was sent to a "Bottega" in early age.

So mostly this is the case.

2 - you say:

Others are based on genetics, and these can be a lot harder to pin down.

Like as if they have to ben pinned down for some reasons.

This is mostly where I fail to understand you.

Why? Why should society want to level male and female? Pin down the inner differences we have and make us special?

There are many big differences between male and female that society is already trying to level, creating more aggressive women and more submissive men, driving most people to the path of homosexuality for this reason, trying to convince you that sexual desire is the same within men and woman (which is one of the most idiotic things I've ever read, but a lot of people seem convinced in this for their own purposes), there is a sexual confusion in the last 30 years that is to last a lot of time, sending a wave of damages we can't see the end.

I agree with most things you said, of course, but really I fail to see why we should nullify the peculiarities of our different genders. If we have biological differences there has to be a purpose, and I don't like messing with nature, but I again don't tell that doing that is generically wrong, I just don't see the reason why all this efforces are taken in this direction and why the mainstream trend is that we have to pretend to zero the differences among genders.

[Gryphon Ink]

You can tell me that sons of great musicians may not have become great musicians themselves, that's true, but in the meantime it's more unlikely to find famous artists/painters/musicians/sculptors and so on that followed their path to art coming from a family of NO artists.

Just for fun, if we take the Ninja turtles' inspiring artists...

Raffaello Sanzio was son of another artist.

Michelangelo Buonarroti wasn't, but he was given to his nanny which was from a family of stonecutters.

Donatello Bardi is a particoular case in which this doesn't apply/work.

Leonardo da Vinci was sent to a "Bottega" in early age.

So mostly this is the case.

So, to recap:

Raffaello's parents were artists.

Michaelangelo's parents were not.

Donatello's parents were not.

Leonardo's parents were not.

Three out of the four grand masters you selected were not born into families that showed ANY artistic inclinations.

And this proves your point how?

[Itaria No Shintaku]

So, to recap:

Raffaello's parents were artists.

Michaelangelo's parents were not.

Donatello's parents were not.

Leonardo's parents were not.

Three out of the four grand masters you selected were not born into families that showed ANY artistic inclinations.

And this proves your point how?

Yes it does, if you read me I cleary said that it doesn't depend on your parents but on who you spend your time with.

[Gryphon Ink]

I'm sorry, I must have lost that fine point in between all the commentary about how strong women are unnatural, women are supposed to be baby machines (and should be happy about it), homosexuals and submissive men (not the same thing, BTW) are confused and a blight on society, feminists are plotting to take over the world by bashing men unmercifully, and TLG are female supremacists because one entry in the Minifig Encyclopedia made fun of a caveman.

Tell you what - you win. I need to go plot the downfall of society now. I am so done with this.

[Capt.JohnPaul]

Aanchir and Lightningtiger have a lot of good points and I agree with them.

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.

Also agree. Equal rights and opportunities is good. However, sometimes I feel they are placing limits. They want TLG to stop the Friends line, even though it is successful. The girls who buy that like the Friends line, because that's what they like as individuals. If Friends didn't exist, they could buy LEGO they wanted. I think that is limiting.

[Itaria No Shintaku]

I'm sorry, I must have lost that fine point in between all the commentary about how strong women are unnatural, women are supposed to be baby machines (and should be happy about it), homosexuals and submissive men (not the same thing, BTW) are confused and a blight on society, feminists are plotting to take over the world by bashing men unmercifully, and TLG are female supremacists because one entry in the Minifig Encyclopedia made fun of a caveman.

Tell you what - you win. I need to go plot the downfall of society now. I am so done with this.

Sorry I don't like your attitude so I'm not going to reply.

I wasn't unpolite and unmannered. You are.

And most of all I don't endorse strawmanning or "ad hominem" attacks.

Edited August 28, 2013 by Itaria No Shintaku

[Rick]

Please keep this discussion civilised and, as Pandora has indicated before, on-topic, i.e., related to LEGO (Friends). Thank you.

[ZORK64]

I'm sorry to necropost here, but I just recently stumbled over an article about this on GMX which gained my attention for this topic again.

To make it short, the article refers to the letter of a 7 year old girl named Charlotte (unfortunately the article doesn't provide the link to said letter) who's disappointed with how "boring" LEGO Friends is when compared to the other LEGO series. The article itself mostly complains about gendered toylines and uses LEGO as an example for this, since series Star Wars and Indiana Jones are marketed more towards boys and then Friends came along to be marketed towards girls. Oh, to make it even worse, there's yet another article that's even more directed at gender standards.

One thing that irks me about these articles is that they obviously fail to realize that they're talking about LEGO, a toy that is extremely versatile and easily allows to mix and match various bits and pieces.

