Support NeoGAF

[tkscz]

Though there are obvious societal influences that lead to less women playing with Legos, one of the main points Sarkeesian makes in all of her videos is that media influences societal norms and the perception of gender roles. Do you think Lego is above criticism because they possibly polled some parents and asked them what their girls would like? Do you think it's just unfair to point out that in Lego's attempt to reach out to girls, they deliver a product that is wholly un-Lego, and consists of tiny Barbies doing things like house making, going to salons, and baking? Do you think that by releasing a product like the Lego Friends set, or Scala, or Paradisa, or Clickits, they don't contribute to society's perception of gender roles? Do you believe they don't send a clear message about "this is what girls do, this is what boys do"?

Do you believe that Lego shouldn't improve how it markets to girls? Do you believe that Sarkeesian's suggestion that Lego once again emphasize the gender neutral aspects of Lego like creativity, imagination, and cooperation, is unreasonable? Unfair? Sexist?

One thing I find baffling about this debate is the extent some people will go to defend a goddamn company. There's no real interest in how damaging gender stereotypes could be, or concern in helping girls once again enjoy the benefits of Lego. No, come to the rescue of the Lego Group. This billion-dollar company has been criticized and told that their product could be improved. This can not stand!

No, I believe that Anita can't write to save her life. My point is that her video had no depth. It was one dimensional and a speech shouldn't be that way if it is to be taken seriously. I've said it before, she leaves things out and does terrible research. She shouldn't just blame Lego. Lego is a company, not the media. Their commercial wouldn't be so segregated if parents would say, tell Lego they would love for their girl to play with Lego.

One thing I find baffling are people who don't read carefully. I didn't defend Lego, I just pointed out others who are just as much at fault as Lego. They told Lego what they wanted, Lego delivered. Could Lego make a commercial showing a boy and girl working together? Yes, in fact I think they should. But is that where the money lies? Sadly, no.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

No, I believe that Anita can't write to save her life. My point is that her video had no depth. It was one dimensional and a speech shouldn't be that way if it is to be taken seriously. I've said it before, she leaves things out and does terrible research. She shouldn't just blame Lego. Lego is a company, not the media. Their commercial wouldn't be so segregated if parents would say, tell Lego they would love for their girl to play with Lego.

One thing I find baffling are people who don't read carefully. I didn't defend Lego, I just pointed out others who are just as much at fault as Lego. They told Lego what they wanted, Lego delivered. Could Lego make a commercial showing a boy and girl working together? Yes, in fact I think they should. But is that where the money lies? Sadly, no.

If a person's right in pointing out a broken gear,
why not say "there's a few more gears broken, I'll take care of those."

Rather than saying;

"you shouldn't complain about that gear, because that much bigger gear is broken too."

I don't see the problem with calling out a company, at least there's some calling out happening.

 

[Eidan]

I find it funny, that anyone would really blame the company for doing what all companies are doing - getting the most profit.

I think this is where we fundamentally disagree. You and others seem to believe that because the motivation was profit, that the company is somehow above criticism. There doesn't need to be some "evil agenda" or "malice" for there to be a problem that should be fixed. It's the very fact that companies care only about profit, and not societal impact, that they should be scrutinized. And often.

And again, you bring up what a "feminist Lego set" would be. Did you watch the video either? She clearly states that Lego should simply return to its gender neutral roots. Unless you think something like the Lego Creation set simply can't sell.

 

[UrbanRats]

Regarding sexualization:

Sexualization is ok, even a cool design choice, if in the right doses.
The problem we're presented with, is that 90% of female characters are sexualized, while like 1% of the male ones are (always keeping in mind that Batman is not exactly sexualized etc etc).

If you look at the male characters world, where sexualization is not as rampant, when it DOES get used, it works much more effectively and well, for example:

Vagrant Story - both male and female characters are sexualized in their clothing, it comes off as a design choice, rather than cheap expèloitation of teens hormones.
Alexander (the cartoon/anime) - again, both male and female characters exhibit cool sexualized clothing and style, giving off a unique style and vibe.

So i think sexualization can be a legitimate and even awesome stylistic choice, the problem clearly is saturation and a completely unbalanced scale between genders.
Fix that and you'll only get complaints from prudes (which can be ignored).

But this has been said a million times, in this very thread.
I don't know why i keep coming to this thread, when it's basically going through the same arguments and counter-arguments for the 1xxth time.

 

[Olli]

You honestly think that even at these young ages, this stuff is just hardwired into kids based on their gender? You think it has nothing to do with social cues and conditioning of raising boys to be "like boys" and girls to be "like girls." You think that -- all other things equal -- a boy just naturally wants to play football and a girl just naturally wants to play with Barbie dolls?

First of all I said not everything. Other than that I am saying that in terms of evolution man and woman have different roles. Not roles that were all the manipulated by society and conditioning but in order to survive. Just look at animals for example. They are not being manipulated but they know exactly what their role is. And they follow it not because was conditioned into them but because that is what their instincts tells them.

Also look at kids that actually does like different things like playing soccer or boys who like to play with barbies. Even when they were raised and conditioned to like boyish things or girlish things. If a small kid does not like something it will show it. If a little 2 or 3 year old girl does not like to play with puppets it will not play with it. And I do not think that many parents will force the kid nowadays to like barbie more instead of Lego.

