2011-12-27
post/14883876366
2011-12-19
post/14470875502
In Defence Of: Lego Friends (and Creator)
Last week, the internet sat up and took notice of Bloomberg Businessweek’s cover story about the launch of Lego Friends, its new “for girls” line. There was much wailing of gnashing of teeth on Twitter, with a common and much-retweeted line being “Lego is launching a product line for girls. Someone should tell them that they already have one; its called Lego.”
Well, yes and no. As the article points out, much of Lego’s growth since its nadir in the early 2000s has been on the back of boy-oriented franchises: the biggest is Star Wars, but also Bionicle (fighting robots), Ninjago (fighting ninjas) and so on. Of course, culture isn’t as good at noticing when a line is aimed at males, since they’re the default market, so nobody’s really saying anything, but it is a change since the Lego of the 1980s.
Compare Lego Town circa 1981, with a “house with garden” and minifigs gendered merely by hairstyle (all the faces were the same smiling face) with City in 2011, dominated by fire, police and aeroplanes. (There is at least the City Corner set, with a female pizza chef, and it’s gratifyingly sold out at the moment.) Is it any wonder parents say things like “The last time I was in a Lego store, there was this little pink ghetto over in one corner”?
(Speaking of pink, Lego’s had that colour in its palette since at least the early 1990s, although it is somewhat rare. Lego Friends “introduces six new Lego colors—including Easter-egg-like shades of azure and lavender”, but pink was already there, including an entire pink brick box.)
Meanwhile, I’ve also seen people reacting against the idea that Lego Friends have backstories printed on the boxes, as if it’s assuming a lack of imagination on the part of girls. Well, perhaps, but if you’re playing with Star Wars, Harry Potter, or DC Superheroes sets, aren’t you also tapping into someone else’s narratives and creations?
Reading the article, it’s clear this isn’t something Lego rushed headlong into. They’ve talked to their potential customers, attempted to understand them, and dealt with their own core beliefs (including the previously-near-sacred minifig) to create something to sell - which, for better or worse, is what as a company they have to do. If we’re going to place blame somewhere, perhaps it should it be the external society?
Oh, and one last thing. If you really hate the idea of Lego Friends, why not ignore it and instead buy Lego Creator sets? Apple Tree House looks particularly good, and there’s not much gendered about it at all.
2011-05-06
post/5246279762
Physics and compsci are almost level. Interestingly (to me, anyway) astronomy/astrophysics is a bit further towards a 50/50 split. (via Gender Composition of Academic Disciplines: PhDs in 2009 at Sociological Images)
2011-04-10
post/4505411670
Franklin Roosevelt, 1884, from a slideshow accompanying an article asking When Did Girls Start Wearing Pink? in the Smithsonian Magazine.
2010-05-07
post/578503193
2009-11-03
People on Flickr, gender and politics
It’s now a couple of weeks since Flickr launched their People in Photos feature, which allows users to add people to photos. Of course, you’ve always been able to add unstructured metadata to do this, but now it’s both easier (there’s a trademark slick UI) and structured (the person’s photos are linked to their account and visible in their profile).
Unlike Facebook (which, perhaps unsurprisingly, the feature has drawn comparison with), you’re able to opt out of the feature entirely, meaning that previously tagged photos of you are no longer so marked, and that you can’t be added to new photos. The point of this post is that, of the people who I know have done this, all of them are women.
I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised. A woman’s appearance, and the depictions of it, still carries far more importance in society than the way a man looks. If you doubt that, just take a look at Tanya Gold’s opinion piece on Liz Truss:
Why do we tolerate and even encourage the physical objectification of female politicians? Does anyone know or care about Truss’s politics or what she has to offer? Has it oozed out into the popular consciousness yet? Will it ever? We know that she owns a gold satin jacket, and that she once slept with Mark Field MP. Gold. Jacket. Nice.
There is no one enemy in this; it is a national sickness. This, from a (female) columnist in yesterday’s Daily Telegraph: “She [Liz Truss] is OK-looking, if a bit dodgy in terms of dress sense.” Well, thank you for that. Award yourself an over-reaching-insight-of-the-week gong; then explain to your daughters why politics is dangerous for women. “Naughty Tory Candidate,” said the Sunday Times, as if possessed by the spirit of Readers’ Wives.
(Just don’t read the comments.)
I don’t really have a conclusion here (it’s always the hardest thing for me to write), except perhaps to congratulate Flickr for the opt-out option while wishing people didn’t feel the pressure to use it.
