4 ms·

> But critics wonder, would it be so hard for Lego to develop — even market — toys for girls and boys to enjoy together? The article cites that Lego itself has

> But critics wonder, would it be so hard for Lego to develop — even market — toys for girls and boys to enjoy together? The article cites that Lego itself has noticed, through empirical testing, that the two groups (statistically speaking), use the sets differently. The critics, through virtue of their assumptions about how gender equality should work, seem to imply that this distinction isn't there and everyone should be happy with the same set. So let me ask this: if there really is a difference in play styles (exterior versus interior focus on the set, for instance), why wouldn't you as a toy maker design two lines of sets - one with a focus on interior details and one with a focus on exterior ones? If you try to combine it, for the price point, the toy is going to be slightly weaker for each segment of the population - effectively raising the price on both groups to have the toy they actually want by mandating we must have one toy in the name of "equality". Seriously, can someone explain what's wrong with two lines of toys if Lego (through testing, no less) has found that there are two distinct groups of wants? No one would suggest that if it were boys split in half in their interest of interior versus exterior, Lego would be remiss in offering two product lines, so it strikes me as incredibly... insecure about gender equality, to the point of pathologically insisting there be no differences, to say that we shouldn't have two lines because of the divide happening mostly along gender lines.

DanBC 13y ago
You make a good point. The only problems I can see is that the two lines will very quickly become "pink or ponies for girls" and "dark or soldiers for boys". Whether that's actually a problem or not is for other people to decide. There's another small problem with quality of testing - there's some possibility of confounding factors in the research. Both of these come down to "do boys and girls actually prefer different toys, or do they get conditioned by society to like different toys?"
- IsThisObvious 13y ago
  > The only problems I can see is that the two lines will very quickly become "pink or ponies for girls" and "dark or soldiers for boys. Just so I'm clear, I'm entirely against this. What I /do/ support is one set of city-scape sets that focus on internal details and the characters involved, and a second that focuses on the building and external set details. I think that this hits a legitimate play-style difference that happens to be mostly, but isn't entirely, along gender lines. I'm against the knee-jerk reaction that we're absolutely equal, and everyone gets the same! We accept, routinely, that there are behavioral differences that are statistically significant (because of genetics, exposure in the womb, hormones, etc) within a gender, but there seems to be a class of people who categorically insist that there is no such trend between genders. This isn't to say every little girl wants to play the same way, but that there are statistical biases to the genders which might be intrinsic, not societal constructs. "Equal before the law" and "equal member of society" does not mean "the same in every way", and trying to enforce the last of these can be harmful rather than helpful.
  - needacig 13y ago
    If you look at the products on LEGO site, it looks like it is coming to "pink or ponies for girls" and "dark or soldiers for boys," sadly. I agree that everyone shouldn't have to have the exact same thing, but they could cut out the part where they slather the girl products in pink and characters with small skirts, and include some normal girl characters in the otherwise boy-oriented sets. EDIT: The more I think about this: > "Equal before the law" and "equal member of society" does not mean "the same in every way", and trying to enforce the last of these can be harmful rather than helpful. the more this frustrates me. No one is saying everyone should have to be the same. Did you even look at the LEGO products? What parents are reacting to is the reservation of action, space, science, adventure, technology, etc. for one gender and homemaking, baking, beauty, and animals for the other gender by putting very distinct gender-specific markings on them to make it clear which belongs to which. I'm extremely skeptical that girls just genetically prefer pink things and dresses. This is about forcing people into cultural categories which limit their options for individual expression, not some silly attempt to make everyone do the same things.
needacig 13y ago
As critics have noted, the split isn't just interior versus exterior. Many sets marketed to boys have as many interior spaces as exterior. The difference is that sets marketed to girls are distinctly pink and emphasize homemaking, beauty, cute animals, mini-dresses and other traditionally female-appropriate things (things a sexist world might call frivolous and stupid) whereas sets marketed to boys emphasize science and adventure. If children statistically prefer one to the other its because we teach them which things are for boys and which things are for girls. AND (this part is really important), through astute powers of observation, kids are also learn early on that people are often severely socially punished for disobeying gender norms (see: how cross-dressing is often thought to be freakish and wrong, how many people hate butch lesbians, how calling a male a girl or a pussy is one of the worst insults you can give him). If it were just a matter of interior versus exterior, why not market them as focused on interior versus exterior rather than for girls versus for boys? To the extent that the sets marketed to girls limit girls' exposure to non-traditional tasks, LEGO is reinforcing traditional gender norms and many progressive people reject that precisely because it is so limiting.

