Chewbacca Goes to the Salon

Nothing too fancy, just a little off the top, please.

The other day one of Lysi's best friends came over to play. He's been coming over regularly since he was 18 months old (he's now 5), so knowing his way around, he pulled out a familiar drawer, and upon seeing a bunch of dolls, asked, "Hey, where are the blocks?"

Oh, yeah, sorry, the giant Mega Bloks, Tinkertoys, letter blocks, and generic wood building blocks got replaced with dolls because our two girls (ages 2 and 4) didn't play with them anymore.

"That's okay." He said, walking to a large storage cabinet in another part of the room, "I'll just play with Legos."

Yes, while all the other building toys have been tossed aside for stuffed animals and dollies, Lego has remained as the only building toy our girls still enjoy. But that's OK, because they really enjoy it.

I've already gone on here and here in praise of Lego's new sets which target girls, because at least for my girls, it is working. Here's what I mean:

Pet salon is busy. Not sure if Ariel is a customer or staff.

First of all, as a typically girlie girl, Lysi has something she can still do with her rough-and-tumble boy friend, and which they are both passionate about. When they were both two and three years old, almost any toy was fine for playing together. But now she's asking to play puppy and house, paint and dance ballet, while he wants to fight ninjas and make things explode. With Lego they can combine their interests and play together without either feeling as if they are totally giving in to the other.

In fact, this boy friend was so intrigued by the details in the Friends pets that he asked his parents for several for Christmas. The biggest bonus for me is perhaps getting to see things like Chewbacca going to the pet salon.

What 2 four-year-old girls made in 20 minutes.

Second, just as Jesus Diaz claims in his post Hey, Anti-Lego Feminists, "Lego for Girls" Actually Kicks Ass, Friends and Disney Princess sets can and will be broken up and made into new stuff by any typical kid, which is exactly the point and why Lego toys are so great for encouraging creativity, imagination, and early building of STEM skills. I thought about Diaz's post today when Lysi and another four-year-old girl built this awesomeness (according to them it is a fishing dock combined with a launching pad for a rocket ship - how sweet is that?)


Third, the Lego sets marketing to girls are not dumbed down in terms of their complexity or how much bang you get for your buck. In Why Lego Friends is not one of the worst toys of 2012 (and why Mega Bloks Barbie is), David Pickett reports on his comparison of construction complexity of various lines of Lego sets and Lego competitors. He writes:

If we assume that constructions sets with similar price points will result in completed models of equivalent size, then we can use the piece/dollar ratio of construction sets as a rough indication of the complexity** of one building kit relative to another. The higher the piece/dollar ratio, the more building is involved in a given set or group of sets. This is a way of quantifying the differences that are obvious to the naked eye in the above comparison of the Friends and Babrie sets. I charted these values for sets from nine different themes and found the average pc/$ ratio for each line of products. The product lines I used were LEGO Friends, Mega Bloks Barbie, LEGO City, Mega Bloks World of Warcraft, LEGO Ninjago, LEGO Paradisa, LEGO Lord of the Rings & The Hobbit, Mega Bloks Skylanders and Mega Bloks Halo. 

Much to my surprise, Friends came in second (Halo was highest) with a ratio of 9.8. 

Diaz argues that the heavily themed sets are a "back door" to hook kids on Lego and eventually interest them in other sets that are even more challenging and spark even more creativity:

Once the radioactive Lego brick bites them, they become hooked. The next time they will want one Lego set just because it seems cool or more complicated. The space shuttle. A Lego creator building. A Technic car. Both girls and boys would pick those and build whatever they want with them.

Two preschoolers concentrating for an hour and politely
taking turns following an instruction manual - just because
they wanted to build a scorpion. Lego must be magic.

When I first read that, I wanted to believe it, but I didn't know if it would be true for my kid. Now I'm watching it unfold just as Diaz described. As Lysi flips through her Lego magazine, she gasps and exclaims, "Whoa, cool! I want that!" at sets of robots, tow trucks, and airplanes. She's become such an impressive builder already, that she and her before-mentioned boy friend together built the scorpion from Lego's more challenging Creator line. It is a set geared for kids ages 7-12, and she and her friend intensely built it over an hour and 15 minutes, politely taking turns following the steps in the instruction manual.

