LEGOs Hypersexualizing Girls? Seriously? |
April 20, 2012 - 8:16 am
|
Over at Fox News today we find out the radical feminist movement is now targeting LEGOs.
Their complaint? LEGO put out a new line of toys aimed specifically at young girls which use traditional feminine colors and pastimes rather than spaceships and robots, and instead of the usual blocky LEGO men we have a girl with a dress and fancy hair and slight curves.
The new “LEGO Friends” rolled out in December featuring LadyFigs, curvier takeoffs on the traditional boxy LEGO men. Construction sets include a hot tub, a splash pool, a beauty parlor, an outdoor bakery and a “cool convertible,” as well as an inventor’s workshop.
But the SPARK Movement objects to the “LadyFigs,” the female version of the little figures who man the spaceships, trucks and forts children create. “Ladyfigs” are somewhat anatomically correct, which hypersexualizes girls, according to the group.
“They have little breasts and they have fancy hair,” the organization’s executive director, Dana Edell, told FoxNews.com. “And it just disturbs us that this is the image that they want girls to see.”
Look, I’ve raised two boys and one girl and I have two little granddaughters. Girls don’t have to be taught to like pretty things, and boys don’t have to be taught to like getting muddy. My eldest granddaughter loves playing with cars, but she likes to do it while wearing the princess outfit her mom can’t get her out of for days at a time.
And hypersexualized? REALLY? Has that idiot really looked at that figure? I really don’t want to know what goes on (or doesn’t) in her bedroom if she thinks that is sexy.
Once again we have the professionally offended finding ways to mind everyone else’s business. Look, if little girls want to play with that sort of thing they will. If they prefer the boys’ LEGOs they’ll likely steal them from their older/younger brothers — or their preference made clear, mom and dad will buy them regular LEGOs.
Just because a girl plays with traditional girl toys doesn’t mean she’s going to grow up to be barefoot and pregnant and at the mercy of some man she needs like a fish needs a bicycle.
Girls are girls, boys are boys. There are real, fundamental, physical and psychological differences between the sexes and no amount of wishing and hand wringing about toys is going to change that. Nor should we want it to, nitwits like Dana Edell aside.
Well Lego could get out of troubles easily, by making it official that LadyFigs is actually a Lego man cross-dressing.
“Girl” Legos that are just dollhouse pieces are stupid in the first place. There is certainly no dearth of pink cooking/decorating/baby-tending/beauty-parlor toys on the market today. But how the heck did you decide that primary-color Lego blocks are “for boys”? How is there any gender at all to primary colors and squares? What are you afraid might happen to a girl given red and blue building blocks instead of a Yet Another pink baby-nursery play set?
(This was me in 1981: http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2009/07/lego_1981. Those were *my* Legos, since I didn’t have a brother to “steal” them from. In retrospect, I probably should have been offered a pink beauty-parlor play set, since I went on to get an engineering degree and support myself as an adult. Sigh.)
My point is not that girls or boys should have any particular toy but that complaining about LEGOs aimed at girls who _happen_ to be girly girls is “hypersexualizing” children is stupid.
If you take a look at this SPARK Movement’s page you find that _everything_ is hypersexualizing according to them. Also that they appear to be against sex in general — possibly they have trouble getting laid.
IOW, distinguishable gender means (1) sex, and (2) “hyper-”.
IOW, any gender identity at all is improper.
IOW, we should all be robots, etc.
I guess.
well, if their idea of hyper-sexualization is a plastic rectangle with an articulating middle, I’d say, yeah, getting laid is going to be a problem. And they’re disturbed by the fact that the female figures have tiny breasts? And that girls (gasp!) will see them? NOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Don’t look at the tiny breasts!!!! They’re so…..so…….SEXUAL!
Who ARE these people?!
Yes, but HeatherRadish’s point, Richard, is that you’re criticizing part of the female-entitlement complex, and that might end up reducing her own undue privileges and status.
That’s why she’s waving her strawman around; she wants to divert the discussion away from *exactly* the proposition you raise: that these people are shrill whiny gender hustlers who are exploiting other people’s female-chauvanism for primarily their own thieving benefit.
And HeatherRadish doesn’t want that narrative gaining any credibility because of how it might reduce her own slice of that fraudulent social market.
“But how the heck did you decide that primary-color Lego blocks are “for boys”? ”
Off the top of my head I’d say that they decided that by looking at the demographics of people who buy their products. You’re also missing the pretty important (and obvious) point that it’s not the color of the bricks that makes them more boy-friendly, its’ the subject matter of the playsets. Lego playsets mostly deal with Star Wars, superheroes, space rangers, robots and police / rescue personnel. In other words, all the stuff boys love playing with.