I do however, agree with the initial complaint from Charlotte (which is quoted in the second article): There should be more female characters in various themes. That is understandable. But how the folks at GMX turn this into two articles about gender-specific toy marketing is pretty weak.

Edited February 6, 2014 by ZORK64

[craiggrannell]

"There should be more female characters in various themes."

What's the ratio of minifigures now? Wasn't it only a couple of years back something absurd like 16:1? Given Lego's advertising, promo photography and often dreadful gender balance in sets, I'm hardly surprised people are making a fuss. As for Friends, I'm hardly surprised some girls are irked. It's all stereotypical 'safe' activities, versus the action-oriented stuff found elsewhere.

[Sarah]

"There should be more female characters in various themes."

What's the ratio of minifigures now? Wasn't it only a couple of years back something absurd like 16:1? Given Lego's advertising, promo photography and often dreadful gender balance in sets, I'm hardly surprised people are making a fuss. As for Friends, I'm hardly surprised some girls are irked. It's all stereotypical 'safe' activities, versus the action-oriented stuff found elsewhere.

But if you want that action stuff, you've GOT a product already to fit your needs. for the girls who don't care about flick missiles and catching bad guys, there's now a theme to fit their needs as well. (Though I see plenty of different kinds of action here. Lots of shops for buying and selling pretty much anything, houses for living in, classrooms for activities, treehouses for secret meetings, horses for racing. Cruising. A few cars. A pool for swimming in. Even some vines coming this summer to go sailing through the trees on.

Edited February 7, 2014 by Sarah

[Dorayaki]

One thing that irks me about these articles is that they obviously fail to realize that they're talking about LEGO, a toy that is extremely versatile and easily allows to mix and match various bits and pieces.

Well, if they really forgot, we don't have to be surprised because I don't think TLC often notice us about this fact. Generally, I'm fine with the designs of Friends sets. If we remember to mix different themes up when we need, it's nice to have both soft ad hard side of the same toy, and we don't have to reject Friends.

And I believe everyone has different taste, it's not about gender. A Town fan could buy both Police and Friends at the same time, while a Chima fan never bought an Agent set. I like Charotte for her daring taste for toys, but it's her own choice.

I'm not sure that SW and IJ have to be responsible for this. Both are great franchises. It should be a general problem for the whole film industry, which seldom provide a good action film featuring leading heroine that TLC wants to make. Disney series can be a good choice for girls if TLC are going to design other themes based on future Disney films.

"There should be more female characters in various themes."

What's the ratio of minifigures now? Wasn't it only a couple of years back something absurd like 16:1?

Partially agree. Yes, we see the progress, though not very obvious. For example, female criminal, female ratio in single CMF series, etc. But theses are still rare examples and we can still find many sets that don't include any female minifigure.

The other issue is the decision of TLC to introduce minidolls. The lack of male characters in Friends and the lack of female characters in other System themes are actually the same, because the Friends protagonists weren't born to be the "supplement" for minifigures, nor the male minifigures were to be for Friends.

Well, maybe Charotte doesn't like the Friends protagonists since that they're not outstanding adventurers.

[craiggrannell]

But if you want that action stuff, you've GOT a product already to fit your needs.

But you don't, because the majority of the sets don't include female minifigs, and that alone is enough to make girls feel excluded. As we get older, we normalise a lack of gender balance. In movies, it's been shown that men will look at a crowd scene was as few as 17 per cent women and think it 50/50. But kids don't see that—they just see 50/50 as being fair and normal. Lego should really be ramping up including women across all of its range, unless it's specifically restricted from doing so (for example, with some of the licensed fare).

And while I know I was generalising somewhat about the nature of 'action', toys for kids are becoming increasingly problematic regarding gender. The pink thing is way beyond the pale now, and selections really are frequently split between 'boys' (action, sports, excitement) and 'girls' (pretty, quiet, thoughtful). I'd love to see Lego make a concerted effort to deal with this, given that the toy itself is relatively neutral, in the sense of bricks and pieces.

Partially agree. Yes, we see the progress, though not very obvious. For example, female criminal, female ratio in single CMF series, etc. But theses are still rare examples and we can still find many sets that don't include any female mini figure.

I should point out, for the record, that a set containing no female minifig isn't necessarily a bad thing, but across the entire range there should really be close to a 50/50 split. Right now, clicking through City, Lego is a very long way from that. I hope this will be addressed over the coming years.

The other issue is the decision of TLC to introduce minidolls. The lack of male characters in Friends and the lack of female characters in other System themes are actually the same, because the Friends protagonists weren't born to be the "supplement" for minifigures, nor the male minifigures were to be for Friends. Well, maybe Charotte doesn't like the Friends protagonists since that they're not outstanding adventurers.

