| |
In lugnet.dear-lego, Jeff Thompson writes:
> In lugnet.dear-lego, Matthew Miller writes:
> > It brings up a thorny question of cultural relativism. Do we just shrug and
> > say hey, difference of culture, or is it okay to say, no, that's not right,
> > no matter what culture you're in there are some basic principles of human
> > equality which should be treated as universal standards?
> >
> > I understand the value of respecting other cultures. And I further
> > understand the pragmatic need to at least understand and work within the
> > existing cultural framework. But it seems like corporate attitudes like the
> > one expressed here are bad no matter where you are.
> >
> > I'm not saying this to be part of some sort of PC thought police -- I
> > certainly don't think it should be illegal for Lego to market things this
> > way. But I think that a company which seems so concerned with the positive
> > development of children should put more consideration into these issues.
> >
> >
> > Maybe this is getting off topic...
>
> LEGO has two obligations - one, to themselves, to make money,
> and the second (I'd like to imagine) to make toys that help children
> grow.
>
> You can't make people buy toys that they don't want. LEGO may have
> accurately defined the girl's toy market, even if that market may
> not be what we would ideally want it to be.
>
> But here's what I would suggest. (I argued for this a long time
> ago on r.t.l, and when I saw the Belville castle sets, I felt such
> a sense of deja vu that I wondered if perhaps my ideas had
> been read by LEGO ..... I know, vanity.)
>
> I personally would prefer for LEGO to extend what they've done for
> Belville, to the Castle line -- just not so pink. Girls like
> castles and fairy tale stuff. Make pegasii, unicorns, witches,
> princesses, queens, princes, kings, etc. Just make the sets gender
> neutral - you don't need transparent pink castles. Fairy tale
> things are the sort of sets that would appeal to both
> boys and girls.
>
> You could split the line into two categories, one more dedicated
> to the romance of castle (with unicorns, princesses,
> queens, etc) and one more dedicated to war, if you had to.
>
> Oddly enough, that's what LEGO has already done with the 2000
> castle sets, dividing the line into the warlike faction and the
> romantic knights faction. But they could do so further without
> cheeseballing it up so much that a little boy wouldn't want to
> play with it.
>
> The castle line is the single line that is most likely to appeal
> to both genders, since everyone grows up hearing fairy tales.
> I don't care if LEGO wants to compete with Barbie directly, but
> I think they're missing the boat by not doing more to make the castle
> sets appeal to both sexes. Castles aren't just about hypermasculine
> angry scowling robbers armed with rubber-tipped missiles (sheesh).
Check out www.bestlock.com (?)
Erin
--
> --
>
> jthompson@esker.com "float on a river, forever and ever, Emily"
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
28 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
