LEGO: the way to reach the equality of the sexes?

[The_Viking]

I have recently read this article on the website of a major Italian newspaper. Here is my translation of the title:

«Do you want your daughters to become stronger in mathematics? Donate them more Legos^* and less dolls»

Elizabeth Truss, British School System undersecretary: choose games which encourage cognitive processes in order to reduce the gap between girls and boys

What do you think? Do LEGO bricks really help to enhance the ability in mathematics? Can they help to bring the equality of the sexes?

* -> Yes, this mistake is very common in Italy too :/

(Sorry, the title of this topic is not complete: it should be "LEGO: the way to reach the equality of the sexes?")

Edited February 1, 2014 by The_Viking

[Lyichir]

I do think that Lego is a quality educational toy for both genders. It's part of the reason why I'm such a supporter of the Lego Friends theme: I think that Lego is, on the whole, a better toy for kids to play with than most alternatives in the "pink aisle", and if Lego has to dress itself in the trappings of typical "girls' toys" to get more girls buying and building with Lego, it's better for the girls who do so in the long run.

Now, I can't read this article itself as I'm not fluent in Italian, but I doubt Lego on its own would be enough to fix the gender imbalance in STEM fields. But it could certainly play a part in making those fields seem interesting to girls at a young age, when they're most impressionable. It'd then fall on educators to help them maintain that interest through their schooling and on into higher education.

[The_Viking]

I do think that Lego is a quality educational toy for both genders. It's part of the reason why I'm such a supporter of the Lego Friends theme: I think that Lego is, on the whole, a better toy for kids to play with than most alternatives in the "pink aisle", and if Lego has to dress itself in the trappings of typical "girls' toys" to get more girls buying and building with Lego, it's better for the girls who do so in the long run.

Now, I can't read this article itself as I'm not fluent in Italian, but I doubt Lego on its own would be enough to fix the gender imbalance in STEM fields. But it could certainly play a part in making those fields seem interesting to girls at a young age, when they're most impressionable. It'd then fall on educators to help them maintain that interest through their schooling and on into higher education.

I'm sorry, I must admit I did not translate the full article because of its length xD

Anyway, this quote by Ms Truss sounds like a confirmation of what you say about LEGO Friends:

«Ho due bambine e ho regalato loro sia i Lego tradizionali che i Lego Friends»

(«I have two daughters and I gave them traditional Legos as well as Lego Friends»)

Thanks for your opinion!

[Darth Dino]

Hi

yes, i do think so.

I started Lego Technic with my 3yo son and the Excavator 8043. He is now 5yo and learned with Lego:

- counting

- sorting

- folowing rules (the instructions!), even they dont actualy makes sense to him

- reading 2d instructions

- building in 2d

- reading 3d instructions

- building in 3d

and many more, not even start to mention what gears are for and differentials....

He build EVERY step of the 8043 alone, except those parts where you need the strength of and teenager or adult.

Dino

[Faefrost]

I think they will pick up math more as a secondary (counting studs, pieces etc), it will more help to develop an interest in engineering and design. Thinking in 3 space. Things of that sort. Which in turn leads to later interests in more math and science based fields.

[Erik Leppen]

The problem I have with articles like these is that they silently assume that reducing the gap between girls and boys is a goal we should pursue. Someone will have to convince me of that idea. Boys are boys, and girls are girls, and boys are not girls. They are not equal, and they should not be equal. They are good at different things, and both should have the ability to pursue what they are good at.

We shouldn't strive for the equality of sexes, but for the happiness of individuals.

By all means present Lego to girls and dolls to boys, but let them choose themselves and if they choose the gender-stereotyped toy, this is totally fine and there is no reason why girls should do boys things and boys should do girls things. They aren't made for that. There is a reason Lego is a boys thing and dolls is a girls thing. The wiring of boys's brains are different from the wiring of girls's brains and one consequence of that is that they enjoy different types of play.

[naf]

The problem I have with articles like these is that they silently assume that reducing the gap between girls and boys is a goal we should pursue. Someone will have to convince me of that idea. Boys are boys, and girls are girls, and boys are not girls. They are not equal, and they should not be equal. They are good at different things, and both should have the ability to pursue what they are good at.

We shouldn't strive for the equality of sexes, but for the happiness of individuals.