As a parent, I must just say: Dude, that is so much cooler than watching her dress and undress fashion dolls for an hour. 

LEGO Jumps on the Princess Bandwagon

LEGO has just come out with its new line of building sets hoping to attract girl customers, and (no surprise here) the theme is none other than Disney princesses.

*Cue the groans of feminist parents everywhere*

Much has been written about the dangers of marketing separate toys to boys and girls. The concern is that by encouraging girls and boys to play with different toys, we are encouraging separate gender roles. Pushing gender roles can do all kinds of damage. It can stigmatize individuals who don't fit into those assumed roles.

One of the biggest, specific complaints today about the toy marketing directed at girls is that it can steer potential talent away from STEM fields, and this at a time when more talent is needed and men dominate those fields.

As a mother of two girls, I definitely share these concerns about assigned gender roles. However, I don't want to join the throng of people railing against all things pink and princess without looking at all the available evidence and carefully thinking it through. Especially when my young daughter (to disclose my personal bias) has become a huge clothes horse, refuses to wear anything other than a fancy dress and tights, and revels in calling herself a princess.

The most popular toys, as reported by the Washington Post, are Barbies for girls, and LEGOs for boys, and certainly that fact lends credence to the idea that toys aimed at boys encourage interest in STEM, while toys aimed at girls steer them away. Given this situation, aren't LEGO building sets aimed at girls a good thing? A way to bridge the gap?

Last year I wrote about LEGO's recent efforts to market their building sets to girls, with Appreciation for Pink and Purple Lego Bows. In that article I made the case that typical girls are turned off by traditional LEGO, and that with the new Friends line of sets, LEGO has found a way to draw typical girls to their products in droves.

The LEGO Friends minifigs are more naturalistic, having numerous accessories, some curves and more facial, clothing, and body details. The buildings in Heartlake City, too, put more emphasis on the decor than the architectural design.

Critics of the new LEGO products and marketing campaigns argue that the Friends sets are LEGO altered to the point where the drawbacks of promoting superficial and stereotypical femininity outweigh the benefits of girls playing with building sets. Basically that LEGO for girls is just another version of Barbie.

The new Disney Princess series of LEGO building sets are a continuation of this new marketing campaign targeting girls. The minifigs are based on the Friends minifigs, not the traditional yellow ones. That said, they are hardly Barbie.

Consider this side to side comparison of the LEGO version of Merida (from the film Brave) and a Barbie-like fashion doll version of Merida. Certainly LEGO Merida is pretty, but she's not nearly as glamorous as the (heavily criticized) fashion dolls. These new LEGO figures aimed at girls might be more curvy than the traditional figures, but they are still stylized in a non-sexual way. They don't depict unrealistic ideals of female beauty as super slim and busty, as do fashion dolls. The essential spirit of LEGO as toys generic enough to encourage kids to impose their own vision is still present.

I must add that I'm getting kind of tired about how much I see written against girl toys that obsess over physical beauty, yet how little I see criticizing boy toys that obsess over violence. The LEGO City series is marketing to boys the same age group that Friends is aimed at for girls, so as young as five years old. While LEGO City has many everyday happenings such as trash collection, logging, and surfing, it is apparently also a place full of criminal activity which requires a huge emphasis on law enforcement. Other LEGO lines that tend to attract boy consumers such as Chima and Ninjago are full of violent conflict, weapons, and warriors.

I am hesitant to say that all these toys for boys that glorify violence are a definite bad influence. Of course they might be. After all, they do promote dehumanizing stereotypes of "good guys" and "bad guys" and depict war and noble, exciting, and even entertaining. But is there any evidence that boys whose parents ban such toys grow up to be less violent and more compassionate because of it?

Likewise, is there any evidence that playing princess with makeup, accessories, and costumes will dissuade girls from entering STEM fields? Can girls not be interested in STEM and also glamour and glitz?

