The Beauty of Sexism

We've held off on commenting about the new Lego Friends range since Neil brought this article to our attention last month. Fair enough, there may well be differences in the way boys and girls tend to play, and a range of toys that focusses on a 'competitive' playstyle popular amongst boys may well be more gender-inclusive if it expands to include a 'role play' playstyles supposedly more popular amongst girls.

But, hold on a minute. There's every reason to believe that a load more accessories for minifigs would be popular amongst boys as well. The video game industry has an established practice of enabling players to customise the appearance of their characters (and has found it can tap them for more profits by charging for accessories), and that's hardly an industry regarded to be a typically 'girly' pursuit. We can't imagine little boys being put off by a load more faces, hairstyles and so on with which to customise their minifigs to identify with them more.

Now, is the new range representing a significant break from past attempts to make 'Lego for girls' that were perceived as patronising and sexist?

Well, the sets themselves feature an entirely female ensemble of minifigs, excepting the unidentified suited man in Olivia's house (does the suit signify him as a breadwinner?). So, any hope that this would be a range that would endeavour to be accessible across genders is stumped. These are sets for girls. If your boy wants to play with a Lego vet, or cafe, or tree house, you've got to get a set marketed to suggest to him and his peers that it's for girls.

Perhaps more males will join the ensemble. Unless Heartlake exists in a Y: The Last Man kind of context, where all the men bar one have mysteriously died. In which case, what's the purpose of the Butterfly Beauty Shop? For whom are its customers dolling up? Perhaps its clients are lesbians? Maybe 'butterfly' is a transgender signifier, and some of the Lego Friends are transsexual? It's nice to see toys challenge heteronormativity, but this seems an obscure way to do it.

To be fair, the inclusion of a science lab and a design workshop (and of course the vet) means the range can claim to be encouraging graduate career aspiration - though the former two being small minisets makes it easy to accuse this of being a token effort, and under-exposure could make 'this is unpopular with girls' a self-fulling prophecy. Pink and lilac are everywhere, though in many sets are used as spot colours rather than being applied to every surface.

The basic problem we have with this range is that you can't fight sexism with sexism. Give Heartlake a gender balance, with male and female firefighters, doctors, roadworkers, service staff, teachers, scientists, breadwinners, domestic partners and equal partners, and then it might be more credible as a way of breaking gender barriers. As it is, it smacks of pandering to stereotypes to tap a demographic for profits.

Excellent link on educating children in gender variance, highly recommended reading

'Gender is not a subject that I would have broached in primary grades a few years ago. In fact, I remember scoffing with colleagues when we heard about a young kindergarten teacher who taught gender-related curriculum. We thought her lessons were a waste of instructional time and laughed at her “girl and boy” lessons.

My own thoughts about gender curriculum shifted when I became a mother. As I shopped for infant clothes for my first daughter, I was disgusted that almost everything was pink and there was no mistaking the boys’ section of the store from the girls’. I refused to make my baby daughter fit in the box that society had created for her. “What if she doesn’t like pink?” I thought. “What if she likes tigers and dinosaurs?”

As my two daughters grew, I talked with them about gender stereotypes. I let them choose “boys’” clothes if they wanted to (and often encouraged them because they are more practical). The first week of kindergarten, my younger daughter’s teacher told me that she had a heated argument with a boy while they played dress up. “She insisted that boys can wear dresses if they want to,” the teacher told me. I beamed with pride.'

Full article here.

The Sexist Department Store Experience

Beales dept store are at it, here. Apparently tigers are for girls, and the Bambi-with-pink-hair-dye Pokémon, Deerling, is for boys.

Don't ask us, we're just reporting.

Walk of Shame for sexist Harvey Nicks

The festive season has seen the big retailers fire all barrels in their marketing department, with some of them opening the sexist door. Here's an example, submitted by Natasha:

Natasha remarks that the advert's message is "degrading to women everywhere... shows women in a bad light, if you're poor and can't afford an expensive outfit, not good looking, overweight etc... then you are not worth a second look."

Roll back gender roles

ASDA in Mansfield. Toy Story stuff is for masculine male manly boys only - including a unicorn named Buttercup ('Butch' to friends)

Sexism Made Fabulous

Facing shelves in Debenhams UK.

Just out of shot on the end of the girls shelves is a Gruffalo. We're not sure what qualifies him as a poor choice of toy for a little boy. Maybe he's there to balance the Disney Princesses that seem to have infiltrated the boys-only Lego Police?

I find your sexist merchandising disturbing.

Taken in Tesco UK. Lego selection had a number of sets containing a female character, yet the display seems designed to discourage girls from having a look.