Friends or Foes: LEGO and Play for Girls Part 3: It's All About Choice

This is the third part in a three part series of articles written to explore the current controversy brewing over the LEGO Friends line launched this year by The Lego Group.

So far in this examination of the LEGO Friends line, we have looked at the sets on their own, and also the history of how LEGO came to develop the line and the research behind the line.  In this final segment, we will look at LEGO's decisions surrounding marketing to girls and

LEGO For Girls

As mentioned  in the previous article, there was a time when LEGO marketed to girls using the classic "What it is is beautiful" campaign, clearly highlighting a young girl as an avid user of LEGO.

People have referred to that piece as a time where LEGO did not pander to girls as a niche market, and wax nostalgically as if this was a golden era for LEGO.  What these folks have failed to realize, however, is that even then LEGO was far from perfect, and that they have a long history of tapping in to sexist stereotypes to appeal to young girls.

The second article talked a lot about the shift to narratives as a part of LEGO's history, but what I have not yet addressed as a part of LEGO's history is its missteps.  Without going in to too much detail, there have been LEGO sets marketed to girls, depicting the same stereotypical examples for decades, starting with the LEGO Homemaker line in 1971, LEGO Scala from 1979, LEGO Town Paradisa from 1992, LEGO Belville in 1994, and LEGO Clikits in 2003.  Of all of these sets, only Homemaker and Paradisa came closest to being fully compatible with the rest of the LEGO line in terms of bricks and minifigures.

In no way does this defend LEGO's position - but it does show that LEGO is not new to the marketing to girls game, even if they had neglected it for much of the past decade and been relatively unsuccessful with their jewelry making Clikits line.  LEGO has been marketing to girls as a separate audience for over 40 years, using similar themes as to what is being addressed today in the LEGO Friends line - which comparatively, provides the most intricate and ambitiously designed sets in the field of 'LEGO for girls' yet.

Below I will compare the most complex sets (in terms of number of pieces) of each line of 'LEGO for girls' mentioned above.

Homemaker		Complete Children's Room Set Year of Release: 1972 # of Pieces: 259 Minifigures: 3
Scala		Big Family House Year of Release: 1997 # of Pieces: 265 Minifigures: 3
Town Paradisa		Rolling Acres Ranch Year of Release: 2008 # of Pieces: 357 Minifigures: 3
Belville		Sunshine House Year of Release: 2008 # of Pieces: 450 Minifigures: 3
Clikits		Holiday Decoration Kit Year of Release: 2008 # of Pieces: 283 Minifigures: 0
Friends		Olivia's House Year of Release: 2012 # of Pieces: 695 Minifigures: 3

The LEGO Friends line has the most complex building opportunities, with nearly 50% more pieces than it's closest rival, the Sunshine House from the Belville series, and more than double most other of the biggest sets in previous girl lines.  Even Heartlake Vet, the second largest set in the LEGO Friends line, has 343 pieces, which nearly ties it with the second runner up to Olivia's House, the Paradisa Rolling Acres Ranch.

LEGO's Depiction of Females

In this photo from the Pigtail Pals blog, LEGO Land's depiction of women is clearly less than flattering

Of course, this does not excuse LEGO's attempts at depicting girls in sexist ways.  Many female LEGO minifigs are depicted with thick red lips, exposed cleavage, and painted on curves.

Of course, by looking at the Paradisa sets, it can be seen that this is not always the case, and these Paradisa sets were contemporary with the 'native' themed character above (which presents its own anthropological/sociological issues as well).  The pirate lady above is more recent, but also launched just this year is the following 'Intergalactic Girl' character below.

She does have lipstick (albeit of a blue shade) and has some painted curves, but she appears to be largely different than the previous depictions of females in LEGO.  A glance at her description, as provided by LEGO.com, expands this concept further:

“No thanks needed. I’m just doing my part to make the spaceways safe!” 

The name of the Intergalactic Girl is cheered by life forms on every inhabited planet, moon, space station and asteroid in the cosmos. As an interstellar adventurer, she and her daring outer-space exploits are the stuff of legend throughout the known universe, and even a few of the unknown bits, too. 

