Share This
I never thought I’d see the day that any topic became more volatile than circumcision — but it’s finally happened. Welcome to the War on Gender. Like any other hot topic, there are parts I agree with and parts I don’t. Then there are aspects I find absolutely ridiculous.
LEGO Debate: How Dare you Make One Just for Girls
This December, LEGO released a female targeted play set called LEGO Friends; a virtual world where you can own a Veterinary Hospital, live in a tree house or even run a coffee shop. Now there is a petition started against it. The petition, originated by a pair of 22-year-old activists for girls (Bailey Shoemaker Richards and Stephanie Cole) have launched “Tell LEGO to stop selling out girls! #LiberateLEGOs” under the heading of “Women’s Rights Petition”.
They claim the horrid infraction that LEGO committed is creating the toy “[…] so 5 year-olds can imagine themselves at the café, lounging at the pool with drinks, brushing their hair in front of a vanity mirror, singing in a club, or shopping with their girlfriends.”
OH MY GOD! ….wait….. most women I know do exactly that when given the chance to relax. Cafe? check. Pool lounging? Check. Brush your hair in the morning in front of your mirror? I sure hope so. Singing in a club? Nah, I don’t know many famous gals. Shopping with friends? Duh…all the time.
I kept reading to see if they were just holding back on the really bad stuff this toy implies. Oh, that’s it?
Why are those things a matter of ‘women’s rights’? I keep asking myself that question. This toys doesn’t have the characters cooking barefoot in the kitchen or running a daycare. The play sets represent very natural things that girls (and boys) like to do. Several of the sets are women running businesses. I know political correctness changes daily, but I’m pretty sure women owning companies is still a good thing.
This fuss is being further fueled by the re-circulation of a retro LEGO ad that shows a girl holding traditional LEGOs. Ok. All that says is that LEGO should make a few more commercials or print ads showing girls playing as much as boys. THAT should be the argument. Not targeting one specific toy just because it has pink and purple on it (“Barbielicious“). Ok..so is the problem the colors..or..the toy itself…or the activities the toy represents…or the lack of girl commercials..or…. what was the question again?
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, I could understand the problem. Here’s the easy solution:
If you are a girl… and you like traditional LEGOs……. then buy traditional LEGOs.
If you are a girl…and you like pink girly things….then buy the pink, girly LEGOs.
(You’re allowed to do that, by the way)
In fact… what about the girls who DO like “Barbielicious” toys? So they are suppose to just glare at the traditional LEGO sets and wish they had something they actually liked?
Or are we saying a girl doesn’t have the right to like pink?
Certainly seems that way. “Oh those poor, misguided little girls who do dream of being a movie star and love to wear purple – you aren’t REAL unless you are gender neutral!” Congratulations, you just made hundreds of thousands of little girls think there is something wrong with them just because they honestly like pastel colors. Reverse discrimination at it’s finest.
I could understand the anger if this was an issue where a girl-centric item or service was created INSTEAD of allowing them participation in the traditional version — prime example: baseball vs softball. But we’re talking about a toy line that makes ALL options available to anyone at any time. You have a choice.
- LEGO has marketed over 4,700 different LEGO block sets.
- Only ONE of those sets is specifically marketed ‘for girls’.
And suddenly they are putting women’s rights in jeopardy?
Oh. Come. On.