I've always found Friends a bit suspect, although it's reportedly flying off the shelves. My problem with it is it feels too much like a silo, and the Friends minidolls are less versatile than minifigs, in terms of what they can do (no moving wrists; no separate legs), which is a pity. However, the real solution going forward would be to diversify both themes as much as possible. Ensure there's a good gender balance in Friends and other themes; ensure there's a decent selection of toys and scenarios across the range. Make it more inclusive for everyone.

[Sarah]

But you don't, because the majority of the sets don't include female minifigs, and that alone is enough to make girls feel excluded. As we get older, we normalise a lack of gender balance. In movies, it's been shown that men will look at a crowd scene was as few as 17 per cent women and think it 50/50. But kids don't see that—they just see 50/50 as being fair and normal. Lego should really be ramping up including women across all of its range, unless it's specifically restricted from doing so (for example, with some of the licensed fare).

Do kids need 50/50 to be fair and normal? Even popular fiction that kids read isn't strictly 50/50. Lego City is getting more and more female minifigs. Female minifigs are also available in the CMF series. I'm not as familiar with other ranges.

So yes, I stand by. If they want action they've got choices without trying to turn Friends into a copy of City or try to erase Friends off the map. (Ie saying it should not have been made)

[Darth Punk]

I've always found Friends a bit suspect, although it's reportedly flying off the shelves. My problem with it is it feels too much like a silo, and the Friends minidolls are less versatile than minifigs, in terms of what they can do (no moving wrists; no separate legs), which is a pity. However, the real solution going forward would be to diversify both themes as much as possible. Ensure there's a good gender balance in Friends and other themes; ensure there's a decent selection of toys and scenarios across the range. Make it more inclusive for everyone.

One only has to look at toy,shelves to gauge the success of the friends line. By the beginning of last December the friends sets were completely wiped out. And stayed that way until January. Not the same can be said of other lines like city. I know because I have three daughter, one who very much loves the friends line.

I find it rather odd that some people expect TLG to produce this perfect product that some how every one will love and will solve the inequities of society. I don't know of a single line that TLG makes that is loved by all. Most if not all lines also have their detractors.

I see the friends line as a starting point, because you have to start,somewhere. How does a company interest girls who are so used to being showered with dolls and pink and pastel colors by their parents? How do you interest those who,would rather play house and tea time instead of chasing bad buys or building cars? The friends line is something that millions of girls can relate to and speaks to how they play. They aren't going to,pick up Legos is they only see topics they have no interest in.

The ultimate goal,of TLG is to get those girls to pick up Legos and see that they too can enjoy building. If it takes making them pink so be it. Pink is just a color after all. I see that much of the initial reaction to the friends, other than the doll figures, is to the colors. Its not TLG's fault that colors are very stereotyped. I will make this mention that at one time in history pink was a boys color. Red symbolizing war and manhood, and pink representing a young warrior. Is it TLG's responsibility to,fight and change color stereotypes that are reenforced by parents all the time? And as for dolls, before Kenner launched the first Star Wars action figures, both boys and girls played with dolls. All the gi joes from before that time were very much like dolls. You could dress,them up and the moved much like,dolls you see today. But with Star Wars and forward boys toys have taken many different forms in how they were presented. Where girls have always had the basic variation of a doll. Is it TLG to say hey sorry no dolls here, despite,you, your mother etc having always played with dolls? Do you think you are going to get their attention? We all know the answer is no. You have to start somewhere and in a form that girls can relate to.

Once you have their attention, have them building you can then begin to show them the world of Legos is much larger than heartlake city. My daughter while loving friends has also been interested in monster fighters, TLoR/Hobbit and starting to show interest in Star Wars. She loves helping me build and display sets and that has become greater than the view these are just for boys. I imagine other have or will experience this all well. But you have to start somewhere and that is the key. TLG has made a great start and despite all the criticism I see friends gaining the potential to go head to head with TLG much bigger lines.

One last note. I noticed on the survey that only a small percentage who completed the survey were parents. Most were AFOL who were just merely voicing their uncredetialed opinion. If those AFOL ever do decide to become parents you will see yor perspective will become affected. Especially if you have girls,I have three. Having grown up with only a brother and a mom whose favorite color was blue there were not a great deal of pastel colors in my life. That of course has changed greatly. I also see how easily it is to fall into reinforcing the gender stereotypes of color. Both my wife and I strive to strike a balance and teach our children that colors are just that, colors. In some ways Legos help to teach that message and show a variety of themes can be fun because building is what is the best fun of all.