With nothing but a quasar zapper, a pair of antigravity boots and a can-do attitude, the Intergalactic Girl has single-handedly saved solar systems from black holes, rescued civilizations from cosmic conquerors and captured entire fleets of Blacktron battle cruisers. She never has time to stay for the celebrations afterwards, though, because there’s always another space crisis waiting just around the next nebula!

Intergalactic Girl is not your stereotypical, sexist, female archetype.  She is a character young girls can look to for a powerful, independent, intelligent and capable role model.  Now, this isn't to say that one positive depiction negates all of the bad, but it is to say that LEGO does not always paint all women with the same brush, and does provide strong female characters for children to play with as well.

Conclusion

There are some who's frustration has moved beyond the depiction of females in LEGO, and are downright upset with the placement of the LEGO products within toy stores.  Some stores have placed the LEGO Friends toys in the 'girl's toys' sections, whereas others have placed them with the rest of the construction toys.  I can only speak from experience that at the Toys R Us and Wal-Marts I have been to, I have seen the products co-located in the construction toy area - although admittedly at the Wal-Mart, this section is surrounded by action figures, whereas the rest of the 'girl toys' are located several aisles away.  

At the outset of this article, I had intended to go further in to the marketing angles, including analysis of past lines of 'LEGO for girls' lines and the current commercial marketing tools put in place by LEGO, but really, they ultimately rehash arguments that I have explored earlier.  LEGO is a company that takes play very seriously, and has worked tirelessly for years to integrate fun experiences for both boys and girls.  Some research, including independent studies done by the LEGO Group, has shown that girls tend to have preferences to certain types of play, and LEGO wishes to tap in to this - as any good business should market their products.

LEGO Friends is a well-researched product that provides play opportunities designed to motivate girls to build and learn.  Is it directing girls towards narrative play that limits girls roles?  I would argue that no, based upon the evidence, it provides a great variety of play options that allow girls to participate in empowering roles and can also allow integration with traditional LEGO themes.  Is the LEGO Friends a breaking away from LEGO tradition, and a radical departure for the company's marketing strategy to girls as some would like to propose?  No, this has been happening for some 40 years, despite accusations that LEGO had previously been a gender neutral toy-designer and marketer.   And yes, LEGO has made many mistakes with arguably sexist depictions of women and girls in its lines over the years, but it has also provided strong female characters as well to help counter-balance this.

Most importantly, nobody at LEGO would suggest that LEGO Friends is the only LEGO for girls. It is true that all LEGO is for girls, and girls can still play with Harry Potter, Castle, Alien Conquest, or any other sets and fully integrate all pieces, figures, and accessories to build meaningful narratives and constructive play opportunities.  Just as boys and men can play with the LEGO Friends line - and I have no doubt that many male AFOL collectors will be out there scooping up piles of the LEGO Friends sets to get at the often hard to find pinks and purples.

It is easy to take a glance at the LEGO Friends line and proclaim it to be sexist.  In fact, that is my biggest beef with the LEGO Friends line- that in its cloying advertising model, and in some of the snippits of quotations provided by the LEGO Group when taken out of context, the whole line becomes a terrible mess that needs to be sorted out (as I have hoped to do!)

My final thought is that, while visiting my local LEGO Store, I saw two meaningful interactions of young girls with LEGO Friends.  One, a 4 or 5 year old girl with her face pressed to the glass display, clearly drawn in to the world that the themes provided, and another of an (I'd guess) 8 year old girl with several sets in hand, deciding which ones to keep, and putting one of the LEGO Friends sets back in favour of a Harry Potter one.  Not all kids will have the same tastes, and LEGO is all about providing options - and in this case, the option that LEGO Friends now provides wasn't there before, and now is, and kids can make their own choices regarding what to build.  It is an anecdote, but when it comes to these types of arguments, so many of the accusations made are anecdotal, and like a poorly designed LEGO structure, will collapse if not properly supported.