Legos, spaceships, breasts.

http://katebachus.com/2012/05/12/legos-breasts-spaceships-12-2/

by MichaelJW • 14 years ago

14 39 14 years ago

factorial9• 14 years ago

There's nothing keeping parents from buying the more elaborate LEGO set for their daughters.

swa144• 14 years ago

There's nothing keeping men from wearing skirts in public either. But most of us do not do so because of gender differences ingrained in out society.

Identifying yourself by your gender can be harmless and doesn't need to be detrimental to society or equal treatment. But the premise of the blog is "the virtues of Legos for teaching math and engineering concepts to children."

If this premise is taken as true, this particular distinction in gender is harmful to equality of the genders. It's not just that the particular pink set reinforces certain stereotypes, but also that it's simpler and requires less abstract thought to put together.

That said; I'm sure the people at lego have done their market research, and have found that girls (or their mothers) find the "girly" sets more pleasant. Also the people at the outlet will have their reasons for a "blue isle" and a "pink isle".

I guess the morale of the story is for the parents. To not let themselves fall into the trap of the largest common commercial denominator, but to drag your daughter/son at least once through the "wrong isle" when buying toys in an unbiased manner.

factorial9• 14 years ago

Sadly, the author doesn't understand the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy and neglects the possibility that boys and girls are simply "wired" differently. Modern science supports this view as there are significant differences between the brains of both sexes. If you accept biology as given, then wouldn't it be "normal" that boys and girls prefer different toys and children, and that men and women flock into different occupational areas as adults?

Also, why are those feminists only lamenting the lack of female engineers? There are many fields that require that kind of analytical thinking, albeit on lower levels. Heck, why not start a, "Get more girls into plumbing!" campaign? Of course, the feminists are only after the cushy office jobs.

rickdangerous1• 14 years ago

There is a bigger picture problem here. With the move to cross licensing movie tie in Lego sets, many kids only experience of Lego is building Pirates of the Caribean pirate ships, instead of the more engineering focused experiences. What I'm saying is, even Lego isn't Lego anymore (to a large degree).

lomegor10• 14 years ago

I don't think that's the biggest picture. I think that's important too, but it's another problem in a different subset.

DanBC4• 14 years ago

I do miss the free form play of Lego. I feel a bit sad that there are so many special use bricks. But I underestimate the ability of children to play - I'm confidant that they'll happily turn that boat into something else.

I've been wanting to stock up on Lego kits for when my boy is old enough to enjoy it. I'd prefer to buy from a real local toy shop.

I want big box sets of mixed bricks; mixed sizes shape and colours. I'd only need a few kits with plans, the rest I'd prefer to be free-form play.

It's much easier for me to buy this stuff second hand and then wash it than it is for me to buy it new. I don't think I'm an unusual edge case.

I can buy this stuff online. But I feel a bit sad that local toyshops are dying. I do tell them what I'm looking for. None of them have offered to order the stuff in for me.

yummyfajitas6• 14 years ago

Here is a question I don't quite understand. We are supposed to "get pissed" because some children are allowed/encouraged to play with a simpler lego toy that emphasizes fashion and beauty.

Is it wrong to allow/encourage a child to develop an interest in fashion and beauty?

I wish the authors of articles like this would state exactly what moral principle they believe is violated.

lomegor10• 14 years ago

Would you be OK if Lego targeted toy for black kids so they can learn how to plough the fields?

The situation here is similar. It's not exactly wrong that a company decides to sell two different kinds of toy. What's wrong is the cultural mindset that dictates that girls should be more interested in fashion and beauty than engineering (for example).

The moral principle being violated is that men and women are equal. That girls and boy can grow to be whatever they like. Because when you build different toys for girls and boys, you are clearly stating otherwise.

factorial9• 14 years ago

Did it ever strike you that men and women are not actually the same? I know, this line of reasoning is not popular among the gender studies-infested crowd, but it's just biology. There are dolls because girls like to play with dolls, and not because we force them to play with them. There are differences between male and female brains, and this is why they prefer different activities. Read up on science before making your absurd statements.