Whether it be nature, nurture, or as you seem to think, evil corporate plots, many girls prefer this kind of play. To quote your blog,
“When we see ads that always show girls in pink, playing with “girl” versions of toys, or engaged in passive activities, that’s a particular marketing choice, not some inevitable, obvious way girls need to be depicted to sell products.”
The folks selling Legos want to sell Legos, not jam girls into some gender role you seem to fear. They arrive at those marketing choices through research, not agenda (if they are smart business people). Their research shows them which kinds of sets sell with certain kinds of advertising. They do not CARE if it is a boy, a girl, or a three-toed sloth that buys the toy: just BUY THE TOY! What they offer with this new line is choice: what is wrong with that?
I am a little older than you and also an engineer. In my professional life I have worked with women engineers as employer, peer, and employee. I remember the first time I met one particular woman in a social setting: apparently when not required to dress for a dirty chemical job she liked to be quite “girly”. One of the sharpest engineers I have ever worked with and did not seem damaged in the slightest by her proclivities toward a more traditional female appearance when practical. The point of this segue is that we have managed to knock down most of the traditional gender role walls that stood in a woman’s way: Acknowledging that girls tend to play different than boys in Lego form is not an attempt to have more color choices in bricks for rebuilding that wall.
Your message needs to be addressed to consumers, not suppliers. We concentrate on core values, making choices, and confidence to stand up for what you believe raising our son. And LOTS of Legos.
Heather, I was born in 1954, so these were my building bricks. Thick paper roof material, very brittle bricks, plastic windows and doors that swung open. When my little brother would step on them and chip them, it really upset me. I needed 12 boxes of these bricks to build all the stuff I wanted, but my family was barely scratching by so we had one set to share with five kids.
When I had my boys and discovered Lego toys, I bought them as many as they needed (really, more for me, truth be told). We lived in Saudi Arabia where it was too hot to go outside in the summer during school holiday, too hot to even go to the pool until after dark. So…we built cities and moon bases and working railroads and couldn’t walk through the living/dining room for two months without stepping carefully. Couldn’t use the dining room table for months, either, because of the dock and city streets laid out on it. My older son, when he was between the ages of 5 and 10, would rise at 4 am and start rattling Lego bricks. My husband and I would lie in bed and enjoy the sounds of brains at work. Lego brick rattling was our alarm clock for several years. When we got up and went to the boys’ room, there would be a new airplane or airport tower every day.
If my boys had been girls, I would have bought them the same Lego kits, and would have gagged myself with a pink brick before buying any for them.
Young son is in his 3rd year of aerospace engineering, older son is special needs and still at home, but can still build like a maniac. But we bought him the Lego Eiffel Tower, which he built in about a day. It’s 4 feet tall. We have nine 24-quart Rubbermaid boxes with lids full of Legos. I’ll never part with them.
But part of the problem is that Lego has been targeted for years for not having enough “girl” Legos by these same groups(like you, I always wondered how we knew they were boy in the first place). How on earth do you make more “girl” Lego without falling into stereotypes? Lego has always had basic sets that you can build anything out of, genderless sets (city streets, space sets, etc.), and even girl characters but that wasn’t enough. So then they tried to have girl stuff and they get in trouble for doing that.
Last I checked, this is America and Toyr R Us doesn’t care who you are buying the toys for. Your little girl wants Lego, she can have all you can afford. Your little boy wants a baby doll, he can have as many as he wants. Don’t blame the toy companies if your kid doesn’t want a toy. Either buy them what you want them to have or deal with their choices.
Notice that one of the items in the collection is the oh-so-sexist and stereotypical “inventor’s workshop”.
Not to mention the veterinary clinic – suggesting that girls might be interested in going into a professional vocation that requires years of education is incredibly sexist, don’t ya know?
I have 4 girls and we just picked up some of these sets. They love them, and they fit in nicely with the Cars (my 4-year-old daughter is obsessed with Lightning McQueen) and Harry Potter stuff we already have.
I increasingly find that feminist activists are simply women with far too much time on their hands. And you know what they say, “Idle hands are the devil’s playground.”
That’s hypersexualizing girls? Better not let them see Bratz, Monster High, or Barbie’s “Street Meat” party girl line.
I can’t decide if that’s a Hooter’s top or a wife-beater.
How dare they portray that girl in a short skirt and tight blouse and long blond hair. Where’s her Burka? That young lady should be ashamed./sarc
This is a Brooklyn thing. All the women that aim to be unattractive are striking out because none of the legos show a butch girl…..How sad.
Girls have different body types but many are based on diet.