By all means present Lego to girls and dolls to boys, but let them choose themselves and if they choose the gender-stereotyped toy, this is totally fine and there is no reason why girls should do boys things and boys should do girls things. They aren't made for that. There is a reason Lego is a boys thing and dolls is a girls thing. The wiring of boys's brains are different from the wiring of girls's brains and one consequence of that is that they enjoy different types of play.

I don't agree. We most definitely have to reduce the gap between boys and girls in terms of how we treat them. Parents almost instinctively bring their daughters into the pink aisle at the toy store because as a society we have determined that girls like pink things. Take a look at the toys that are available there, they are basically saying that girls only care about dressing up dolls in clothes, homemaking, they even have glittery toy smart phones so you can pretend to text your friends. The "boys" aisle isn't much better, it's full of monster trucks, toy weapons, basically saying that boys like tough things like cars and guns. When pretty much every store has their toy sections set up like this, it gets ingrained in people's brains that this is how life is.

I really don't have a big problem with the Friend's line. I think the characters in it are pretty strong, as they own bakeries, pet shops, one has a science lab, etc. What I don't agree with is how every set is an explosion of pink and pastel. I love that Lego has embraced these colors, and I don't mind them being used where it makes sense, but Olivia's microscope in her lab set is pink. I don't think we need to do this in order to sell to girls.

An interesting thing that I've noticed is that when we go to the toy store, my step daughter is drawn instantly to the Ninjago and Creator sets, and has never once shown any interest in the Friend's line, even though we've walked past it quite a bit, seen commercials on TV, and even watched a Friend's animated show.

I work in a techical field, and there are just as many talented women at my company as there are men. I went to a technical university, where I was tutored in math by a fellow female student, and the top students in my class were women. I don't buy for a minute that men and women are wired differently when it comes to their ability to learn. What I do believe is society setting up certain social norms that are imprinted on children at a young age, so we really need to take a look at what message the pink aisle sends to girls.

[The_Viking]

I don't agree. We most definitely have to reduce the gap between boys and girls in terms of how we treat them. Parents almost instinctively bring their daughters into the pink aisle at the toy store because as a society we have determined that girls like pink things. Take a look at the toys that are available there, they are basically saying that girls only care about dressing up dolls in clothes, homemaking, they even have glittery toy smart phones so you can pretend to text your friends. The "boys" aisle isn't much better, it's full of monster trucks, toy weapons, basically saying that boys like tough things like cars and guns. When pretty much every store has their toy sections set up like this, it gets ingrained in people's brains that this is how life is.

This is exactly what Ms. Elizabeth Truss explains in the article: she thinks that society and social conventions influence children even more than what their "male and female brains" do. That's true, it has been demonstrated that male and female brains are not equal in thinking, but this has little in common with glittery toys and portable miniguns, which are a consequence of centuries of stereotypes.

I work in a techical field, and there are just as many talented women at my company as there are men.

I can confirm this. I am an aerospace engineer and I have known many skilled girls at my university; to be honest, they were sometimes better than male students.

[LukeWarmTea]

The problem I have with articles like these is that they silently assume that reducing the gap between girls and boys is a goal we should pursue. Someone will have to convince me of that idea. Boys are boys, and girls are girls, and boys are not girls. They are not equal, and they should not be equal. They are good at different things, and both should have the ability to pursue what they are good at.

We shouldn't strive for the equality of sexes, but for the happiness of individuals.

I think I understand where you're coming from - and in an ideal world we would value the traits and gifts of either gender, for who and what they represent, but we don't. We simply don't, and for the past few hundred years women have repeatedly been considered second class citizens and so gender equality, more so now than ever, is incredibly important. Just think about the term "woman's' work". Does it conjure up images of well paid, exciting and interesting career prospects? No? Well there you are. In fact I find some of what you say a bit hurtful (as a woman) because I do think I am as equally capable as say, you are. Also, our brains are our own. My brain is far more mathematical than say, the 'average' woman, but who's to say why that is? Perhaps if more women had access to Lego and construction toys at a young age, they would end up with more technically skilled brains like my own.

But further to this discussion, is Lego good for maths? By crikey it is! And is it important for girls to be in STEM fields? Yes! Are people keen on this idea? Of course! Otherwise projects like Girls Who Code and toys like Goldie Blox literally wouldn't have a market. And they do. And it's large.

One person once said (it was either on this thread or this thread, gender and Lego is not a new concept!) "Is it TLC's responsibility to try and address equality?"