Edited February 7, 2014 by Darth Punk

[Dorayaki]

I should point out, for the record, that a set containing no female minifig isn't necessarily a bad thing, but across the entire range there should really be close to a 50/50 split. Right now, clicking through City, Lego is a very long way from that. I hope this will be addressed over the coming years.

I've always found Friends a bit suspect, although it's reportedly flying off the shelves. My problem with it is it feels too much like a silo, and the Friends minidolls are less versatile than minifigs, in terms of what they can do (no moving wrists; no separate legs), which is a pity. However, the real solution going forward would be to diversify both themes as much as possible. Ensure there's a good gender balance in Friends and other themes; ensure there's a decent selection of toys and scenarios across the range. Make it more inclusive for everyone.

Well, 50/50 gender ratio is too idealistic. We might need decades to achieve that goal, because of social gender stereotypes or market trends. For now, TLG could try to achieve this goal in some neutural themes such as City life or Creators as their first step.

Though according to market survey, minifigures are less attractive to girls, the fact is still that a new kind of figures can't provide the same diversity as minifigures, as soon as they're introduced. Maybe only time can tell, but for now the newest Friends wave still focus on new buildings and clothes prints instead of providing variable and different characters. Licensed minidolls could be a different debatable issue, even though it's another way to do so.

I find it rather odd that some people expect TLG to produce this perfect product that some how every one will love and will solve the inequities of society. I don't know of a single line that TLG makes that is loved by all. Most if not all lines also have their detractors.

I see the friends line as a starting point, because you have to start,somewhere. How does a company interest girls who are so used to being showered with dolls and pink and pastel colors by their parents? How do you interest those who,would rather play house and tea time instead of chasing bad buys or building cars? The friends line is something that millions of girls can relate to and speaks to how they play. They aren't going to,pick up Legos is they only see topics they have no interest in.

Once you have their attention, have them building you can then begin to show them the world of Legos is much larger than heartlake city. My daughter while loving friends has also been interested in monster fighters, TLoR/Hobbit and starting to show interest in Star Wars. She loves helping me build and display sets and that has become greater than the view these are just for boys. I imagine other have or will experience this all well. But you have to start somewhere and that is the key. TLG has made a great start and despite all the criticism I see friends aging the potential to go head to head with TLG much bigger lines.

Very unique and practical thought. Well, we should be happy that pink isn't really the major part of Friends' buildings, and this theme pushes TLC to give us more brick color choices.

The basic concept and the minidolls are the key to appeal girls who never touched Lego, or don't quite understand how it works, so Friends becomes a key to help them. If we just want girls to full in love with another stereoype Lego toy such as action themes and chase bad buys, that's unrealistic.

Still, we should also be concerned about what's Friends' position in Lego's strategy. Friends could represent one of the interests that some KFOLs have, but it's not just a "starting point" if we wish to see Friends have a longer way to go and eventually become as important as other regular Lego themes. Generally, the real starting point in Lego's dictionary could be Duplo, then the brick boxes, aka the new brand "Junior".

I think it's nice to see that some girls, like your daughter, are willing to touch more themes of Lego after buying Friends. Same for those who only used to buy boys-oriented Lego products and then become interested in Friends.

Edited February 7, 2014 by Dorayaki

[Darth Punk]

Duplos are a great starting point and very good for developing fine motor skills. My younger daughters are much more into the duplos than my older one ever was. Plus they coming in a wide range of colors that we keep mixed together so one doesn't dominate over the other.

As for starting point I meant in terms of going forward now, not in terms of a child's age. I also see the line of friends evolving. You can already see people who mainly build city sets interested in the diversity of some of the friends sets that could be added to their build. I think the city lines greatest weakness is its lack of diverse building types. I know they are expanding but you still see it being dominated by fire and police themes.

I imagine over time that sets will be,created that could easily be interchanged into either line. And while both lines will still have their,core type sets they will also have sets that blur the lines. Which I think it TLG's ultimate goal.

[craiggrannell]

Do kids need 50/50 to be fair and normal? Even popular fiction that kids read isn't strictly 50/50.

It's a goal, I'd say. What's the current ratio? 10:1? In popular media, it's about 5:1 for the most part. I wouldn't expect changes to happen overnight, but, let's face it, it'd hardly be the trickiest thing Lego ever had to do—just look at the upcoming range on each annual refresh and swap out a few minifigs (or, in some cases, just heads/hair) when needed. (And I do note changes are being made, along with the popularity of Friends; I'm just hoping—not demanding—TLG does more.)

Though according to market survey, minifigures are less attractive to girls, the fact is still that a new kind of figures can't provide the same diversity as minifigures, as soon as they're introduced.

