So I heard Lego had come out with “Friends” toys for girls through a fantastic article written by Kelly Byrom at HLN, and talk about raising my blood pressure! The initial part of the article that really got me nodding vigorously in agreement was this: “But here’s the thing: My five-year-old son would absolutely LOVE these. He adores all things pink, glittery and girly.”
Well, I too have a young son who would love those Legos. His favorite color right now is pink, he loooves fairies and all things fairy, and he has the most wonderful female BFF ever. He talks about what fun it must be to be a girl, yet in the same sentence he will ponder what caliber of husband and father he will be.
As if it hadn’t already, the article really got my attention with this: “My daughter can dress up as a ferocious dragon for Halloween and no one bats an eye. But put my boy in a Minnie Mouse costume and people start getting nervous. Not for one second did I worry about the looks we would get for my daughter this year, but you bet I was ready to challenge anyone who questioned my son. Girls have so many choices, and that’s a great thing, but boys should get that same freedom.”
My son wanted to be a fairy for Halloween 2011, and at first I thought, “Ohhh man! He’ll be picked on for sure!” But we couldn’t find an appropriately “boy” fairy costume, so he thought he could be a “dark” fairy, not dark as in mean and cruel, but a dark fairy who ensures the safety of the other good ones. Then our saving grace came when he saw a black, sort of flowing costume with battery powered spectacles that, when worn underneath the accompanying mask, made him look like a phantom. We further lucked out when he saw black feather wings, so his “dark fairy phantom” was complete. Consider this: his classmates thought it was a very cool costume, especially the spectacles.
So each little Lego girlfriend include an “About Me” synopsis with her life preferences. We have Mia who likes animals and at least aspires to be a vet. Emma wants to be a designer or beautician, and her preferences echo the stereotypes therein. Andrea wants to be a singer…but of course!!! Stephanie is the socialite who really wants to organize parties. Is it just coincidence that her appearance and accessories are Paris-Hiltonized to the hilt? Sadly, yet another girl likes to sit by the hot tub, drinkin’ her lunch. But on a rather brief yet serious note, there’s Olivia, who aspires to be a scientist or engineer ~ a girl after my own heart! One difficult aspect to stomach, though, is that some of the girls “…are defined by gender roles that can be stereotypical, like beautician and singer.”
Almost more stunning than the stereotypes are some of the comments left for Kelly regarding her article. CNN noted that “Some commenters said letting a boy run around in frilly pink outfits would make him weak, a target for bullies and possibly even gay.” I’m sorry folks, cover your eyes if you’re overly sensitive, but: W T F?
Seriously? The fact that there’s a human {presumably} on this earth who could actually be sooo antiquated and esoteric to claim that inanimate objects will make a boy “possibly even gay” makes me briefly dream of forced birth control.
One alleged human by the name of David Huntwork had this equally hateful thing to say: “And where is this boys father who should be providing himself as a proper male role model? If he is in the picture he is doing a horrible job.” My hubby is a stay@home father, and the best one I’ve ever known. I have posted numerous times about what an amazing kid even other people think my son is and will become, including influential teachers who are around him most of the day, five days a week. Holy moses, that David is a real piece of work, thinks he has it all figured out, associates a boy wearing a tutu as not having a proper male role model. No, David, your father did a horrible job.
Well, here’s what I decided to write to Lego about how I felt:
“I would like to express my dismay in your girls’ Friends line of toys. I have a young daughter and a young son, and both happen to love Legos. My husband and I grew up with Legos and of course have been excited to share Legos with the kids. When my SON – YES, MY SON – saw an ad for Friends in all their pink and everything, he seemed to have glimpsed heaven. He LOVES pink, he LOVES frilly, yet still talks about passing along Legos to his children. Yet, you’re marketing Friends to JUST GIRLS. Why would you do this? Do you mean to insult every single young boy out there who is MALE but happens to love girly things? Are you trying to imply that there’s something wrong with my son IF he doesn’t prefer “regular” masculine Legos by marketing these only for girls? Why would you do that to kids?
As for the actual Friends characters themselves, luckily my son didn’t notice that for some reason you decided to give these creatures BREASTS, small or not, and stereotypical interests like shopping, hairdressing, lounging on the beach. Who on earth is the brainchild behind this ludicrous idea?
I think your test markets were in areas of very low stats on college graduates. I am a young mom who happens to be a technical writer and software developer. If you were to have presented this product to me and my 23 friends who are also female and engineers, you would have seen some extremely angry women. I think you knew that and avoided demographics that would take this into account. We would have asked some very serious questions about the purpose behind this product.
Don’t you have female designers there who have children? If so, how on earth could those women feel it appropriate to have a line of Legos that stereotypes women/girls {you’re telling my daughter, essentially, that hair dresser and beach comber should be what they strive for in life} so blatantly?
Please advise. I’m horrified at your company.”
Here’s their response:
“We listened very carefully to what girls around the world told us in four years of concept development for LEGO Friends; and we’ve used their input to create a theme that invites girls who appreciate these qualities to the LEGO building experience.
Many girls told us they had trouble identifying with the LEGO minifigure’s unrealistic appearance. As role play is central to the LEGO Friends experience we designed a figure with a more realistic appearance.”
There you have it, folks: Apparently girls don’t identify with the androgynous appearance of Legos, so we asked for “taller and curvier” Legos with obvious breasts and long, flowing hair. That’s the definition of realistic? Based on the Lego definition of “realistic” and “role play,” when will the boys be offered Lego physical endowments with selectable sizes, hmm?
