LEGO Isn't Sexist, You Are

On a recent flight, your erstwhile intrepid author picked up the December 19th Bloomberg magazine, cover story LEGO's Billion Dollar Girl.  Alas, the wider world apparently did not read the article, judging by the responses on LEGO forums & blogs, and the "mainstream" medias.

If they had, perhaps they wouldn't be making petitions and boycotts and other overly dramatic gestures.  (Overly dramatic:  I'd expect such from the girls and gay boys the products are marketed to, not responsible adults.)

Let's look at an interview with one petition's co-sponsor, unemployed person freelance writer Bailey Shoemaker Richards (would that we all had such suitably artsy three-part names)

Well, I think part of the problem with Lego's marketing is that it's very market research based. I mean, they've looked at what is going to sell to girls, so when you market pink princesses and beauty to girls from the time they're infants, by the time they're in Lego's target market for this line, which is about five and up, they're going to associate pink, pretty, you know, this very specific gender role with what they think they're supposed to be playing with. It's all they've been marketed their entire lives, so of course, that's what Lego's marketing research is going to find.

Eloquently put, Bailey Shoemaker Richards!  "Their marketing is very market-based."

LEGO did extensive market research (source: bloomberg article) in creating the line, which resulted in a product that is "girly."  Apparently, LEGO was supposed to, upon determining what sells, design something more "progressive" and glare at girls until they realize the errors of their pink-loving ways.  "You just like that because you are brainwashed!  You—7 year old—stop liking what you do, and like this other thing because I have an ax to grind!  I have opinions and don't have children of my own to force them upon!"

The problem that we have with that is that it doesn't really mesh with Lego's core values in their mission statement about wanting to create innovative products that help kids develop creativity. I mean, this fails that on all counts.

LEGO is a product that can develop creative ability in children.  Before, girls weren't playing with LEGO at all.  This product will attract more girls.  This could mean more girls develop creatively.  This is a failure on all counts.  Oh.

Other Minor Rants:
1.  Don't let 4 year olds watch TV!  If your argument is that girls only like pink because of marketing, don't expose them to marketing.  Hell, don't even discuss gender.
2.  Young girls and boys aren't the same, and it's foolish to demand identical toys.  There is a mountain of research demonstrating the differences between the way girls learn and develop and the way boys learn and develop.  It stands to reason that different toys would appeal to one gender more than another.  Whether this translates to Blue Truck/Pink Flower is beyond our purview, but the drive for hyper-equality is fundamentally misguided.