Which is a bloody good question. If we take into consideration the aims, ideals and overall mission of TLC, then I would say yes. TLC has always been a 'socially responsible' company (as well as a clever business) and I think they are well aware of the fact that for a long time, a decade in fact, Lego sets were designed for and catered to the interests of boys. ^ up there seems to think Lego is for boys, so that decade did a lot of damage.

The facts are that Lego was designed for children, and for most of Lego history was marketed to boys and girls equally. This 'gender shift' is a relatively new thing, and while I wasn't sure about Friends when it was first launched, I'm pleased now, because I realised TLC wasn't going to stop making 'boy' targeted sets. What I do wish though (like many others) is for Heartlake to increase it's male mini-doll population, and City it's female - it'd be a great step forwards.

Edited February 5, 2014 by LukeWarmTea

[Faefrost]

One person once said (it was either on this threador this thread, gender and Lego is not a new concept!) "Is it TLC's responsibility to try and address equality?"

Which is a bloody good question. If we take into consideration the aims, ideals and overall mission of TLC, then I would say yes. TLC has always been a 'socially responsible' company (as well as a clever business) and I think they are well aware of the fact that for a long time, a decade in fact, Lego sets were designed for and catered to the interests of boys. ^ up there seems to think Lego is for boys, so that decade did a lot of damage.

The facts are that Lego was designed for children, and for most of Lego history was marketed to boys and girls equally. This 'gender shift' is a relatively new thing, and while I wasn't sure about Friends when it was first launched, I'm pleased now, because I realised TLC wasn't going to stop making 'boy' targeted sets. What I do wish though (like many others) is for Heartlake to increase it's male mini-doll population, and City it's female - it'd be a great step forwards.

I think City has been very very steadily increasing it's female population for a good number of years now. Probably it's only real failing is in not having as broad a representation in the lower cost impulse sets. if we actually look at Lego's main product lines in recent years We can see some very clear patterns regarding this.

- City, Creator, and internal Lego themes that are generally targeted at a broad spectrum or portray more real world things tend to have seen a huge increase in female minifigs. The only caveat is we almost never see a single minifig set with a female character outside of Friends or CMF's. That can be tolerated as Lego still has to support their core audience, which is 6-11 year old boys, who honestly really do not like female minifigs anymore than they like actual girls at that point.

- Lego's specifically young boy targeted Action themes will have some female presence. But are much more focused on the male characters. Ninjago, Galaxy Squad, etc. These really are targeted at the 6-11 year old boys the way that Friends are targeted at girls. Our adult sensibilities really need not apply. Probably the biggest issue in these is not so much the lack of female figs as it is their concentrations in the most expensive sets, often pricing them out of reach for the casual young fan. Maybe spreading Samurai X and the Blue Squads girls to some more affordable sets would be a good thing.

- The CMF has been hitting a good balance of male/female characters and is quite useful for fleshing out otherwise male dominated play sets.

- Licenses are their own thing. And they depend heavily on source material. As an example in Star Wars the 6 main movies really had very few female characters, and even fewer memorable ones. It wasn't to more recent stuff like the Clone Wars cartoons that we started seeing some breadth and depth to the XX side of the Star Wars Universe. And Lego responded well, and has given us a fairly broad mix of Jedi and assorted rogues. The Empire still seems a bit of a traditionalist sausage fest but what can you do? Other licenses will vary wildly. Harry Potter had at least a dozen female characters in probably 2 dozen fig variants (ok almost all variants being Hermione, but still she ranked second only to the ever present Harry.) Whereas there are really only 3 female characters featured in Tolkiens books, and maybe 4 in Peter Jacksons movies of the same. Heck no named women appear anywhere in the Hobbit book. There's not a lot there for Lego to work with. The huge exception to all of this is the Superhero licenses. And here's the thing. It's not just Lego. Female Superheroes have traditionally sold very very poorly as toys. The fact that we are seeing increasing interest in them is great. But the numbers still don't encourage a lot of them sadly. (it's much the same in the comics themselves. Notice how few Female Hero solo books last for more than 20-50 issues? It's not from lack of trying on the publishers part. They like drawing hot women in spandex. It's kinda a "thing" with them. It's just not enough people pay to support this thing. Which is in and of itself several other related but wholly different issues.)

as far as the lack of male minidolls in Friends? Ummm? Have you looked at those things? The Friends girl minidolls seem cute fun and spunky. Perfectly valid as toys. The boys... creeepy. In that same sort of way as Twilight movies creepy. Something about them just puts one in mind of Justin Bieber... only slightly less artificial than the real thing.