If a kid likes to play more with puppets or like to play family etc it is not only because it was told her that she has to do it but because her motherly instincts are greater than the need to play soccer or build a tree house or adventuring. Again just like animals

I hope this does not comes over as sexist because of my poor English vocabulary and that English is not my native language^^

 

[Eidan]

No, I believe that Anita can't write to save her life. My point is that her video had no depth. It was one dimensional and a speech shouldn't be that way if it is to be taken seriously. I've said it before, she leaves things out and does terrible research. She shouldn't just blame Lego. Lego is a company, not the media. Their commercial wouldn't be so segregated if parents would say, tell Lego they would love for their girl to play with Lego.

One thing I find baffling are people who don't read carefully. I didn't defend Lego, I just pointed out others who are just as much at fault as Lego. They told Lego what they wanted, Lego delivered. Could Lego make a commercial showing a boy and girl working together? Yes, in fact I think they should. But is that where the money lies? Sadly, no.

Lego is a company, and Lego, as a company, releases media. And media influences cultural norms. By constantly stating that she shouldn't just hold Lego accountable for the product and marketing it produces, you are riding to the defense of Lego.

And obviously there would be money in not limiting their marketing to boys. Otherwise Lego wouldn't be attempting to make products for girls.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Beyond being a LEGO employee or shareholder, I'm not sure why some are arguing that the company has no responsibility whatsoever aside from maximizing profits. Mind you, I understand that that's what companies often do, but why does it behoove us to cheer on that mindset as opposed to acknowledging that it would be nice to see them make a better product as opposed to a more profitable one?

Further, though it might take some time, perhaps by breaking down the artificial wall that's been erected, they could save marketing dollars by not having to market multiple, unnecessary product lines.

 

[tkscz]

If a person's right in pointing out a broken gear,
why not say "there's a few more gears broken, I'll take care of those."

Rather than saying;

"you shouldn't complain about that gear, because that much bigger gear is broken too."

I don't see the problem with calling out a company, at least there's some calling out happening.

Doesn't saying that go against your metaphor? Solely blaming the company is pointing out the one big gear. Pointing out the company AND the parents are taking that big gear, and every little gear. That's the point I'm trying to make. Anita skips that and just goes for the big gear. That wouldn't fix ANYTHING. Lego makes money off what they researched, what they research are people. Now if the people would tell Lego they want their little girls to play with Legos, the same Legos their little boys play with, that would fix this issue feminist are having. But not pointing that as a problem at all, doesn't fix anything.

She never tries to claim that there is no market for the Friends brand. Her point was that the set perpetuates narrow minded gender roles. And you can criticize a company. It's quite easy in fact. Their marketing alienates women and reinforces limiting gender stereotypes. Yes, they react to the market, but they also help shape the market.

And so do the parents. If a parent doesn't buy the normal Legos for their little girl to play with, aren't they the same?

Here is an example that may help you see my point. My friend gives her daughter the toys she wants, regardless of the gender they are meant for. At the same time, her daughter has an aunt, great aunt, and great grandmother who takes her batman toys and video games away, and claim those are ONLY FOR BOYS. This is the attitude that is the most popular believed. This is what Lego got from their research and that is how they reacted to it.

The point I'm trying to make, but that you guys keep changing, is that Lego isn't SOLELY to blame. Society has it's play in this too, and if Anita wants me to take her seriously, then she should also point that out.

 

[Ziltoid]

You honestly think that even at these young ages, this stuff is just hardwired into kids based on their gender? You think it has nothing to do with social cues and conditioning of raising boys to be "like boys" and girls to be "like girls."

Can't it be a little bit of both?

Gender equality is very good in my country (Norway), and women are encouraged, and even get incentives to pursue a career in engineering and other traditional male careers. Yet many women still choose to pursue a more traditional career like nursing.

Not to say social conditioning doesn't exist, it does. But does it really have to be one or the other?

 

[Eidan]

And so do the parents. If a parent doesn't buy the normal Legos for their little girl to play with, aren't they the same?

Here is an example that may help you see my point. My friend gives her daughter the toys she wants, regardless of the gender they are meant for. At the same time, her daughter has an aunt, great aunt, and great grandmother who takes her batman toys and video games away, and claim those are ONLY FOR BOYS. This is the attitude that is the most popular believed. This is what Lego got from their research and that is how they reacted to it.

The young girl's aunt, great aunt, and great grandmother, were acting out the social norms and cues they grew up with. You keep mentioning individual people's part it pushing gender stereotypes, and I don't think you're wrong there. But what is a way we can go about changing people's ideas of gender roles? Through media. Through marketing Lego toys as not only being for boys, but for all children. That's the point Sarkeesian was making. I'm honestly baffled that anyone could disagree. Unless you just like the idea of continuing gender stereotypes.

 

[starbunny64]

Only just seen some of these videos and I find that most arguments presented could be easily switched and there would still be something sexist about it. For example, saying that using women as the "support" for weak male characters is sexist could be reversed and then you'd be accused of treating women as weak and needy of men in their life.

