Subject:
|
Re: Building equality one female minifig at a time.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.dear-lego
|
Date:
|
Sun, 1 Jul 2007 19:58:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
12417 times
|
| |
|
|
Great points Janey, and nice to see some interesting and friendly debate here on
Lugnet.
I think there are two related issues here:
One is whether LEGO, as a company (and quite frankly a cultural institution in
certain parts of the world), has a social responsibility to go ahead as some
sort of progressive gender equality pioneer to present children (and let's
remember, boys as well as girls) with positive images of women's roles in
society.
The other is the assumption girls are missing out on the fun, and LEGO should do
them the favor of putting out products that are more likely to bring them into
the weird and wonderful world of ABS that we all love.
LEGO has tried with various lines to attract young female builders, and though I
understand that this has been more successful in Europe, the fact remains that
LEGO is still primarily regarded as a constructive toy with action-oriented
subthemes. Attempts to attract girls are quite simply risky business ventures.
If TLG have a choice between launching a new (or revived) line involving robots,
or space exploration, or dinosaurs, or knights and dragons; or to try out
something "pink and peaceful," which do you think is a more attractive business
move?
LEGO has just gone through some very big changes, has had to reassess its
direction, and it seems that there is a promising future ahead for the company.
The transition has resulted in some great sets, and increased interaction
between company and consumers, which is awesome; but it has also resulted in a
great many people being laid off. And I fully believe that these decisions have
been painful to make, and that the company doesn't want to put itself it a
situation where it may have to downsize even further.
I simply don't think it is fair or realistic to expect a corporation that is
working its way out of a bad few years to sacrifice what seems to make sense
financially for them, for the sake of pursuing a gender equality agenda. I mean,
isn't that for parents and educators to take care of? LEGO's self righteous
claim to promoting contructive and peaceful toys has grown increasingly tenuous
ever since the Black Falcons and Crusaders first crossed swords over 20 years
ago. And to be fair, LEGO has made no sceret of this themselves: while I don't
expect (or want) an "Iraq War theme" any time soon, the company has
de-emphasized its non-violence stance because it realizes that excludes a lot of
awesome potential LEGO sets, and that it simply can't compete in the toy market
without guns and explosions on some level.
The only reason why LEGO should be expected to present women more prominently in
sets is if they think they can actually bring in more girls to the hobby in that
way, and thus make more money. And wouldn't we all love that? But I think it
will take A LOT more than increasing the number of minifigettes in the LEGO
universe. That's certainly a fine start, but where do you go from there?
I would love to see the company branch out from the usual police/
firefighters/construction/ambulance mode within the Town/City line. How about a
farm set, a playground set, a school set, or a schoolbus set? Or how about a
rock band/rap group set, or an amusement park subtheme? Well, it seems that
these things have been considered, and there is in fact market research that
indicates these sets wouldn't sell as well as police cars and firetrucks. Which
is too bad. I'd love to see more historically accurate, civilian type medieval
sets in the Castle Line, but it seems these sets simply don't sell as well as
catapults and jousts and castles.
I have no idea what girls are interested in these days before they decide they
want to become grown up and listen to boy bands. As a builder and a buyer, I'd
love to see more female figs in sets and a greater variety of set types, but
it's important to remember just how much the company and the product have
improved over the past few years. If LEGO can't seem to sell their product to
girls, I don't think that is only LEGO's fault. It isn't as if they haven't
tried a bunch of times already. Maybe girls simply aren't interested.
To summarize, I think we have to remember that LEGO has tried to attract girls
to the product in the past, and this has proven to be difficult and something of
a business risk. LEGO is a toy company that employs lots of people who all have
a stake in the sucess of the business. It seems to be putting out much better
sets now than a few years ago, and also doing better financially. I don't think
it is realistic to expect a company in that situation to try out out some risky
business venture in the name of social progressiveness.
I hope and assume that LEGO's quest for products that will appeal to girls will
continue, but it will have to involve a lot more than just "one female minifig
at a time". Perhaps the new mosaics, and Creator sets that focus on creativity,
rather than specific action based story-oriented play will be interesting for
some girls?
Magnus
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Building equality one female minifig at a time.
|
| Building equality one female minifig at a time. (My apologies in advance for those of you that have already heard this rant.) Dear Lego, I have always been impressed with TLC's ability to provide quality products as well as sustaining valuable input (...) (17 years ago, 27-Jun-07, to lugnet.dear-lego) !!
|
43 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
