Sad that legos were/are traditionally thought of as boy toys and a generation of women grew up without them. It's basically what happened with computers too. Many of the most important early computer pioneers were women
That's just bullshit, a narrative feminists peddled by posting selective pictures and ads of LEGO sets.
They even complain about modern "girl's Lego", instead of being happy that it brings girls to using Lego.
It also doesn't make sense to complain about a Lego car as enforcing gender stereotypes. Don't they want girls to build cars? It is so illogical. They claim girls are not interested in engineering (cars), because of Lego not catering to girls, and at the same time claim Lego cars don't appeal to girls.
As if company bosses would shun earning billions by refusing to market to girls, just to enforce gender stereotypes. Companies want to make money. That's it. The new "themed" sets apparently sell better than the "random box of colored bricks" from the past.
> The new "themed" sets apparently sell better than the "random box of colored bricks" from the past.
In the 1990s, almost no sets were "random boxes of colored bricks" and they were all themed, but the themes weren't the commercialized junk they are today. You had Castle, Pirates and Space without any references to movie characters and the structures were rather harmonic without too many special or overly-sized parts. The minifigs had serious faces and were not cartoonish. A child would be able to invent its own story and get creative with those themes, rather than using the toy to play when it's not watching the movie.
Apparently the "commercialized junk" sells better, though. Lego was close to going bankrupt in the 90ies.
Apart from the price, I personally can't really complain about the modern Lego sets, either. They are nice puzzles, and my kids like to play with them. After a while they fall apart, and new things can be built.
I don't think Lego wants to pay for expensive Hollywood brands. They always try to establish their own brands, too, like Ninjago, Lego Movie, Nexo Knights. Often it seems the Hollywood stuff simply sells better.
Lego was actually flourishing in the early 90s particularly with Castle and Pirates. Each year brought new sub-themes and factions, and newer sets coexisted nicely with older ones. It started to go downhill with the advent of PC and PlayStation gaming in the late 90s. Kids suddenly had their attention elsewhere. Lego then changed the formula to launching short-lived flashy themes with spiced-up minifigs and unusual parts, and the old spirit of calm playfulness was largely gone.
> The new "themed" sets apparently sell better than the "random box of colored bricks" from the past.
That's at least partly because Lego won't sell you coloured bricks unless you buy a certain number of their sets anymore. (source: my step-mother who owned a toy-store).
It's not bullshit. In the 1970s, Lego marketed equally to all kids, but towards the 1990s, they were marketing increasingly towards boys and not girls. You can also see it in the selection of minifigs: originally they were fairly unisex, but as they became more gendered, female ones turned out to be quite rare.
When called on it, instead of making their general line more unisex again, Lego tried introducing lines specifically aimed at girls, with little success until the Friends line.
They're also now introducing more female minifigs in their main lines, which is great.
The minifigs are themselves an interesting departure from the figs that preceded them. The figs were simply too large, they stood about twice as tall as a minifig. But there were all the elements of a family in there, including grandmothers and babies. The first time a female minifig was made came a long time after the first male minifig.
If they did so, then presumably because they had more success with boys. The "Friends" line example seems to show that marketing it to girls successfully wasn't trivial.
Of all toy companies Lego is probably the last one to be criticized like that. Lego has famously worked against that impression for decades, e.g. [0] from the 70s and [1] from the 80s.
That's just cherry picking, or a set up. Girl "now" could just as easily have built any other number of sets.
Gender specific - well the market to both boys and girls. What else should they do? Try to sell "friends" to boys and "warrior robots" (or whatever) to girls, just to please the feminists?
I don't think they would mind girls buying the warrior stuff and boys buying the friends or elves stuff. More sales for them.
They even complain about modern "girl's Lego", instead of being happy that it brings girls to using Lego.
It also doesn't make sense to complain about a Lego car as enforcing gender stereotypes. Don't they want girls to build cars? It is so illogical. They claim girls are not interested in engineering (cars), because of Lego not catering to girls, and at the same time claim Lego cars don't appeal to girls.
As if company bosses would shun earning billions by refusing to market to girls, just to enforce gender stereotypes. Companies want to make money. That's it. The new "themed" sets apparently sell better than the "random box of colored bricks" from the past.