 

[Olli]

The young girl's aunt, great aunt, and great grandmother, were acting out the social norms and cues they grew up with. You keep mentioning individual people's part it pushing gender stereotypes, and I don't think you're wrong there. But what is a way we can go about changing people's ideas of gender roles? Through media. Through marketing Lego toys as not only being for boys, but all children. That's the point Sarkeesian was making. I'm honestly baffled that anyone could really disagree. Unless you just like the idea of continuing gender stereotypes.

Again why was Barbie never marketed like that? Why was Matel never criticized for not marketing Barbie towards boys as well? Right because they would not make much money with it.

And Ziltoid: Exactly. Not everything was hammered into people and even if it was it will not change their interests much at all. For example if you are homosexuel and even the parents try to change that you always will be homosexual or atleast feel like that. It is not that girls are forced not to play with Legos or play Soccer for example at all.

 

[Eidan]

Again why was Barbie never marketed like that? Why was Matel never criticized for not marketing Barbie towards boys as well? Right because they would not make much money with it.

And Ziltoid: Exactly. Not everything was hammered into people and even if it was it will not change their interests much at all.

You keep bringing up Barbie. Why? Is it something you actually have a problem with, or are you using it as a way to get people to stop discussing the issue?

 

[Olli]

You keep bringing up Barbie. Why? Is it something you actually have a problem with, or are you using it as a way to get people to stop discussing the issue?

I am bringing it up because it is exactly the same just with different genders. Barbie is the counterpart of Lego in this society or at least it was. But you also can try it with my little pony which is marketed clearly for girls even it has a large male fanbase.

 

[Wolves Evolve]

I'm interested in where the people here who are keen to find fault in the FF videos begin from - from the assumption that western society is fair to people of both / all genders in practice across society and culture, or from the assumption that there's structural inequality across society and culture? Because it reads as if some of the criticism here is rooted in the idea that mainstream cultural production isn't generally, in practice, sexist against women. If that was the case, I would suddenly understand how these opinions could be formed.

 

[Eidan]

I am bringing it up because it is exactly the same just with different genders. Barbie counterpart of Lego in this society or at least it was. But you also can try it with my little pony which is marketed clearly for girls even it has a large male fanbase.

So you are bringing it up as a means of silencing critics. It's a pretty common tactic in any discussion regarding feminism. You also see it in discussions of race as well. "Well why isn't there a white history month?"

G.I. Joe is a more logical counter to Barbie though. The Lego Group sold a gender neutral toy and decided to shift their focus to young boys in the 80's, and suddenly became baffled when girls were no longer playing with their blocks.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

The point I'm trying to make, but that you guys keep changing, is that Lego isn't SOLELY to blame. Society has it's play in this too, and if Anita wants me to take her seriously, then she should also point that out.

Well obviously Lego isn't soley to blame, who is saying that?

Just because a company isn't soley to blame, doesn't mean they can't be held responsible.

If Anita decides to focus on the one big gear, nothing's stopping you from paying attention to a few other gears that are also defective.

If someone only decides to focus on the parents and grandparents, but leaves the companies completely out of the picture that also wouldn't solve the issue. But many people making the issue clear on all fronts, that could help.


Lego could make toys that aren't met with agression by conservative parents who think there can only be "boy toys" and "girl toys" without segregating their toy lines entirely. Their collectible minifigs actually seem to be designed this way. They're almost the only lego sets that have any form of clear gender balance and they sell like hotcakes.

G.I. Joe is a more logical counter to Barbie though. The Lego Group sold a gender neutral toy and decided to shift their focus to young boys in the 80's, and suddenly became baffled when girls were no longer playing with their blocks.

Pretty much this. Most lego sets are so "boy" based it isn't even funny. Let's put an exploding catapult in every set, that's what lego's all about.

 

[Olli]

So you are bringing it up as a means of silencing critics. It's a pretty common tactic in any discussion regarding feminism. You also see it in discussions of race as well. "Well why isn't there a white history month?"

G.I. Joe is a more logical counter to Barbie though. The Lego Group sold a gender neutral toy and decided to shift their focus to young boys in the 80's, and suddenly became baffled when girls were no longer playing with their blocks.

They changed it because it was way more profitable. And yes they tried again to appeal to especially female audience since they figured out that Lego does not sell to girls as it was back than. I have the feeling that people here think that they changed it to actually and intentional differentiate boys and girls even more...

 

[jimi_dini]

I think this is where we fundamentally disagree. You and others seem to believe that because the motivation was profit, that the company is somehow above criticism.

A company is not above any criticism.
BUT complaining that a product is marketed to boys, although boys are the ones who buy it primarily (thus increasing profits), is a logical decision company-wise and thus complaing about it doesn't make sense.

Also if Activision releases Call of Duty 10, would it be valid criticism to blame them for releasing it? No. It's the logical decision for the company to make. It sells, so stay with it. It doesn't, get rid of it. It's that simple. Same for DLC. If it sells, I blame the stupid customers that buy it. If they wouldn't buy it, the DLC would vanish quickly.

So if those girlie sets sell well (and it seems they do), then it's perfectly logical for Lego to continue that way. The customers want to have it, so let them have it. I mean what are they supposed to do? Release something completely different, so that the CEO can feel "better" feministic-view-wise, but profits will go down by 90%? What kind of logic is this?

