Even I agree with you on this one. Some of the comments are equally frustrating:jackssmirkingrevenge wrote: Whine whine whine... money talks, if "gender neutral" toys would sell then a profit making organisation would be more than happy to make them, but it turns out that girls and boys are different!
Saying 'lego is for boys' is not misogynistic, even if you're an adult and not a child saying it. While I disagree with the view that lego is only for boys, it's not that far removed from saying 'barbie dolls are for girls' (obviously not misandry).As a 1993-born girl, I played with Lego bricks all throughout my childhood and at the age of 6, it encouraged me to become an architect, which I am now studying in college. I didn't know Lego started marketing movie-based sets in the 2000s and some time ago, my 8-year old nephew refused to let me play with him when I asked because "Lego is for boys" (his words, not mine) which got me furious. It's absurd that in his 8 years of life, he learned misogyny and that's what's wrong with society today.
As to the video, I understand that some women/girls don't like it when their toys and products are so heavily influenced by gender stereotypes (for example: barbie dolls and some of the girl's lego in that video), but I don't see why lego made for guys has to also be pushed away from the testosterone-fuelled, gun-happy, 'violent' sets that we all loved as kids. In our minds as 8 year olds, when exploring a distant planet with a hyperdrive-capable space exploring rocketship, you're going to want big ion blasters on the ship's exterior and a few smaller ones for exploring the alien inhabited surface. It's just common sense
I think arguments like hers are the biggest detriment to their cause. I agree that lego could make more gender-neutral sets that don't have fake plastic toy guns (though I'm sure lego already does this, perhaps just not the ones featured in TV ads frequently) in response to making less barbie-esque sets that look like something you'd find on MTV or E! channel, but that doesn't mean the incredibly gender-stereotyped sets made for boys should also change. Us guys like those, we don't want them to change. You can have your change but we'll keep our ones the way they are.
I didn't actually watch the whole thing (how could anyone) so did she have a legitimate argument for getting rid of the sets stereotyped for boys except for maybe raising the flawed argument about violence? Or is it because the girls want to get rid of their gender-stereotyped sets, boys have to also to make things 'equal'?
I have a feeling this round of discussion about feminism wont be nearly as long as the previous