DanBC 13y ago

You make a good point. The only problems I can see is that the two lines will very quickly become "pink or ponies for girls" and "dark or soldiers for boys". Whether that's actually a problem or not is for other people to decide. There's another small problem with quality of testing - there's some possibility of confounding factors in the research. Both of these come down to "do boys and girls actually prefer different toys, or do they get conditioned by society to like different toys?"

IsThisObvious 13y ago
> The only problems I can see is that the two lines will very quickly become "pink or ponies for girls" and "dark or soldiers for boys. Just so I'm clear, I'm entirely against this. What I /do/ support is one set of city-scape sets that focus on internal details and the characters involved, and a second that focuses on the building and external set details. I think that this hits a legitimate play-style difference that happens to be mostly, but isn't entirely, along gender lines. I'm against the knee-jerk reaction that we're absolutely equal, and everyone gets the same! We accept, routinely, that there are behavioral differences that are statistically significant (because of genetics, exposure in the womb, hormones, etc) within a gender, but there seems to be a class of people who categorically insist that there is no such trend between genders. This isn't to say every little girl wants to play the same way, but that there are statistical biases to the genders which might be intrinsic, not societal constructs. "Equal before the law" and "equal member of society" does not mean "the same in every way", and trying to enforce the last of these can be harmful rather than helpful.
- needacig 13y ago
  If you look at the products on LEGO site, it looks like it is coming to "pink or ponies for girls" and "dark or soldiers for boys," sadly. I agree that everyone shouldn't have to have the exact same thing, but they could cut out the part where they slather the girl products in pink and characters with small skirts, and include some normal girl characters in the otherwise boy-oriented sets. EDIT: The more I think about this: > "Equal before the law" and "equal member of society" does not mean "the same in every way", and trying to enforce the last of these can be harmful rather than helpful. the more this frustrates me. No one is saying everyone should have to be the same. Did you even look at the LEGO products? What parents are reacting to is the reservation of action, space, science, adventure, technology, etc. for one gender and homemaking, baking, beauty, and animals for the other gender by putting very distinct gender-specific markings on them to make it clear which belongs to which. I'm extremely skeptical that girls just genetically prefer pink things and dresses. This is about forcing people into cultural categories which limit their options for individual expression, not some silly attempt to make everyone do the same things.

needacig 13y ago

As critics have noted, the split isn't just interior versus exterior. Many sets marketed to boys have as many interior spaces as exterior. The difference is that sets marketed to girls are distinctly pink and emphasize homemaking, beauty, cute animals, mini-dresses and other traditionally female-appropriate things (things a sexist world might call frivolous and stupid) whereas sets marketed to boys emphasize science and adventure. If children statistically prefer one to the other its because we teach them which things are for boys and which things are for girls. AND (this part is really important), through astute powers of observation, kids are also learn early on that people are often severely socially punished for disobeying gender norms (see: how cross-dressing is often thought to be freakish and wrong, how many people hate butch lesbians, how calling a male a girl or a pussy is one of the worst insults you can give him). If it were just a matter of interior versus exterior, why not market them as focused on interior versus exterior rather than for girls versus for boys? To the extent that the sets marketed to girls limit girls' exposure to non-traditional tasks, LEGO is reinforcing traditional gender norms and many progressive people reject that precisely because it is so limiting.