And again, you bring up what a "feminist Lego set" would be. Did you watch the video either?

Yes, I sort of survived almost the whole first part, but then I couldn't go on longer.

She complained about "girlie lego", that it's all pink (*) and "girlie" like (stuff that gets tested all the time by marketing, which means her complains don't make sense, it just means she doesn't like it and many other people do). And she also said that if a fire breaks out somewhere, then they would be rescued by fireman lego, which she assumes have to be all male, because well look at the figure and of course it's called fireMAN lego, so it needs to be all male of course. I see that figure as gender neutral. No beard. Just a little face on a primitive body. Typical lego. She just assumes that they are all men, because the figures have no boobies, I guess. Oh and maybe for the fact that the majority of fireman are well actually men. At least she acknowledged that the majority of astronauts are also men.

I guess she also thinks that because astronaut lego is marketed to boys, that this is a reason for so few females to be an astronaut.

(*) - and pink is the typical girl color. Blue is the typical boy color. I mean go to a neonatology. male babies are dressed blue. female babies are dressed pink. May be stupid, but it's that way. Those colors are also used for toilet signs for example. But I guess those toilet signs are also not feminist compatible. I really wonder how a feminist would draw them. I guess the males would have a line inbetween their legs and the females won't.

haha, found a funny one

She clearly states that Lego should simply return to its gender neutral roots. Unless you think something like the Lego Creation set simply can't sell.

I just searched on amazon.co.uk for a lego set. I don't see anything gender specific in this set for example. It's called off-road fire rescue. I guess for her to be happy, they should change the figure to have boobs or add another figure with boobs. I don't know. Maybe call it firewoman set.

And Legos in the 1980s were actually primarily just lego bricks. And I guess they changed that, because the others sold better. I personally would prefer the simple bricks based lego as well, but just because they required kid's imagination - which probably got lost inbetween then and now.

And she showed some dinosaur lego in her videos, so I guess the simple bricks original is not what she meant. She probably wasn't even alive at that point.

 

[tkscz]

The young girl's aunt, great aunt, and great grandmother, were acting out the social norms and cues they grew up with. You keep mentioning individual people's part it pushing gender stereotypes, and I don't think you're wrong there. But what is a way we can go about changing people's ideas of gender roles? Through media. Through marketing Lego toys as not only being for boys, but for all children. That's the point Sarkeesian was making. I'm honestly baffled that anyone could disagree. Unless you just like the idea of continuing gender stereotypes.

The problem is, her second Lego video pretty much proves that the cycle we have here, started with Parents. Lego was, as she pointed out, a company that was unisexually selling their product. Then suddenly it switched to being male oriented. This goes back to research the company did and the answers they got, more males were playing with Legos than females. So they switched what they did based on that. The ads they had before mattered not, and most parents ended up buying their boys legos, and their girls dolls.

Is it right? No, but they are a company and they must go to where the money is. I never disagreed with Anita on if it was right, in fact my post point out that I don't agree with it, but I don't like that she puts the entire blame on Legos. There are many TV shows out their that shows strong female characters out of the female norm. Many movies that do the same. And yet commercials have the strongest effect? I don't believe that. Sorry, but my point still stands, Anita can't write or research.

 

[Eidan]

A company is not above any criticism.
BUT complaining that a product is marketed to boys, although boys are the ones who buy it primarily (thus increasing profits), is a logical decision company-wise and thus complaing about it doesn't make sense.

Boys like the product because it is marketed to them. The product is marketed to boys because boys like the product. Boys like the product because it is marketed to them. The product is marketed to boys because boys like the product. Boys like the product because it is marketed to them.

So if those girlie sets sell well (and it seems they do), then it's perfectly logical for Lego to continue that way. The customers want to have it, so let them have it. I mean what are they supposed to do? Release something completely different, so that the CEO can feel "better" feministic-view-wise, but profits will go down by 90%? What kind of logic is this?

A major food producer uses potentially harmful chemicals when making its product in an effort to reduce costs. They don't do it to be mean. They do it to save money, which is a logical business decision. Should I not criticize them? Are they above reproach because, hey, it's just business? As I said before, a business's only interests are in profits. So people should absolutely hold it responsible for its impact on society. If we don't, no one will.

So tell me again why I should not criticize a company for making a product that I believe will help perpetuate harmful or limiting gender stereotypes. Because Lego is making money?

And you mention that the majority of firefighters, astronauts, whatever, are men. I'd assume that Sarkeesian would argue that this is due mostly to gender stereotyping, something that is ingrained in individuals from a young age. Possibly due to toys like Legos showing that "boys do this, girls do this".

(*) - and pink is the typical girl color. Blue is the typical boy color. I mean go to a neonatology. male babies are dressed blue. female babies are dressed pink. May be stupid, but it's that way.

It wasn't always that way. Used to be the reverse.

The problem is, her second Lego video pretty much proves that the cycle we have here, started with Parents. Lego was, as she pointed out, a company that was unisexually selling their product. Then suddenly it switched to being male oriented. This goes back to research the company did and the answers they got, more males were playing with Legos than females. So they switched what they did based on that. The ads they had before mattered not, and most parents ended up buying their boys legos, and their girls dolls.