[Dorayaki]

as far as the lack of male minidolls in Friends? Ummm? Have you looked at those things? The Friends girl minidolls seem cute fun and spunky. Perfectly valid as toys. The boys... creeepy. In that same sort of way as Twilight movies creepy. Something about them just puts one in mind of Justin Bieber... only slightly less artificial than the real thing.

The question should be what the position of Friends is in Lego System. Though some opinions expect to see more male characters or careers in Friends, however, iT IS due to that we can't, or, don't tend to combine it with other System themes to meet the needs. For example, simply putting Chase McCain into a Friends set can solve this problem if TLC encouraged us to do so.

Back to this topic, yes, brick toys helps both girls and boys in their education. The reason why Lego became a stereotypical toy for boys is that, IMO, it's been used to feature themes that boys are interested in, such as the action themes or City Police, while the older Belville wasn't considered one of the major lines of Lego.

The licenses are another problem. Most problems belong to the film industry, who seldom make a heroine features in a normal action film, unless we're branding a superheroine. But there are also licenses that girls are intrerested in, such as Disney classics.

One person once said (it was either on this threador this thread, gender and Lego is not a new concept!) "Is it TLC's responsibility to try and address equality?"

Which is a bloody good question. If we take into consideration the aims, ideals and overall mission of TLC, then I would say yes. TLC has always been a 'socially responsible' company (as well as a clever business) and I think they are well aware of the fact that for a long time, a decade in fact, Lego sets were designed for and catered to the interests of boys. ^ up there seems to think Lego is for boys, so that decade did a lot of damage.

I'm not sure how to answer that. Simply judging from the characteristics of brick toys, they don't show any gender preference themselves, but it's TLC who made them into "themes" that boys love, and there have been lacking the "soft side" of design concepts in Lego System for a long time, and as a result, the Lego toys weren't colorful and diverse.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Dorayaki

[aurly]

Who needs math skills beyond the basics these days? You'd just be teaching your girls skills that will get them replaced by computers.

[Laphroag]

Who needs math skills beyond the basics these days?

Anyone wanting to be an engineer?

[Front]

Who needs math skills beyond the basics these days? You'd just be teaching your girls skills that will get them replaced by computers.

Maybe those who want to tell the computer what to do. Doh !

[aurly]

Maybe those who want to tell the computer what to do. Doh !

Oh hey, that's what I do. I tell the computer to do the math for me. They're good at that.

[Lyichir]

Oh hey, that's what I do. I tell the computer to do the math for me. They're good at that.

And what kind of math do you tell it to do? Basic arithmetic? Maybe a graph or two? Mathematics isn't dead. Science and engineering still need people with a good understanding of math, not to mention programmers (i.e. the people who teach the computer to do the math for you).

In any case, saying that girls shouldn't get involved in STEM fields because STEM is obsolete is almost as ignorant as saying they shouldn't because their brains are wired differently. But at least instead of disparaging 50% of the human race, you're only disparaging the ones who have an interest in education.

[AmperZand]

I don't agree. We most definitely have to reduce the gap between boys and girls in terms of how we treat them. Parents almost instinctively bring their daughters into the pink aisle at the toy store because as a society we have determined that girls like pink things. Take a look at the toys that are available there, they are basically saying that girls only care about dressing up dolls in clothes, homemaking, they even have glittery toy smart phones so you can pretend to text your friends. The "boys" aisle isn't much better, it's full of monster trucks, toy weapons, basically saying that boys like tough things like cars and guns. When pretty much every store has their toy sections set up like this, it gets ingrained in people's brains that this is how life is.

The preference that boys show for stereotypically male toys and girls for stereotypically female toys isn't the result of social influences; it's biological. That's not an opinion. It's a statement of fact. When young children in cultures that don't have the gender associations found in industrialised societies are given a choice of toys, boys still have a preference for playing with toy lorries and girls still have a preference for playing with dolls. But perhaps those studies are flawed and even in societies where they don't have real lorries, boys are somehow still socially influenced to prefer toy lorries. So what happens when you minimise social influences? What happens when you test the biological basis not on humans, but on infant chimpanzees raised in captivity? Well it turns out that chimpanzees show the same gender preferences that their human counterparts do. Is that to do with their interactions with humans? The jury is still out on that one but preliminary evidence from primatologists indicates that infant female chimps in the wild use sticks as dolls. Infant male chimps in the wild don't show the same behaviour. It's getting close to impossible to maintain the fiction that preferences for stereotypically male or female toys don't have a basis in biology.