It'd be interesting to see an iteration on the design, so they had more articulation and were, in effect, more posable. It seems odd that minidolls have less scope in that sense than minifigs designed and created in the 1970s.

Still, we should also be concerned about what's Friends' position in Lego's strategy. Friends could represent one of the interests that some KFOLs have, but it's not just a "starting point" if we wish to see Friends have a longer way to go and eventually become as important as other regular Lego themes. Generally, the real starting point in Lego's dictionary could be Duplo, then the brick boxes, aka the new brand "Junior".

I very much agree with that.

[LukeWarmTea]

I find this whole topic really interesting from a parents perspective, because (like many other parents I know) I first heard about Friends through Anita Sarkeesian's very anti-Friends blog. (I love her, btw.) At the time, I was outraged, because like many others I assumed TLC had stepped backwards into a world of Bellville, which was inflicted on me as a girl. I remember 'building' the Horse Trekking set in 7 easy steps. 7!

But after searching high and low, I came across a blog (which I can't find now - gay canadian blogger who makes bricks films? Brilliant writer?) supporting the new line and comparing it to the truly dreadful Mega Bloks Barbie range and I realised the crucial mistake almost everyone was making:

The toy and the marketing are not the same thing.

Sarkesian was up in arms at the insipid voice over telling girls they can 'hang out by the pool' and so on; those ads that barely showed any building required and expounded upon the 'play features' of being able to well, not do anything really. Chat with Friends? Get a makeover? While defenders of the line showed off the instruction booklets (how thick! how detailed! how similar to City!) and the actual, real toy - which was Lego. Sure, it was Lego with a new doll thingee and in new colours, but really - it's just Lego.

And it's also a failing of the above poll. I love the Friends line, and so does my daughter, because it shows the world we know and love and the world she wants to know (as a 5yo desperate to be a 'big girl') and that's something not many other lines can do in such an exciting way - but I hate the ads. I despise the way we are told 'how' to play with Lego - something I am aware runs across lines - but I'd really love to see an ad showing girls build the actual sets, maybe with a male friend, and get creative with them!

Also, the new Jungle theme is exciting as.

[Lyichir]

I find this whole topic really interesting from a parents perspective, because (like many other parents I know) I first heard about Friends through Anita Sarkeesian's very anti-Friends blog. (I love her, btw.) At the time, I was outraged, because like many others I assumed TLC had stepped backwards into a world of Bellville, which was inflicted on me as a girl. I remember 'building' the Horse Trekking set in 7 easy steps. 7!

But after searching high and low, I came across a blog (which I can't find now - gay canadian blogger who makes bricks films? Brilliant writer?) supporting the new line and comparing it to the truly dreadful Mega Bloks Barbie range and I realised the crucial mistake almost everyone was making:

The toy and the marketing are not the same thing.

Sarkesian was up in arms at the insipid voice over telling girls they can 'hang out by the pool' and so on; those ads that barely showed any building required and expounded upon the 'play features' of being able to well, not do anything really. Chat with Friends? Get a makeover? While defenders of the line showed off the instruction booklets (how thick! how detailed! how similar to City!) and the actual, real toy - which was Lego. Sure, it was Lego with a new doll thingee and in new colours, but really - it's just Lego.

And it's also a failing of the above poll. I love the Friends line, and so does my daughter, because it shows the world we know and love and the world she wants to know (as a 5yo desperate to be a 'big girl') and that's something not many other lines can do in such an exciting way - but I hate the ads. I despise the way we are told 'how' to play with Lego - something I am aware runs across lines - but I'd really love to see an ad showing girls build the actual sets, maybe with a male friend, and get creative with them!

Also, the new Jungle theme is exciting as.

That I think is a key point of Friends. It's no less constructive or deep than other Lego themes. So why does the marketing make it seem as inane as things like Barbie? Because Lego is trying to appeal to the girls who don't already buy Lego—that is to say, the ones who head straight for the "pink aisle" when visiting the toy store, bypassing Lego altogether. It's a pragmatic approach; by dressing its toys up in the colors of stereotypical "girls' toys", Lego can infiltrate a market that they've had little luck in in the past and show them "the beauty of building". And so far it's worked magnificently, making Friends into one of Lego's top-selling themes.

This is why I give little credence to criticisms of the Friends theme from non-FOL feminists. Social justice is important, but from a business perspective, revolutionary change is a recipe for poor sales—and an equality-based agenda in a toyline doesn't do girls any good if they don't buy the product. As an AFOL, I'm of the opinion that any Lego is a more educational and constructive toy for girls than typical dolls or "fashion toys", so if Lego has to make their toys look like these other products to get more girls to buy their products, I'm all for it.