This is one of the few times I ever read a news article that i felt physical violence was appropriate…
What’s really creepy is that they think that is sexy, and they find children’s toys and obviously child like things sexy. That is really really scary.
You are beginning to gain a fuller understanding of what feminism actually is.
That adult teachers molest underage boys in public school, is no coincidence.
Feminism is a hate cult, plain and simple. The only reason it gets much further than other hate cults is that men are hardwired to excuse women of most wrongdoings, for biological reasons.
Everyone needs to read ‘The Misandry Bubble. It is the premier essay on the topic of feminism.
My problem with Legos is that they don’t seem to do princess collections for girls 5 and older. They have one in Lego Duplo, but that one comes in large blocks. My 5 year-old is still into princesses, and I can reasonably expect her to be interested in them for several more years. Why not a developmentally appropriate princes collection for this age group?
On the other hand, perhaps I need to stock up on Friends before they get discontinued.
Disturbs us? Who is us? I don’t think there’s federal mandate to buy one…yet.
I have a 9 yr old boy who looooooves Legos (and I do, too!). Lego has been very savvy in partnering with movies, cartoons & books – Star Wars, Harry Potter, Indiana Jones, Super Heroes – to come up with a never-ending supply if ideas for kits & figures. They’ve also got some generic themes like City & Castle. How else could they manage to keep selling the same thing: different sized and shaped bricks to build whatever you can imagine.
Here’s the problem w/creating a “girls” specific line: what do they tie it to – what movies, books or cartoons? If I were a young girl today, I would enjoy the City (houses), Castle, Indian Jones & Harry Potter themes – these have elements/sets that appeal to both sexes. So by nature, any theme that is targeted specifically to girls is going to have to be girly-girl – all non-girly sets are already available.
The “outrage” just stupid, like getting in a huff about the Augusta National Golf Club. There are plenty of Lego options for all sorts of girls. Lego just happened to try to tap the Bratz and Bieber-loving end of the spectrum w/this latest theme.
The Spark Anthem,
Pick-a-little talk-a-little,
Pick-a-little talk-a-little,
Cheep cheep cheep,
Talk-a-lot pick-a-little-more,
Repeat.
I have no idea what their problem is. My almost-6 daughter gravitates towards these over the Star Wars Legos, and BELIEVE ME, I’d rather be playing Star Wars Legos with her.
I disagree that they’re tapping the “Brat and Bieber-loving end of the spectrum” with the pink bricks. They’re just pink bricks. Why does my 4 year old daughter love them? Because they’re just like her older brothers’ legos, but they’re “prettier” because they’re pink. B/c some girls just really really like pink. And purple. And when she saw pink and purple legos she thought she’d died and gone to tiny plastic colored-block heaven. And she likes the pet shop b/c it has a dog, whereas the shuttle only has a wrench. And wrenches are not as cute as dogs to a 4-y-o girl. If you read the “spark” website ( the nutters that started this whole thing) you’ll see that they still adhere to that tired dogma that gender is all in your head, that girls only act like girls b/c the media begins the hypersexualization process at birth and yada yada yada. I don’t understand when the feminist movement became so focused on denying our femininity. It’s almost like, underneath it all, they really believe that women are inferior, and the only way to counter that inferiority is to just not be women. I have no interest in being like a man. I am a Ph.D. chemist. I am a mom of 4 kids. I am a woman. The fact that I like pink doesn’t make me, or my daughter, stupid. So sad that other think it does.
No problem I can see. They look like Polly Pockets to me.
People, it is quite simple.
Feminists are usually ugly women. Toys that teach kids what a normal woman is SUPPOSED to look like, is threatening to feminists and their desire to build ‘acceptance for alternative body shapes’.
Imagine a woman so ugly that even a 1-inch plastic toy looks better than her. You have just imagined a feminist.
Maybe we should let our kids decide for themselves what they like. They’re human beings, not little programmable robots we can use to advance our political agendas.
Remember that for feminists, programming a small child is not her first choice.
Her first choice is to abort the child.
If abortion does not happen, then the SECOND choice is to treat the child as a programmable little robot.
Every time they bring this up you should quote the study about colors. I can’t remember what is was called but even across cultures girls prefer the “pretty” colors and boys like the neutral colors. My 3 year old daughter has “regular” Duplos and loves them. Without even knowing they’re for girls she wants them. She wants to play with girls toys. We give her the opportunity to get “boys toys” but she just doesn’t like them. Let kids be kids. This neutral gender stuff has gone way too far.
D*mmit, people, it’s Lego, not Legos.
ess. see. arrgh. eee. duplo you.them.