Is it right? No, but they are a company and they must go to where the money is. I never disagreed with Anita on if it was right, in fact my post point out that I don't agree with it, but I don't like that she puts the entire blame on Legos. There are many TV shows out their that shows strong female characters out of the female norm. Many movies that do the same. And yet commercials have the strongest effect? I don't believe that. Sorry, but my point still stands, Anita can't write or research.

I think Lego is lucky to have someone like you fighting on their behalf.

A part of me does feel bad for those who feel that a company's practices can't be scrutinized as long as they're making money.

And I don't think anyone said commercials have a stronger effect than TV or movies. All her videos push the idea that media as a whole pushes certain narratives about gender roles.

 

[plagiarize]

The problem is, her second Lego video pretty much proves that the cycle we have here, started with Parents. Lego was, as she pointed out, a company that was unisexually selling their product. Then suddenly it switched to being male oriented. This goes back to research the company did and the answers they got, more males were playing with Legos than females. So they switched what they did based on that. The ads they had before mattered not, and most parents ended up buying their boys legos, and their girls dolls.

Is it right? No, but they are a company and they must go to where the money is. I never disagreed with Anita on if it was right, in fact my post point out that I don't agree with it, but I don't like that she puts the entire blame on Legos. There are many TV shows out their that shows strong female characters out of the female norm. Many movies that do the same. And yet commercials have the strongest effect? I don't believe that. Sorry, but my point still stands, Anita can't write or research.

'lets just market to the people already buying our product'. why do you think that's a good move? why is 'we failed at marketing the product to girls, so lets give up' the only logical strategy?

there is money in selling toys to girls, yes?

 

[SolidSnakex]

there is money in selling toys to girls, yes?

Yes, but maybe Lego's just aren't an appealing product to most girls? You can't force kids to play with something that they aren't interested in.

 

[Olli]

Here do you know who the people are that buy this kind of stuff?

I will give you a hint:

Lego has tons of settings and all of this is totally fine for females too

Its just not marketed at them because they do not buy all this stuff. All these little boys are the potential customers from tomorrow. Will a woman buy all this stuff when she has grown up? No not very likely. Males the ones who actually pay 200 or 400$ for a Spaceship, a towerbridge or what ever...

Lego is way more than just a toy Lego is a phenomana. So tell me one fincial logical reason why Lego should ever change that?

 

[tkscz]

Boys like the product because it is marketed to them. The product is marketed to boys because boys like the product. Boys like the product because it is marketed to them. The product is marketed to boys because boys like the product. Boys like the product because it is marketed to them.




A major food producer uses potentially harmful chemicals when making its product in an effort to reduce costs. They don't do it to be mean. They do it to save money, which is a logical business decision. Should I not criticize them? Are they above reproach because, hey, it's just business? As I said before, a business's only interests are in profits. So people should absolutely hold it responsible for its impact on society. If we don't, no one will.

So tell me again why I should not criticize a company for making a product that I believe will help perpetuate harmful or limiting gender stereotypes. Because Lego is making money?

And you mention that the majority of firefighters, astronauts, whatever, are men. I'd assume that Sarkeesian would argue that this is due mostly to gender stereotyping, something that is ingrained in individuals from a young age. Possibly due to toys like Legos showing that "boys do this, girls do this".



It wasn't always that way. Used to be the reverse.



I think Lego is lucky to have someone like you fighting on their behalf.

A part of me does feel bad for those who feel that a company's practices can't be scrutinized as long as they're making money.

And I don't think anyone said commercials have a stronger effect than TV or movies. All her videos push the idea that media as a whole pushes certain narratives about gender roles.

So saying i don't like the way they are aiming for boys only with their main line means I like what they are doing? Still not sure how you keep doing that. My points are as stand, and have always been:

Lego and Parents are equally to blame for the way they advertise. I keep saying this, but somehow this means I'm defending Lego when I put the blame on them as well. (Starting to think you just want someone to defend lego to argue about it).

Anita can't write or research. If she's trying to make the points others are making for her, then she should say them. She should also research more on her subjects, so she doesn't sound like a jackass.

'lets just market to the people already buying our product'. why do you think that's a good move? why is 'we failed at marketing the product to girls, so lets give up' the only logical strategy?

there is money in selling toys to girls, yes?

That's the reason for the female aimed toyline and why Anita made those videos to begin with.

 

[Kinyou]

This is a thing that does not depend on who is writing it. Take DA2 for example. One of the lead writers for the romance and character stuff was a woman. And the way it was written and portrayed was way more offensive than lets say 90% of normal video games.

Just take a look at this here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x840JM16JKQ

I think one weird part of DA 2 was that every character was bi-sexual. So while it might feel sexually progressive (which would fit setting wise more into Mass Effect) it also felt like they'd say that being gay or straight is a choice.

 

[googleplex]

You honestly think that even at these young ages, this stuff is just hardwired into kids based on their gender? You think it has nothing to do with social cues and conditioning of raising boys to be "like boys" and girls to be "like girls." You think that -- all other things equal -- a boy just naturally wants to play football and a girl just naturally wants to play with Barbie dolls?