[Dorayaki]

As for starting point I meant in terms of going forward now, not in terms of a child's age. I also see the line of friends evolving. You can already see people who mainly build city sets interested in the diversity of some of the friends sets that could be added to their build. I think the city lines greatest weakness is its lack of diverse building types. I know they are expanding but you still see it being dominated by fire and police themes.

I imagine over time that sets will be,created that could easily be interchanged into either line. And while both lines will still have their,core type sets they will also have sets that blur the lines. Which I think it TLG's ultimate goal.

Yes, that's a good thing. As mentioned, Friends is basically a micro aspect of a typical city, we don't have to be durprised if it was announced as a subtheme of City. It's just that many boys are in more love with the "macro things" so it fits in a newly branded theme in order to market.

But that doesn't mean City should be left with Police and Fire. Arctic is a try, though alittle debatable, so more Train or Plane, Post would be nice.

TLC just finally notice the popularity of buidlings, but they mostly try to market with Winter Village, Modular or Friends while there are seldom representive City buidings beside the grand fire/police stations. I really wish there is a grand train station bigger than the police station.

The toy and the marketing are not the same thing.

Sarkesian was up in arms at the insipid voice over telling girls they can 'hang out by the pool' and so on; those ads that barely showed any building required and expounded upon the 'play features' of being able to well, not do anything really. Chat with Friends? Get a makeover? While defenders of the line showed off the instruction booklets (how thick! how detailed! how similar to City!) and the actual, real toy - which was Lego. Sure, it was Lego with a new doll thingee and in new colours, but really - it's just Lego.

I hate the ads. I despise the way we are told 'how' to play with Lego - something I am aware runs across lines - but I'd really love to see an ad showing girls build the actual sets, maybe with a male friend, and get creative with them!

Totally agree. I found it's pretty contradictory, that in The Lego Movie, TLC tried to tell every one how we shouldn't be bound by rules, the Friends are just telling another story.

I wish that TLC can give kids more informations that they can enjoy the functionality that the bricks bring to them, or how can they buy other different sets (from the same theme or other themes) to MOC or expand their own Lego world.

That I think is a key point of Friends. It's no less constructive or deep than other Lego themes. So why does the marketing make it seem as inane as things like Barbie? Because Lego is trying to appeal to the girls who don't already buy Lego—that is to say, the ones who head straight for the "pink aisle" when visiting the toy store, bypassing Lego altogether. It's a pragmatic approach; by dressing its toys up in the colors of stereotypical "girls' toys", Lego can infiltrate a market that they've had little luck in in the past and show them "the beauty of building". And so far it's worked magnificently, making Friends into one of Lego's top-selling themes.

This is why I give little credence to criticisms of the Friends theme from non-FOL feminists. Social justice is important, but from a business perspective, revolutionary change is a recipe for poor sales—and an equality-based agenda in a toyline doesn't do girls any good if they don't buy the product. As an AFOL, I'm of the opinion that any Lego is a more educational and constructive toy for girls than typical dolls or "fashion toys", so if Lego has to make their toys look like these other products to get more girls to buy their products, I'm all for it.

Good point. IMO, TLC is trying to ultilize their real strength--- buiding aka doll house to appeal girls, while most traditional Barbie houses were not functional enough because of its doll scale. But as result, TLC also expect to play Lego like what they usually do with traditional doll house rather than showing the real "brick power" to them. New "beautiful buidings" are still good news to AFOLs, but it's not good when girls are not interested in any other Lego product that they don't relate to.

Would girls be interested in how to construct a buiding? If their parent bought them Creator house sets, would they try all three different buiding styles? So far the animal polybags look like one of the experiment for TLC to see how girls adjust to alternative buildings and dissasembling, but not sure if it would really help future Friends line.

[Darth Punk]

I find this whole topic really interesting from a parents perspective, because (like many other parents I know) I first heard about Friends through Anita Sarkeesian's very anti-Friends blog. (I love her, btw.) At the time, I was outraged, because like many others I assumed TLC had stepped backwards into a world of Bellville, which was inflicted on me as a girl. I remember 'building' the Horse Trekking set in 7 easy steps. 7!

But after searching high and low, I came across a blog (which I can't find now - gay canadian blogger who makes bricks films? Brilliant writer?) supporting the new line and comparing it to the truly dreadful Mega Bloks Barbie range and I realised the crucial mistake almost everyone was making:

The toy and the marketing are not the same thing.