Jennifer Welsh wrote an article for Business Insider, saying These Are the 7 Things Keeping Women Out of Science Careers. Her list includes teasing of girls for studying science, and stereotypes of female scientists as weirdos. The argument is that the culture and perception of STEM fields is not friendly to typical girls and women, and so only a minority of outliers brave their way in. The only real solution is for STEM culture and perception to change.

If we apply this to toys, and consider LEGO as representative of toys which direct kids toward STEM, LEGO's marketing to girls is a step in the right direction. With these new products and marketing campaigns, they are changing the broader perception of the LEGO brand as for boys. Once girls feel that they have been invited in by Friends and Disney Princesses lines of LEGO, they are more likely to reach for the more challenging sets found in the totally gender-neutral Creator and Architecture series. Boys and girls who are friends will also be more likely to play LEGO together, as the bricks from all the sets are interchangeable.

While concerns about gender stereotypes will (and should) haunt me as a parent, at the end of the day, I must admit I'm impressed with any toy that gets my four-year-old daughter to spend several hours over a couple days following a 67 page construction manual (the result of her receiving the Friends Pet Salon for Christmas.) And when my daughter begs me for princess toys, I'm happy to have an alternative to the fashion doll.

As much as I previously hated all things Disney Princess, when I saw LEGO join the princess parade, I cheered.

Appreciation for Pink and Purple LEGO Bows

I want my daughters to play with LEGO. Which is sort of funny, because I never did. I have no nostalgic memories of constructing houses, cars, or abstract reliefs with these most famous of building toys.

My husband on the other hand so cherished his childhood LEGO bricks that when his dog occasionally ate a few he would go out into the yard and dig them out of turds. Having something to bond over with dad is a great perk, but that's not really why I want my daughters to play with LEGO.

LEGO sets are expertly-designed with high quality materials. As a consumer I see purchasing LEGO as putting my money toward quality products and quality jobs, opposed to shoddy toys made under cheap and sometimes abusive labor conditions.

Most importantly to me as a parent, playing with LEGO exercises mathematical reasoning, fine motor skills, sorting, following directions, and imaginative visual planning. Also nice for parents, LEGO encourages children to engage in long periods of quiet concentration, and yet can be also easily adapted to working together in pairs or small groups on a project. In short, LEGO is friggin' awesome.

Any parent knows that you can't make a kid like a particular toy. They can't be tricked or manipulated, at least not in any long-term and deeply transformative way. Kids are who they are. They might act a certain way around their parents to please them or to avoid conflict, but that doesn't change how they really feel or what they are really interested in doing. So I'm basically stuck just hoping that my girls will like LEGO.

After the birth of our first daughter, my husband and I longingly eyed the beginner sets of LEGO for ages 4+ and waited for her to grow. Just as she was about to turn three a male peer of hers had already started playing with and often talking about his LEGO sets, so during the holidays, three months after her 3rd birthday, we went ahead and bought her the blue box starter set. At first when she unwrapped the gift she repeatedly squealed with joy, then jumped up to hug my husband, saying, "Thank you, daddy! Thank you so much!" I thought we were golden.

But in the coming weeks I noticed that she didn't really want to play much with the set. In fact, she only really played with it when her male friend came over and played with her.

There was hope, however. She told me that for her next LEGO set, "I want pink and purple LEGO." I swear she'd never seen the pink LEGO box set or any of the Lego sets marketed mainly at girls, and yet, she assumed such things were out there. So after she completed a math activity book that we'd been doing, we went out and bought the pink box set as a reward.

She was overjoyed. The set came with a white horse figure, which interested her more than anything else. My husband mixed his old Star Wars LEGO sets in with her sets, and she started building and role playing scenarios. (At some point she was convinced Chewbacca was a bad guy and had built him a jail.)

