

Girls' Legos Are A Hit, But Why Do Girls Need Special Legos? - danso
http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2013/06/28/196605763/girls-legos-are-a-hit-but-why-do-girls-need-special-legos

======
IsThisObvious
> 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
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
> 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
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.

------
teilo
Why do girls need dolls? Why are there any marketing differences between men
and women in general? Are we really so blind as to call this the result of
gender stereotyping?

Men and women are different in far more ways than the genitalia. We have spend
decades trying to convince ourselves that male and female roles are fabricated
by society and have no basis in biology. And we have failed, because ideology
does not change biology.

Have we really made so little progress that we _still_ cannot celebrate men
and women for their differences and their unique contributions, and strengths?
In other words, do men have to cease being men and women have to cease being
women in order to consider themselves "equal"? Gender equality is becoming its
own form of oppression. No, not equality itself (for men and women have the
same human rights), but the wrong-headed attempts to suppress and eradicate
the distinctions between genders.

------
krapp
I had always assumed this was to encourage parents to buy different versions
of the same toy, instead of having their kids share one.

------
pstuart
Legos used to be building blocks, now they are "Lego People" that can be
collected, and the blocks themselves are the accessories.

------
badman_ting
Ironically, they would come in for less criticism if they simply continued to
not sell Legos to girls.

~~~
indrax
But this isn't a case of them being criticized when they try to make an
/improvement/ in their behaviour. They would always sell Lego to any girl who
can pay for them, the bad behaviour in in marketing specifically to boys and
creating Lego sets that reinforce gender stereotypes.

They could simply stop doing that.