Sarkesian was up in arms at the insipid voice over telling girls they can 'hang out by the pool' and so on; those ads that barely showed any building required and expounded upon the 'play features' of being able to well, not do anything really. Chat with Friends? Get a makeover? While defenders of the line showed off the instruction booklets (how thick! how detailed! how similar to City!) and the actual, real toy - which was Lego. Sure, it was Lego with a new doll thingee and in new colours, but really - it's just Lego.

And it's also a failing of the above poll. I love the Friends line, and so does my daughter, because it shows the world we know and love and the world she wants to know (as a 5yo desperate to be a 'big girl') and that's something not many other lines can do in such an exciting way - but I hate the ads. I despise the way we are told 'how' to play with Lego - something I am aware runs across lines - but I'd really love to see an ad showing girls build the actual sets, maybe with a male friend, and get creative with them!

Also, the new Jungle theme is exciting as.

One cannot judge a product soley by ads. A good deal of ads are directed at a very specific demographic. I find a good many of the toy ads to be annoying and what little tv we do watch usually do not have ads for lego friends. The few that I have seen were bad, but not any different then Barbie ads which are equally insipid.

I think that some people look at Legos and they fail to get the big picture. Especially when they are criticizing the fact the TLG sells sets and not just random bricks in a box. That some how children are being told what to play with. Or marketing is directing the child to only play hang out by the pool. Yes a child can build these things, but unlike the vast majority of toys they can take them apart and make anything they can imagine. That is the power of Legos. To create the toy inside your head and then play with it. It really is as simple as that and the rest is really window dressing. Any toy that can empower a child is going to be popular, any toy that can be reinvented over and over is going to be popular. And any limits placed are usually by adults who seem themselves to be failing to use their own imagination.

[Inzane]

I bought two CITY sets recently: The 4432 Garbage Truck and 60017 Flatbed Truck.

The garbage truck set comes with one male and one female garbage collection worker. You decide which one drives the truck and which one rides on the back.

For the flatbed truck set, the truck driver is male and car owner is female. The lady appears to be dressed in some kind of business casual/semi-casual and has a briefcase.

Anyway, that's just a sampling of two recent sets, and I think that bodes well for the line.

[majorna]

I'm relatively new here and haven't waded through the 31 (!) pages of this topic, but thought I'd add a little anecdata. My daughter is six and graduated from Duplo when she was four with the great little safari "Bricks and More" set. She absolutely loved following the instructions building and taking apart the kit over and over. I showed her a little free-form building, but she really wanted instructions to follow, and it was then that I found Lego had some extra plans on the internet you could print out as PDFs. When we went looking for her next kit, her mother and I were really disappointed by the diversity of the City sets. I think Friends hadn't quite hit the shelves here in Sweden, and the advanced Creator houses were really beyond her abilities, (or patience). What we ended up getting was a camping trailer, also with a male and female figure. This was OK, but we felt it didn't really reflect our "lifestyle" that well (not that the safari did, but the animals were fun and identifiable). Again, she loved following the instructions, and acting out with the minifigs and their accessories.

Her first Friends kits were gifts, and we were a bit sceptical about the very gendered theme, mainly because of the lack of male characters. The colors are great (though the diversity of nuanced colors makes uniform color freeform building almost impossible for kids with limited resources). She totally loves the Friends line now, and we all approve of the variety of buildings and activities the line represents. And the little animal kits are great little spontaneous buys with useful parts. City sets and Creator sets get purchased as well (the cement mixer and the Creator eagle were particularly popular last year).

The Friends minidolls and animals have a distinct styling and scale which makes them incompatible with other System sets according to us discriminating adults, but this isn't as much an issue for my daughter. I can wish that the Friends line had been developed with minifigs, but TLG made a reasoned decision with the minidolls, and I'm just glad that there are kits at the $20- $30 price point that aren't vehicles (we are anyway drowning in wheels here) and that reflect everyday life. I wish there were more boy minidolls, but imagine that that will be rectified by TLG in coming seasons. The increasing diversity of the City sets described above (though still, vehicles...) and the pending Creator bike shop are great steps. (Though still: male minifigs excusively with the log cabin (old and new), small cottage, treehouse... why?)

[meyerc13]

As a parent, I wish that there were more female minifigs in most lines so that my daughter would have more opportunities to play with her bigger brother. However, I think LEGO's big problem is source material. JRR Tolkien couldn't write a female character to save his life, Peter Jackson added a few more into the films but there just isn't much for LEGO to work with in the source material. Star Wars isn't much different, there were a few female characters with speaking roles in the films, but they were vastly outnumbered by male characters. I think you'll fine that many licensed themes suffer from this problem.