This week she finished a second math activity book, so it was off to an actual LEGO store to buy her another small reward. She was the only girl among several boys engaged with the brick stations set up for play. As my husband drooled over the Death Star and Millennium Falcon sets, I fluttered with excitement over the huge number of small, simple sets which I knew would appeal to my daughter's interests. A girl magician, a girl with a foal, and a girl's karate class, each under ten dollars. Most sets of interest were from the new LEGO Friends line, the result of a four year study aimed at making LEGO more appealing to girls. Although there was  also a bride and groom set and a princess with horse and carriage set from the traditional LEGO line that I thought might also catch her eye. I briefly scanned the larger, more expensive sets to consider for future birthday or holiday season gifts, and was thrilled to see a LEGO Friends veterinarian clinic, since my daughter loves to play doctor with her stuffed animals.

In the end my daughter choose two $5 sets from the LEGO Friends series: Turtle's Little Oasis and Cat's Playground. Both animal figures came with little removable pink and purple bows on their heads. My daughter put them both together as soon as she got home (while wearing a pink bow in her own hair, which got me to smile and take the above photograph.)

The new LEGO Friends products have been met with some controversy and criticism, as can be expected. The Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood even nominated a LEGO Friends set for a 2012 TOADY (Toys Oppressive And Destructive to Young Children.) Okay, that just pisses me off. They wrote:

How do you turn one of the all-time great toys into a TOADY contender? Give it a makeover! Introducing LEGO Friends, just for girls and so jam-packed with condescending stereotypes it would even make Barbie blush. Bye-bye square, androgynous figures; hello, curves ‘n  eyelashes! And at the LEGO Friends Butterfly Beauty Shop, your little princess won’t need to worry her pretty little head about icky boy things like building. Instead, she can “get primped and pretty and have some serious salon fun,” “shop for makeup and hair accessories,” or “gossip out on the bench by the scenic fountain.”

What the hell is wrong with curves and eyelashes? Human bodies have curves and eyelashes, so that is basically a complaint about the figures being more detailed and naturalistic. What else is LEGO supposed to do about girls being plainly turned off by the "square, androgynous figure?" What are these "condescending stereotypes"? The set is two figures in fairly generic female attire in a generic beauty salon. This is a harmful stereotype? Don't real women get their hair done in salons? Don't real women wear makeup? I fail to see the kind of disturbing hyper-sexualization of the figures as featured in Bratz dolls, so what is the problem? Finally, how is she getting "primped and pretty" instead of building? Doesn't she have to build the set before playing with it? Don't boys role play scenes with their LEGO sets? (Often scenes of violence, which is arguably worse than getting a makeover.) Also, can't the pieces from this set be used interchangeably with all LEGO bricks to build new and unique creations? (The answer is yes.)

It seems to me a bit like LEGO is damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they don't reach out specifically to girls, they are criticized for exclusion (which is rather dumb to begin with because lots of girls do like and play with Star Wars, ninja, zombi, etc LEGO sets too) but if they do, they are criticized for encouraging gender stereotypes. I'm not saying that there aren't horrible toys out there that really do reinforce harmful gender stereotypes (which can hurt both girls and boys.) But, people, this ain't one of them!

I enjoyed and agreed with most of KJ Dell'Antonia's response to this TOADY nomination.

In another column, KJ Dell'Antonia worries that LEGO Friends sets (and that many of the new sets marketed to boys) are too specific, and are less likely to encourage kids being creative with their designs. She and others fear the girls will just put together the set and then play with it as it is seemingly intended without any creative deviation. Dell'Antonia suggests parents pour out the box of LEGO we already have and "help her to dig in." I tried that with the first set for my kiddo, and unfortunately it didn't work. But I'm not worried. The the first thing my daughter did with her new LEGO Friends sets was to follow the directions from start to finish. However, the next day she partially dismantled both the oasis and playground and re-made them into new props for her role play games. Kids are just naturally creative.

My daughter's interest in playing with LEGO seems to be ignited by two things: cooperative LEGO play with peers (not parents) and pieces which include more appealing colors (shades of purple, pink, and peach) and cuter, more detailed figures. Frankly, I have to agree with her. I never understood the appeal of the iconic yellow Lego figures. They just seemed blockish and generic to me. Sorry traditional LEGO fans!

This blogger is one proud feminist, no make-up wearing, buzzed hairdo mom who is thrilled that my daughter will benefit from playing with LEGO bricks and figures, in no small part because LEGO made the effort to market to typical girls. Bravo.