YES!!!!

Boys a Girls are different even at that age. Studies and experiments have proved this over and over again.

 

[plagiarize]

(*) - and pink is the typical girl color. Blue is the typical boy color. I mean go to a neonatology. male babies are dressed blue. female babies are dressed pink. May be stupid, but it's that way. Those colors are also used for toilet signs for example.

in certain cultures. in other cultures pink is not a feminine colour. pink is only a 'girl' colour because we have impressed such things upon society and because we actively maintain it. a hundred years ago, many thought pink was more masculine and blue more feminine. strange, but true.

a lot of gender differences exist because we have *created* them, not because they're genetic. not all, obviously, but many.

That's the reason for the female aimed toyline and why Anita made those videos to begin with.

'let's make it pink for girls' is really fucking dumb. girls are not genetically attracted to pink in any way shape or form. girls that like playing with those sets like playing with those sets because they like lego, not because its pink now.

 

[Eidan]

So tell me one fincial logical reason why Lego should ever change that?

Men are 50 percent of the population.

tkscz: I didn't say that you agreed with Lego's practice of marketing to boys. I did say that you felt Lego was above criticism because they are making money. Which you did say.

Is it right? No, but they are a company and they must go to where the money is.

And would your opinion of Sarkeesian change simply if she threw in a sentence saying that parents should buy their children toys regardless of the gender that it is marketed towards? Would that increase her scholarly bonafides enough to make her capable of discussing Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball?

 

[Olli]

Men are 50 percent of the population.

Again how many of these grown up woman would actually buy this exquisite and expensive stuff? Enough to actually take a financial risk by changing Lego from what it is today?

I do not think so at all.

 

[UrbanRats]

'lets just market to the people already buying our product'. why do you think that's a good move? why is 'we failed at marketing the product to girls, so lets give up' the only logical strategy?

there is money in selling toys to girls, yes?

As long as "marketing to girls too" doesn't mean gender roles segregation.
To break free of said roles, they SHOULD take a risk and market gender neutral.
Whoever you want to stick to is fair game though, as everyone are involved in this gender game.
As a boy who liked to play with Barbie stuff (and other girls marketed toys, along a lot of boys toys) yeah, i can only hope these bullshit roles to go down, for future generations.
But it is a fucking clusterfuck of circular logic (because some parents are full of shit, of course).

It does feel a bit like: they could take the leap, but as many people as possible should follow them, otherwise they'd simply end up looking like fools.
But again, whoever you decide to pick on the issue, you'll find a piece of the puzzle, so knock yourself out.
Is more at fault the parent who can't think with its own head and can't not rely on marketing crap, or the company who can't break free of old and "safe" marketing logics? It's a crossfire, which is why it'll be very difficult for anyone to change position.

 

[plagiarize]

Again how many of these grown up woman would actually buy this exquisite and expensive stuff? Enough to actually take a financial risk by changing Lego from what it is today?

I do not think so at all.

so because adult hobbiests tend to be men, lego shouldn't make sets aimed at young girls. but they should make sets aimed at young boys. because?

 

[plagiarize]

As long as "marketing to girls too" doesn't mean gender roles segregation.
To break free of said roles, they SHOULD take a risk and market gender neutral.
Whoever you want to stick to is fair game though, as everyone are involved in this gender game.
As a boy who liked to play with Barbie stuff (and other girls marketed toys, along a lot of boys toys) yeah, i can only hope these bullshit roles to go down, for future generations.
But it is a fucking clusterfuck of circular logic (because some parents are full of shit, of course).

It does feel a bit like: they could take the leap, but as many people as possible should follow them, otherwise they'd simply end up looking like fools.
But again, whoever you decide to pick on the issue, you'll find a piece of the puzzle, so knock yourself out.
Is more at fault the parent who can't think with its own head and can't not rely on marketing crap, or the company who can't break free of old and "safe" marketing logics? It's a crossfire, which is why it'll be very difficult for anyone to change position.

i don't disagree. there's zero reason why city sets should be only advertised to boys. even if your market demographics suggest that you should put your adverts on during shows seen as aimed more at boys than girls, there's no reason that the adverts for 'build a hospital or fire station' shouldn't feature boys and girls playing together.

i don't see any harm in lego ALSO making sets aimed more specifically at each gender. i just hope that we can get past the stupid 'make it pink' nonsense when you put those sets for girls together... but the numerous sets they already make that have no inherant gender appeal... advertising those sets targetted directly at boys... it just seems daft.

you know what kicked ass? She-Ra figures.

 

[Olli]

so because adult hobbiests tend to be men, lego shouldn't make sets aimed at young girls. but they should make sets aimed at young boys. because?

Because these boys are the potential customers of tomorrow. You do not start to buy such expensive pieces when you never played or heard of it. You buy it for several reasons and one of them is nostalgia

Woman never get attached to Legos that strongly as boys would. Again their thinking is different from boys. Of course there are many female geeks and nerds as well but its a whole different level with males.

Oh and do not try to blame most of it on society or parents. Again Males and females have different roles if you want it or not and that is not because of media and manipulation but because of survival instincts. And different interests also show this.