Of course, just because a behaviour or preference is biologically driven, it doesn't necessarily mean it should be encouraged. We're biologically driven to like sweet, fatty foods, but in industrialised societies, most people don't need the extra calories and their excessive consumption is harmful and shouldn't be supported. So can we "rewire" the brains of children through socialisation to have androgynous preferences? Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately), for ethical reasons, we can't conduct studies to determine that. But there are researchers who have tried it on their own kids, most famously Sandra Bem. And it turns out that attempts to influence the gender-associated preferences of children through socialisation don't work. As the old adage goes: boys will be boys.

Should TLG try anyway? TLG is a business. They may do lots of great charitable and educational work, but without sales - mostly to kids - they would not exist. As a business, there is only so much they can do to combat prevailing gender preferences. My guess is that TLG has done market research to simulate the effect on sales of having more gender "neutral" sets such as police sets where half the minifigs are female or smaller police sets where the only minifigure is a WPC. My guess is that they have found that it would only slightly increase sales to girls and hugely decrease sales to boys. As much as TLG might like to counter prevailing gender preferences, commercially they simply can't.

[Lyichir]

The preference that boys show for stereotypically male toys and girls for stereotypically female toys isn't the result of social influences; it's biological. That's not an opinion. It's a statement of fact. When young children in cultures that don't have the gender associations found in industrialised societies are given a choice of toys, boys still have a preference for playing with toy lorries and girls still have a preference for playing with dolls. But perhaps those studies are flawed and even in societies where they don't have real lorries, boys are somehow still socially influenced to prefer toy lorries. So what happens when you minimise social influences? What happens when you test the biological basis not on humans, but on infant chimpanzees raised in captivity? Well it turns out that chimpanzees show the same gender preferences that their human counterparts do. Is that to do with their interactions with humans? The jury is still out on that one but preliminary evidence from primatologists indicates that infant female chimps in the wild use sticks as dolls. Infant male chimps in the wild don't show the same behaviour. It's getting close to impossible to maintain the fiction that preferences for stereotypically male or female toys don't have a basis in biology.

Of course, just because a behaviour or preference is biologically driven, it doesn't necessarily mean it should be encouraged. We're biologically driven to like sweet, fatty foods, but in industrialised societies, most people don't need the extra calories and their excessive consumption is harmful and shouldn't be supported. So can we "rewire" the brains of children through socialisation to have androgynous preferences? Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately), for ethical reasons, we can't conduct studies to determine that. But there are researchers who have tried it on their own kids, most famously Sandra Bem. And it turns out that attempts to influence the gender-associated preferences of children through socialisation don't work. As the old adage goes: boys will be boys.

Should TLG try anyway? TLG is a business. They may do lots of great charitable and educational work, but without sales - mostly to kids - they would not exist. As a business, there is only so much they can do to combat prevailing gender preferences. My guess is that TLG has done market research to simulate the effect on sales of having more gender "neutral" sets such as police sets where half the minifigs are female or smaller police sets where the only minifigure is a WPC. My guess is that they have found that it would only slightly increase sales to girls and hugely decrease sales to boys. As much as TLG might like to counter prevailing gender preferences, commercially they simply can't.

I'm sorry, that's not a fact. Even if there is a biological component there, it's not the only component: there's a huge societal component that can't be ignored. For example, once pink was considered a more "manly" color than blue, before mass media and marketing cemented the pink/blue divide in Western culture. And of course the amount of variability in kids means that even if the majority of boys choose to play with cars and the majority of girls choose dolls, there's always going to be an overlap of boys and girls who subvert that expectation. So while a certain level of gendered play may be "natural", that's no excuse for the hyper-gendered nature of toys and toy marketing in this day and age.

This doesn't mean I'm calling for Lego to be a force for revolution in the toy aisle. Even as the second-biggest toy company in the world they don't have the power to single-handedly tear down decades of sexist attitudes in the toy industry (and trying to do so would only sacrifice their hard-earned position in the industry). And I appreciate the Lego Friends line for both getting girls building and for providing a much-needed source of "girliness" to Lego's product catalog (after all, just because pink shouldn't be all that's offered to girls doesn't mean there shouldn't be any for the girls who want something pink). But to pretend that there isn't a problem, or that Lego can't improve moving forward, is dishonest. Full gender neutrality may be a distant speck in the horizon, but every little bit helps. After all, even if adding another female police officer doesn't attract girls to Lego City, it can hopefully help young boys transition to an adult world where they'll see that kind of thing more and more with each passing year.