Fair enough, what about LEGO's house brands like City? I think again the problem is the source material. My daughter joined her brother's Cub Scout den on a tour of our local police station last night. We met a female Leiutenant and saw a picture of the female officers in the department, but they are a small percentage of the total. That's despite our department being extremely progressive (the first female officer was hired in 1922!). They'd love to hire more women if more women were applying for the jobs.

A quick google search reveals that many of the subthemes LEGO pursues in City are extremely male dominated (at least in the US). For example, the percentage of females in the following industries which tend to be a focus of LEGO subthemes:

• Firefighters - 4%
  
• Police Officers - 12%
  
• Truck Drivers - 7%
  
• Miners - 13%
  
• Construction - 9%
  

I know people have done an analysis of overall percentage of female LEGO minifigs, but I think a more interesting study would be comparing LEGO themes and subthemes to source material (for licensed themes) and societal averages (for City).

[Dorayaki]

Her first Friends kits were gifts, and we were a bit sceptical about the very gendered theme, mainly because of the lack of male characters. The colors are great (though the diversity of nuanced colors makes uniform color freeform building almost impossible for kids with limited resources). She totally loves the Friends line now, and we all approve of the variety of buildings and activities the line represents. And the little animal kits are great little spontaneous buys with useful parts. City sets and Creator sets get purchased as well (the cement mixer and the Creator eagle were particularly popular last year).

The Friends minidolls and animals have a distinct styling and scale which makes them incompatible with other System sets according to us discriminating adults, but this isn't as much an issue for my daughter. I can wish that the Friends line had been developed with minifigs, but TLG made a reasoned decision with the minidolls. I wish there were more boy minidolls, but imagine that that will be rectified by TLG in coming seasons. The increasing diversity of the City sets described above (though still, vehicles...) and the pending Creator bike shop are great steps. (Though still: male minifigs excusively with the log cabin (old and new), small cottage, treehouse... why?)

Still, Friends already features five leading girls until the possible next generation, and we can't avoid more girls than boys in a girls-oriented theme.

The problem is, Friends have come to the third year, it still lacks male and variable characters (and male clothes prints). I think each wave should at least provide more than one twist, such as a grandfather, a shopkeeper and a horse trainer. The licensed male Disney characters can provide some diversity, but still hard for us to MOC since they're from middle ages. It's quite a pity that none of the distinctive male charaters from animation story has a chance to be any set.

I don't mind having minidolls instead of minifigures, but it depends on how TLC market them with other themes. So far The Lego Movie have played the worst role. For other neutral themes that aren't that girls/boys-oriented, I agree that they're in the minifigure gender ratio issue.

As a parent, I wish that there were more female minifigs in most lines so that my daughter would have more opportunities to play with her bigger brother. However, I think LEGO's big problem is source material. JRR Tolkien couldn't write a female character to save his life, Peter Jackson added a few more into the films but there just isn't much for LEGO to work with in the source material. Star Wars isn't much different, there were a few female characters with speaking roles in the films, but they were vastly outnumbered by male characters. I think you'll fine that many licensed themes suffer from this problem.

Fair enough, what about LEGO's house brands like City? I think again the problem is the source material. My daughter joined her brother's Cub Scout den on a tour of our local police station last night. We met a female Leiutenant and saw a picture of the female officers in the department, but they are a small percentage of the total. That's despite our department being extremely progressive (the first female officer was hired in 1922!). They'd love to hire more women if more women were applying for the jobs.

A quick google search reveals that many of the subthemes LEGO pursues in City are extremely male dominated (at least in the US). For example, the percentage of females in the following industries which tend to be a focus of LEGO subthemes:

I know people have done an analysis of overall percentage of female LEGO minifigs, but I think a more interesting study would be comparing LEGO themes and subthemes to source material (for licensed themes) and societal averages (for City).

Nice to hear voice from a parent of both boy and girl. Still, the use of minidolls was due to their shape, not their gender. Solving the minifigure gender ratio problem might not be able to appeal more than 50% girls who aren't KFOLs. But IMO maybe the design of generic female minifigures from City sets aren't diverse enough (such as repititive hairpieces).

Gender ratio of licensed stories are another issue from film industry, not TLC themselves (unless TLC skipped some licensed female characters such as the poor Éowyn ).

In educational aspects, I don't think we have to care about what real world looks like. Even though Gail has many coworkers from The Lego Movie (one of the good role models TLC made, no, not the minidolls), that doesn't mean we can see female construction workers everywhere in real world. We just have to tell girls that " though there aren't many women in those industry, but there are woman, so you can still be one of them".

And that analysis may not help too much, because we also know that the lack of female minifigures could be a general problem in all themes. Ironically TLC do try to add ladies in the industries of men.

Edited February 12, 2014 by Dorayaki