 

[MrGame&Watch]

I think the vast amount of discussion on this topic shows there's something here worth exploring.

I just find it difficult to agree with dudes on a gaming Internet forum when it comes to how women essentially feel about gender biases.

Half of us(going by the dating thread) can't figure out how to get a girlfriend. Why should we be any better at this?

 

[tkscz]

Men are 50 percent of the population.

tkscz: I didn't say that you agreed with Lego's practice of marketing to boys. I did say that you felt Lego was above criticism because they are making money. Which you did say.



And would your opinion of Sarkeesian change simply if she threw in a sentence saying that parents should buy their children toys regardless of the gender that it is marketed towards? Would that increase her scholarly bonafides enough to make her capable of discussing Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball?

*Looks at own previous post*

No, no I didn't say that. You perceived that, and that's my fault that I didn't put more detail into said post, so that idea wouldn't be gotten. Everything can be criticized, but that wasn't my point, my point was that there was more to be criticized than what she did.

'let's make it pink for girls' is really fucking dumb. girls are not genetically attracted to pink in any way shape or form. girls that like playing with those sets like playing with those sets because they like lego, not because its pink now.

This is what I didn't agree with (or their whole girl line for that matter). But it's what their research sadly got them. They ask color, most people chose bright pink and purple for little girls. Again, so that Eidan gets it this time, I'm not saying Lego can't be criticized for this, just that they can't be criticized alone.

 

[plagiarize]

Because these boys are the potential customers of tomorrow. You do not start to buy such expensive pieces when you never played or heard of it. You buy it for several reasons and one of them is nostalgia

Woman never get attached to Legos that strongly as boys would. Again their thinking is different from boys. Of course there are many female geeks and nerds as well but its a whole different level with males.

Oh and do not try to blame most of it on society or parents. Again Males and females have different roles if you want it or not and that is not because of media and manipulation but because of survival instincts. And different interests also show this.

you've got a false dichotomy here, it isn't one or the other. i'm not saying gender roles are solely based on social influences, but they are clearly *partly* based on social influences.

i don't know why you're arguing that children are only a secondary market that Lego use in order to turn them into adult hobbiests. i haven't got their balance sheets to know where the bulk of their money comes from, but i know where the bulk of their advertising dollar goes, and it sure as hell isn't into commercials during shows with a largely adult male viewership.

do you think lego should drop their female aimed sets? if not, what harm could possibly come from lego putting out an advert aimed to appeal to both boys and girls for a Lego City set? do you think a boy will refuse to play something because he saw a girl in advert for it?

why do younger girls and boys play equally with Duplo if there is something inherantly male about construction toys?

 

[deviljho]

There is absolutely ZERO research that says if toy companies and video game companies produced products and conducted marketing in a manner that this woman approves of, then these problems would go away.

Forget the financial aspect of it, even if a social problem existed, why would a company alter how they operated based on policy that isn't even shown to affect change.

 

[Olli]

you've got a false dichotomy here, it isn't one or the other. i'm not saying gender roles are solely based on social influences, but they are clearly *partly* based on social influences.

i don't know why you're arguing that children are only a secondary market that Lego use in order to turn them into adult hobbiests. i haven't got their balance sheets to know where the bulk of their money comes from, but i know where the bulk of their advertising dollar goes, and it sure as hell isn't into commercials during shows with a largely adult male viewership.

do you think lego should drop their female aimed sets? if not, what harm could possibly come from lego putting out an advert aimed to appeal to both boys and girls for a Lego City set? do you think a boy will refuse to play something because he saw a girl in advert for it?

For once at least in Europe I do not see much Lego commercials or adverts for anyone anymore and one of the reasons are that Lego does not needs this anymore. And yes I believe that the children Market has become the secondary market here. For example if you go into a toy store and ask for Lego advertising magazines etc you will only see this stuff in it. They make tons of money this luxury stuff.

And no they should not drop their female sets if they bring money. Despite some people thing they are sexists or not. Also again they had these adverts with boy and girl back than. Why do you think they changed it? Right because females were not as much interested as boys were. So why change it now? Because its "political incorrect" to market something only for boys and not for girls?

And younger girls play with duplo way more than with normal lego because with this age their interests are not fully established yet. If you do not know about lets say barbie or make up and this age. If you dont even know that this kind of stuff exists. Would you be interested in something you never ever thought existed?

With aging comes more knowledge. Knowledge about yourself and about the world. You suddenly will see and experience stuff that triggers your interest way more than duplo back than. And while boys more likely want to catch bugs or go into a forest most of the girls do not care about this much. And all this is not because their parents that that its not ladylike but because of their instincts..

 

[Eidan]

There is absolutely ZERO research that says if toy companies and video game companies produced products and conducted marketing in a manner that this woman approves of, then these problems would go away.

Forget the financial aspect of it, even if a social problem existed, why would a company alter how they operated based on policy that isn't even shown to affect change.

Does there need to be? Is she writing policy? Is she doing anything more than voicing her opinion?

I think you need to step back and remember that all she is doing is making YouTube videos about video game characters.

 

[plagiarize]

There is absolutely ZERO research that says if toy companies and video game companies produced products and conducted marketing in a manner that this woman approves of, then these problems would go away.