[Aanchir]

The preference that boys show for stereotypically male toys and girls for stereotypically female toys isn't the result of social influences; it's biological. That's not an opinion. It's a statement of fact. When young children in cultures that don't have the gender associations found in industrialised societies are given a choice of toys, boys still have a preference for playing with toy lorries and girls still have a preference for playing with dolls. But perhaps those studies are flawed and even in societies where they don't have real lorries, boys are somehow still socially influenced to prefer toy lorries. So what happens when you minimise social influences? What happens when you test the biological basis not on humans, but on infant chimpanzees raised in captivity? Well it turns out that chimpanzees show the same gender preferences that their human counterparts do. Is that to do with their interactions with humans? The jury is still out on that one but preliminary evidence from primatologists indicates that infant female chimps in the wild use sticks as dolls. Infant male chimps in the wild don't show the same behaviour. It's getting close to impossible to maintain the fiction that preferences for stereotypically male or female toys don't have a basis in biology.

Of course, just because a behaviour or preference is biologically driven, it doesn't necessarily mean it should be encouraged. We're biologically driven to like sweet, fatty foods, but in industrialised societies, most people don't need the extra calories and their excessive consumption is harmful and shouldn't be supported. So can we "rewire" the brains of children through socialisation to have androgynous preferences? Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately), for ethical reasons, we can't conduct studies to determine that. But there are researchers who have tried it on their own kids, most famously Sandra Bem. And it turns out that attempts to influence the gender-associated preferences of children through socialisation don't work. As the old adage goes: boys will be boys.

Should TLG try anyway? TLG is a business. They may do lots of great charitable and educational work, but without sales - mostly to kids - they would not exist. As a business, there is only so much they can do to combat prevailing gender preferences. My guess is that TLG has done market research to simulate the effect on sales of having more gender "neutral" sets such as police sets where half the minifigs are female or smaller police sets where the only minifigure is a WPC. My guess is that they have found that it would only slightly increase sales to girls and hugely decrease sales to boys. As much as TLG might like to counter prevailing gender preferences, commercially they simply can't.

To a certain extent, your points seem sound. However, I think there are some obvious counterpoints, most notably the action figure. On a fundamental level, there is no functional difference between a doll and an action figure. The only thing that separates them is the franchise each toy is attached to and the types of language and imagery used to promote it. However, action figures are huge sellers among boys and typically have mediocre sales among girls, while for dolls the trend is the opposite.

There is definitely a biological component to gendered interests, but it is not as rigid as people are often inclined to think. In recent years, there has been a lot of media that defies conventional wisdom regarding gender. My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, for instance, has captivated an audience of adult male "bronies", but they aren't the extent of its appeal — plenty of extremely young boys without any sort of exposure to internet phenomena also enjoy the show, and sometimes even the toys. The Legend of Korra also has been incredibly popular among boys despite having a female main character, something that is rare in the realm of action cartoons.

LEGO Friends is, in and of itself, a violation of conventional wisdom within the toy industry. Construction toys are traditionally considered a boys' interest, and while plenty of companies have tried to court a female audience hoping to increase their profit margins, none has ever succeeded to the extent that the LEGO Group did with this theme. But really, why should that be the case? Girls love the sorts of dollhouses and playsets you see in brands like Polly Pocket and Playmobil, so why should a dollhouse that they are able to build themselves be any different?

Even toys with a reputation for active, aggressive play have been targeting girls lately. Nerf has a line of toy firearms out now called Nerf Rebelle, aimed squarely at girls and no doubt inspired by the recent popularity of archery among girls as a result of films like The Hunger Games. Again, why shouldn't girls like this kind of thing? Firearms are just as valid an interest for girls as for boys — I should know, as my mother was a riflery instructor at her (girls-only) summer camp. In previous centuries, the idea of a woman carrying a gun would have been considered "unladylike" — is it any surprise that the women who became famous for shooting were either outlaws or women who were promoting a rebellious image? Is it any surprise that this is still a lingering perception today?

