| |
In lugnet.general, John Neal writes:
>
>
> Eric Kingsley wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > IMHO think that if Town were unjuniorized it
> > would have a good chance of building a large following with older girls.
>
> <snip>
>
> I know I'll prolly get lit up good for this, but here goes. Generally
> speaking, I don't see LEGO as being a toy sought out by girls. Now before you
> ignite the torches, let me explain.
Well I am not going to light you up at all because I agree with most of what
you say. I actually think that other than a few slight differences our views
on this subject are very similar.
I agree that LEGO is not sought out by girls. I really think we have to ask
ourselves why that is and how to correct it. LEGO is the "Toy of the Century"
so why can't girls just as actively seek it out as boys? I think it all goes
back to a lot of sterio types that unfortunately still persist today. Boy's
are encouraged more often then girls to be creative and to do problem solving.
Girls are encouraged more to play with dolls and deal with dimestic things
like cooking, cleaning, and entertaining.
I think these steriotypes have begun to change but they have not changed as
much as some people would like to think. Some of this is the fault of the
parent in that they do not encorage problem solving in Girls but some of the
fault (at least in terms of LEGO) is linked to marketing. I think that if
Girls saw other girls playing with LEGO on TV and building things that girls
would be interested in then girls would actively seek out LEGO.
>
> First, take an empirical look around lugnet and rtl. What you find is about
> (I'm guessing, of course) 99.x% males. I'm not sure exactly what that means,
> but it means something. LEGO attracts guys. Now I'm NOT saying that it
> doesn't attract females as well, just not nearly as much. I would be very
> interested to hear from AFOLers such as Tamy, Julie KrenZILLA, and Jody, Suz,
> etc. as to how they got into LEGO. My little hypothesis is that they were
> mentored into LEGO. That is, a parent or an adult actively initiated and
> encouraged the child to play with LEGO. And, of course, being the perfect toy
> for boy or girl, the child was hooked.
> That is at least how *my* daughter got into LEGO. I don't think that she
> would have sought it out on her own.
I agree with all of this and you and any parent with girls should be
congradulated for initiating them into LEGO. If LEGO is such a great toy for
learning then Boy's and Girl's should be encouraged to play with it.
>
> I hope you all don't think I'm being sexist here because that isn't my intent
> (although I *do* believe that boys and girls are not "equal", ie the same, but
> are very different by natures).
I don't think you are being sexist at all. Unfortuantly the world is not equal
and never will be. There are diferances in boys and girls but that does not
mean that LEGO cannot satisfy both their needs under a common theme.
>
> My point is this: the themes of the LEGO sets are prohibitive to capturing
> the interest of girls. Girls don't respond to conflict and aggression, which
> is basically inherent in every theme. Even town, the tamest of the themes,
> experiences robberies and accidents and emergencies with astounding
> regularity.
I agree totally and I for one wish there were less confict inherent in each
theme but unfortunately we live in a world full of conflict and that is what we
are spoon fed by TV every day. My whole point here is that the addition of a
new sub-theme to town like "Main Street" or "At Home" would appeal to girls if
they dealt with more non-conflict oriented issues.
>
> That is why I think Belville, Paradisa, and Scala appeal to girls. No
> conflict, just fun in the sun, going to the beach, riding your horse and just
> hanging out.
Thats all true but why can't that be the theme for a town sub-theme?
> As for the colors, well, there is scientific evidence (although I know not
> where) that pastel colors have a soothing effect upon people. It fits in well
> with that theme.
That may be true but I still don't like the fact that many companies think toys
(or at least packageing) has to be pink for a girl to like it.
>
> Belville and Scala notwithstanding, if TLC wants to get girls interested in
> LEGO, they are going to have to convince their (the girls', not TLC's;)
> parents to buy it for them and encourage them to play with it, because,
> although action and conflict themes with naturally attract boys, it won't
> girls, IMHO.
I agree and it all goes back to what I said earlier about marketing to girls
using girls playing with LEGO in a way that girls would be interested in
playing with LEGO.
>
> -John <donning flame suit>
No flames hear I don't think a thing you said was wrong or out of place. I
personally think that this is a very good discussion and who knows maybe
someone at LEGO is reading it and at least thinking about the issue of getting
girls more involved with LEGO.
Eric Kingsley
The New England LEGO Users Group
http://www.nelug.org/
View My Creations at:
http://www.nelug.org/members/kingsley/
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Introducing LEGO Direct
|
| (...) I guess part of my point is that not only are the Lego Company's current efforts not a part of the solution, they are ACTIVELY a part of the problem. Their "for girls" line is their least problem-solving/building oriented, and conversely, (...) (25 years ago, 13-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Introducing LEGO Direct
|
| Eric Kingsley wrote: <snip> (...) <snip> I know I'll prolly get lit up good for this, but here goes. Generally speaking, I don't see LEGO as being a toy sought out by girls. Now before you ignite the torches, let me explain. First, take an (...) (25 years ago, 13-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
207 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