I have two boys with I’m not even sure what the count is, of boxes of Legos. I have a daughter who plays with theirs. She has a birthday coming up. Her present list is- something for her room, and PINK Legos. She is SO EXCITED that Lego finally noticed her.
It’s not girls they want to get rid of, it’s feminine girls. That’s a level of hatred towards femininity that I have the worst time wrapping my brain around.
I grew up in the seventies, with all the new femininist books about being loud, progressive, aggressive, sporty, powerful, assertive. And you know what? I’m a mother now. And none of that helps my kids. And they are my job. As is my marriage. I am so happy that girls clothes are cute now. And that they have excellent dolls. And that Legos noticed that all their engineers might want to marry caring, nurturing, creative, competent women.
Big, huge, giant fan of Legos. And they just got better!!!!!
You got married, you have children, you love your children and your husband. How not like a feminist you are.
Your number one mission, if you choose to accept it, is to teach misandry and to hate anything that might be male while destroying any linger trace of femininity. Being a feminist is being a bigot and joining a death cult.
oh, gosh. the little girl just saw the big picture on this article, and wanted to see more. add squealing and smiles, and “Birthday! Birthday!” to get the full effect.
Lego just created another winner.
My oldest female grandchild liked to stomp around in her Daddy’s combat boots when she was 18 mos. old. Why Daddy’s? Because Mommy decided she’d rather stay home to raise the babies instead of stay in the Army. Why did Mommy decide this? Because Daddy was a pilot because his eyesight was better and he was elibible for flight pay. Oh… and Daddy couldn’t get pregnant.
(Oh, plenty of other reasons too — but those reasons suit my purposes here better.)
At 2 years of age, the girl-child would play with her train set wearing her princess costume. Her preferred cargo? Necklaces and rings. Yet… she was still playing with trains and instructed her grandmother on how to build the best track… for her purposes.
This child and her younger sister are very strong-minded about what they want. Sometimes it’s throwing rocks, sometimes it’s climbing rock walls, sometimes it’s wearing the princess costume while wielding a light saber, sometimes it’s being fascinated with a bug. In general, they behave a lot like their male cousins though they prefer different colors and scenarios.
Baby boys are just as adamant about what they want to play with as are girls. I think possibly the real problem is that parents discourage boys from the whole range of toys and colors.
One of the most masculine photos I have of one of my grandsons is of him wearing a pink tutu because his little sister insisted that he do so. It’s not cute because he’s “sensitive” in wearing a tutu, it’s cute because he’s so durned masculine while wearing it.
I have other grandchildren, both female and male, who are not so obviously masculine or feminine. I’m not worried about them — their personalities are also strong. (OK… they are also demanding little creatures who, along with their more overtly feminine and masculine siblings, WILL get their way!)
My point is (yeah, I’ve got one) that children are fortunately not all that sensitive to what is perceived to be wanted of them. Even if their parents do have some nefarious gender/sex agenda they want their children to fulfill, it’s the parents who will be foiled. (Provided, of course, that the parents are not abusive monsters — and fortunately that’s quite rare, thus notable when it happens.)
I’d hate to hear what SPARK has to say about BRATS dolls.
Plenty of “radical feminists” find brightly-colored plastic times sexy, precisely because of what goes on in their lonely bedrooms. And these feminists objecting to Lego Re no more “radical” than the hate-filled spew directed at Mattell and Barbie: they are mainstream, academic, street-level feminists.
Geez, she looks like she’s 11. Anyone who thinks that figure is “hypersexualized” has the mind of a pedo.
I cannot believe the feminists have time to worry and write about this when girls all over the world, not just in Muslim countries, are being circumcised. They need to address real problems, not Legos.
Never mind the feminists; if the genital mutilation of children is such a big issue for you, what are you doing about the industrial commoditization of baby boy foreskins in this country?
You yourself have been paying less for your professional gynecological care your whole life because male children were genitally mutilated at birth. OB/GYNs do the majority of them; this extra illegal income drives their prices down overall; you end up paying less because little boys are being harvested like crops every year.
Or maybe you like it that way. Maybe you prefer for little boys to be sexually mutilated, if you can get cheaper health care for yourself as a result.
I had to buy my daughter a Star Wars Spaceship (A-wing) after she discovered that “Polly Pocket” fit nicely into the cockpit. Now She can blow up her brothers “Base” and be back to her horse ranch in time to help deliver new baby kittens. Girls play like girls even if they have to make concussions to the boys in the room. And yes she likes the new Lego sets. It has been hard to get her imaginative stuff that she can feel comfortable with. She likes to build houses and cars for her Lego girls.
You mess with LEGO, you mess with yo’self.
Regarding Bratz, yeah, those are some slutty toys.