The diversity of interests among boys and girls, especially in a society where each gender is allowed plenty of choice, should also not be discounted. Certainly, a lot of boys will always flock towards traditionally "boyish" toys and a lot of girls towards traditionally "girly" ones. But companies are increasingly realizing that the middle ground is also a significant audience if you can find out a way to target them. It's similar to the "long tail" phenomenon that is often credited in the success of brands like Netflix over ones like Blockbuster. Sometimes you can make as much money or more by broadly targeting a diverse audience than by pinpointing an extremely large, consolidated audience. I would not be surprised if one day, we see LEGO products that range from extremely "girly" to extremely "boyish", with less gendered themes targeting kids throughout that gray area in between. In fact, I think that is the ideal that LEGO products should strive for — not a homogenous range of themes that are all intended to cater to all audiences.

It also shouldn't be ignored that gender roles in pre-industrialized societies or among animals are often even stricter than the ones in industrialized societies. It makes sense that girls in these kinds of societies might favor toys like dolls, which have long been associated with the traditional female duty of childcare, while boys from these kinds of societies might favor toys that convey a sense of speed, power, or action, regardless of what they portray. The modern era has actually enabled many people to advance beyond categorical trends that would have governed pre-industrialized societies. A scrawny, nearsighted, autistic person in the United States can become wildly successful, even if they would have been an embarrassment or a liability in a society of hunter-gatherers. Likewise, men and women can be happy and prosperous in roles that would once have been considered unbecoming of them — the stay-at-home dad, the female soldier, the female truck driver, the male fashion model, etcetera. I don't think that's something that should be frowned upon.

Edited February 6, 2014 by Aanchir

[Dorayaki]

The preference that boys show for stereotypically male toys and girls for stereotypically female toys isn't the result of social influences; it's biological. That's not an opinion. It's a statement of fact. When young children in cultures that don't have the gender associations found in industrialised societies are given a choice of toys, boys still have a preference for playing with toy lorries and girls still have a preference for playing with dolls.

Should TLG try anyway? TLG is a business. They may do lots of great charitable and educational work, but without sales - mostly to kids - they would not exist. As a business, there is only so much they can do to combat prevailing gender preferences. My guess is that TLG has done market research to simulate the effect on sales of having more gender "neutral" sets such as police sets where half the minifigs are female or smaller police sets where the only minifigure is a WPC. My guess is that they have found that it would only slightly increase sales to girls and hugely decrease sales to boys. As much as TLG might like to counter prevailing gender preferences, commercially they simply can't.

Even if the interests of kids are determined by biological genders, not to say exceptions, still as said, brick toys are neutral. Friends is a good move that shows brick toys can be girl-oriented. Also, we may expect to see more neutral Lego themes that can be popular among both boys and girls.

We should hope that the 21th century children can develop their own interest that doesn't have to be restricted by gender stereotype, no matter whether they are still affected by their own natures. We can't force girls who only love Barbie to play Lego, nor can we ask boys to put down their Barbies to play Lego. After all, the societal influence shouldn't be ignored

For the traditional themes that were not girls-oriented, I gues not all lacks of female characters or girly elements are reasonable. Action themes have more male characters mostly because the major boy consumers don't expect to see "cool ladies". Brave heroines are added to be a "useful" subcharacter, by assisting other male protagonists or become damsel-in-distresses.

But IMO, City Police is alittle debatable. Careers are for both genders (not to consider how many few female criminals or officers exist in real life). If the reason why there are so few female minifigures included in Police sets is that boys, who are the major consumers, don't like them. it is not "educational" at all. Meanwhile, the truck sets also seldom have female drivers included. For other subthemes which are not very boy-oriented, such as Train or Arctic, I think it doesn't matter if we have more ladies there, like Horizon Express having three ladies and three guys, especially for the driver lady.

The only thing I could be afraid of is "regenderalization", for the lack of advertising, Friends could be regarded another kind of "girls' toy" and not the stereotypical Lego that most people know. Just hope that TLG can do more lessons.

Edited February 7, 2014 by Dorayaki

[Vincent Kessels]

Who needs math skills beyond the basics these days? You'd just be teaching your girls skills that will get them replaced by computers.

Anyone with getting a mortgage for example.

Everybody reading the news.

Or what does it mean if the government spends an additional 10 million on child care over 5 years?

[Hrw-Amen]

My father started building with me when I was two years old. He would build and would ask me to pass him a brick 2X2 or a plate 2X4 or whatever and in whatever colour. I learnt a lot about maths through this pocss.