My husband recently opened his Sandcrawler box as a reward for finishing a big work project. Lego always do really nice booklets for their big packs, and this was no exception. Didn’t expect to see this in the booklet though:
Really, LEGO? I mean, really? :dubious:
Well…yeah. That’s how the toy biz works. Everything’s marketed at boys or girls, nominally. Some things - a lot of things - like Lego*, end up de facto unisex, but the vast majority of those are boy-aimed, according to the manufacturer’s marketing division.
I don’t forsee that changing any time soon.
Could it be a mistranslation?
Simple reverse psychology - tell girls and parents alike that a product is for boys only and they’ll be banging down the doors to get their share. 
Well, børn is Danish for children, dreng = boy, pige = girl, so a mistranslation seems unlikely.
It just seems to me that the words ‘for boys’ are completely unnecessary. Read it again, without those two words. Perfect.
And let’s face it, these collector sets are really not even for children, how many kids have USD300 to spend on LEGO?
How many women are likely to spend $300 on a Lego Death Star to build themselves? Almost none, I would suggest. IMHO Lego are just acknowledging their target market.
As someone mentioned, Lego make “Girly” playsets too. Not hearing any outrage over that, even though boys could play with that if they wanted to.
Perhaps it depends what circles you travel in, because I heard a LOT of outrage over Lego Friends.
Me, too. Hell, I was having some (minor, since I’m fairly resigned to toy marketing as it is, as I mentioned) outrage over it. (Not that I think the Friends line is bad in itself, but the way they segregate ‘these are for girls, these are for boys’, rather than simply ‘these are a different idea for a playstyle’, is annoying. Especially calling the minifigs dolls in that line. Sheesh…)
WTH?
I was seven years old when Star Wars came out, and a girl. I spent hours and hours and hours playing “Star Wars” with the other kids on the playground, both boys AND girls (and trust me, not all the girls were playing Princess Leia. Plenty of girl stormtroopers and bounty hunters and Jedi). I myself would love the Death Star Lego model to build myself, and I know there are plenty of other girls who would also love it.
A large part of why I work with technology today was because of Star Wars. I was instantly enthralled.
Mass media does not accurately represent the population as a whole. Girls do like sci-fi, fantasy, and all sorts of other things that the marketing people can’t seem to get their heads around.
And the truly idiotic part about it is that the whole thing is completely unnecessary. Change the words ‘for boys’ to ‘for kids’ or leave those two words off altogether and there you go. Why even go to the trouble of annoying any potential customer at all when there’s no good reason to do so? I’m mystified.
Sadly, if it’s not pink/purple packaging, it’s not “for girls.”
(The latest Star Wars film has one token woman, again, in the main cast. Oo, maybe she’ll be a princess.)
I love these parody threads. Girls playing with Legos What a hoot!
Lego, like a lot of toys, has saturated its market, and so has been putting out “boys” (the regular version) and girls (the pink, sparkly version), in order to get parents with children of both genders to spend more money. Lincoln Logs has a set with roof pieces that are pink instead of red.
In my experience, most girls don’t insist on having the girls version, and some don’t care, but *parents *care about stuff like this. Parents get offended when you use the wrong pronoun with their 3-week old baby, so they have the frilly headbands for the girls, and the little baseball uniform onsies for the boys.
I’m glad that I was a child in the 1970s, when people were interested in gender role-free toys, and there weren’t pastel versions of things for the girls. I hate pastel colors. And while I liked dolls, I liked trucks and building sets as well.
Kinda get your point, but it’s a big ‘meh’ to me.
Life must be pretty good if this moves your indignantly meter.
This may surprise you, but I’m actually able to feel indignant on a number of items, to differing degrees, all at the same time.
It would be unethical to refuse to sell Lego sets to girls. But this? It’s just marketing. I don’t think it’s unethical to *target *a toy at a specific gender.
If you disagree, you should vote with your wallet and buy something else.
Obviously there are gender biases between toys e.g. barbies vs GI Joes but I think the outrage comes in that LEGO is choosing to institutionalize that bias with their wording.
That is apparent.
I think any complaints of any sort in Cafe Society automatically hit that weak standard. Including yours. 
Having a target market in mind is just standard procedure.
Specifying that the product is specifically for that market and thus excluding other potential customers is not.
Before you and/or anybody else say “well, they didn’t say that girls couldn’t play with it” – Come on now. Does this really have to be explained to you?
Lego make a mistake here. I hope they acknowledge it and that they work on changing the thinking that led to it.
So true. Well, I see girls insist on girly stuff all the time, but I wonder how much that is perpetuated/enabled by the parents. You don’t have to give in to your preschooler all the time.
It blows my mind that we’re back to an age where we’re telling little girls at the playground to keep their knees down and their legs together so people don’t see their underpants. Wear a dress if you want, kid, but put on some bike shorts underneath or something. Sheesh.