Yes, girls and boys can grow up to become whoever they like, but most girls just don't like technology, just as most guys have little interest in playing with dolls. Blame biology but not society.

yummyfajitas6• 14 years ago

I think building and marketing lego farming equipment is moral. I don't think a moral act becomes immoral because it is done to a person from a particular demographic.

"Cultural mindset" isn't an action, it's a concept that lives at an abstraction level well above morality. What specific action is being taken that you believe is immoral?

It's hard for me to see how the moral principle that men and women are equal [1] is being violated here. Any child is free to play with any lego (as the article demonstrates) and the company selling them has no control over what the children do 18 years later or even what toy they use now.

[1] I assume you mean equality under the law. But if you mean some different sort of equality it would help to state which.

[edit: not sure why you are being downmodded. I don't think your explanation was complete, but it's certainly helpful.]

Dylanlacey• 14 years ago

I liked that they did research on play styles. That was really cool, I'd be curious to read all their findings.

But the themes they chose seem to be more informed by stereotypes. Vet Surgery! Hairdressing Salon! Horseies! Surely for true role-playing they should be giving alternative roles. Default offices are great play spaces. You can play with secretarial works OR CEO stuff. What's wrong with Computer labs or Retail? They're all fairly genderless, flexible environments, but instead the sets seem to be firmly targeting the stereotypes. I half expect the bigger set to be a castle, or maybe a day-care.

Perhaps we've (the social we) selected stereotypes that express themselves naturally, or are re-enforced strongly, or perhaps the designers took the research as a challenge but added all the themes themselves. Maybe, too, they're exactly what will be most popular even in a social vacuum, but surely catering to a more general level is the best place for a toy to be? No-one should be prevented from role-playing stereotypes if they want, but neither should they be forced to make greater allowances if they want to violate them.

(Violate. Huh. It's telling that that's the word often used to describe not complying with stereotypes.)

fifteen3• 14 years ago

Unfortunately i lost her at Legos. It is LEGO or Lego or lego. There is no plural form of LEGO.

michaelcampbell• 14 years ago

I think you misspelled "pedantic".

amirmc2• 14 years ago

I don't understand what we should be 'pissed' at.

From a previous article when 'girl Lego' was announced: "The company embedded researchers with families around the world, to shadow girls and boys and watch how they play. Based on this research, it came up with Lego Friends, a line that features five characters with back stories similar to those of the wildly popular American Girl dolls."[1]

Lego did some actual research and is making something that fits the market as it is today. Who should we be pissed at and why?

[1] http://www.npr.org/2011/12/15/143724644/ith-new-toys-lego-ho...

DanBC4• 14 years ago

Depends how good the research is. But, knowing how much money is in the toy industry (an eye watering amount, even compared to some tech businesses) I suppose it's good.

But then just because it's researched doesn't mean it's good. Why do girls now prefer the narrative form of a previously creative toy? Why do lego blocks need a back story? Is that something that girls have always wanted; is it something that's created by changes in society; is it beneficial to girls? Is it possible harmful to boys to not have the narrative toys? (Although, with all the ROBOT BATTLE IN SPACE stuff hat lego has done for years I suppose they're just re-balancing an existing skew).

There's a lot of research about the "princess phase" which is why most toys for girls are boxed in that disgusting pink - purple combination.

This book is quite good. The biases are clear.

(http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Real-Toy-Story-Consumers/dp/0552...)

amirmc2• 14 years ago

Yup, just because it's researched doesn't mean it was good research (from a general standpoint). Since this is Lego's 6th attempt at reaching this market, I'll assume they've tried to take extra care. It's even possible that the work was done in collaboration with university academics (with peer-reviewed papers as a result). If it doesn't work, I'm sure they'll figure out what went wrong and make a 7th attempt in due course.

The questions you pose are excellent research topics in their own right (if reworded slightly). I really hope there are people out there looking into them. I remember reading some autism-related research that described how even newborn babies exhibited male/female differences (very contentious at the time and I don't know how the field developed).

Legos, spaceships, breasts.

Related Stories