Forget the financial aspect of it, even if a social problem existed, why would a company alter how they operated based on policy that isn't even shown to affect change.

forget whatever you think should happen, why are Lego going to great lengths to try to make sets that appeal to girls?

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/lego-is-for-girls-12142011.html#p1

Anita is providing suggestions for a problem that Lego are trying to solve. that's all.

 

[tkscz]

Does there need to be? Is she writing policy? Is she doing anything more than voicing her opinion?

I think you need to step back and remember that all she is doing is making YouTube videos about video game characters.

Yes, trying to pursued others into thinking at least close to the way she thinks. This is the format she's made her speech in, this is what she is trying to do. If not, then she needs to change the way she does her videos.

 

[plagiarize]

Yes, trying to pursued others into thinking at least close to the way she thinks. This is the format she's made her speech in, this is what she is trying to do. If not, then she needs to change the way she does her videos.

so, that's different to every other video on youtube where someone outlines their opinion and backs it up how exactly?

 

[Eidan]

Yes, trying to pursued others into thinking at least close to the way she thinks. This is the format she's made her speech in, this is what she is trying to do. If not, then she needs to change the way she does her videos.

She's presenting an argument, which is her opinion. This is how pretty much any opinion you'll ever hear is conveyed.

 

[RadarScope1]

At the risk of getting off on a rant, I get really fucking sick of seeing this attempt to re-frame the debate in Every. Single. Gender. Thread. No one believes women are the only ones affected by negative stereotypes. No one one believes we should focus our attention on solving this problem to the exclusion of all other problems. No one believes unwanted stereotypes are the sole property of women. Not even feminists. Go ahead and ask one about male body issues or male objectification or racial stereotypes, there's a damn good chance they'll say "Yeah, that's also a problem, and we should work to solve that as well."

Yes, a lot of women tend to spend a fair amount of words and time, maybe even a majority of their time, on the way it affects their particular gender. You know why? Because it's their fucking gender. There's no obligation whatosever on their part to be equal-opportunity about every single social issue and injustice in the world, especially not when the deck is stacked so high against them in the first place. You have to start somewhere, and they've chosen that starting place. There's nothing hypocritical or inconsistent about that, it's just recognizing that time and energy is finite and you have to pick your battles.

For some reason we expect self-proclaimed feminists to take up the cross not only of their own gender, but of every group in the world with a grievance, lest they be accused of being hypocrites. They don't spend time dwelling on the vast injustice of beefcake male characters? Obviously it's because they're hypocrites, no need to pay attention to them. They write an essay about rape but don't mention false rape accusations? Obviously their priorities are in the wrong place and can be dismissed without comment.

But for some reason, anytime someone tries to bring up a uniquely female issue, the cries of "But what about men's rights/male objectification/prison rape/false rape accusations/etc" come up. It is literally impossible to have a discussion about a female-specific issue without someone coming along and trying to reframe it to being part of the larger discourse of humanity generally being pretty shitty and intolerant to itself, as if we didn't already know that really damn well.

If you really care so much about men being depicted unrealistically and as dumb buffoons in the media, SPEAK UP YOUR DAMN SELF. Nobody's stopping you! Write blog posts, make videos, get active! I'm not being glib about this, I'm sincerely saying, if that's what you think is worth fighting for, you should honestly do it. And contrary to what you may assume, you may find that the feminist community are your allies in your cause. They don't like to reinforce negative stereotypes of anyone (except maybe social conservatives). Many if not most of them are in fact keenly aware of the ways gender and racial and class and educational issues interact and know that they can't be separated that easily.

But I almost never see posters doing that. I've never seen a "Why are male video game characters so objectified?" thread or a "Why does this industry have such a problem with minorities?" thread. Instead certain posters think the most appropriate place to begin those discussions is in the threads that try to discuss the equivalent female phenomenon.

I can't help but wonder how much they really care about their own interests and male representations given that.

I am LTTP in this thread, mainly because I don't think (much of) GAF is grown-up enough to have real conversations about this. But god what a great fucking post. Thank you. Maybe I was wrong and I'll read through this one.

 

[Olli]

so, that's different to every other video on youtube where someone outlines their opinion and backs it up how exactly?

The difference here that she is an "major?" and if you try this at an University you would get a lot of backlash for it. If it was just a video blog no one would really care bout it.

And faceless we do not see such a thing because male do not really care about it. However male really care if they believe something is not right here and thats the case with this whole agenda at the moment.. And that is why I am going against this.

 

[UrbanRats]

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/lego-is-for-girls-12142011.html#p1

The only thing i took out from that article is that me and my 2 male brothers played lego like girls, apparently.
Never once we built what was shown on the box, but instead did a lot of role play with it. (nice read anyhow)

 

[Campster]

The difference here that she is an "major?" and if you try this at an University you would get a lot of backlash for it. If it was just a video blog no one would really care bout it.

But it is just a video blog. Funded via a wildly successful Kickstarter and subject to absurd amount of debate and scrutiny, but just a video blog all the same.

It turns out you can have a college degree and still do stuff unrelated to academia. There's nothing that precludes people who majored in women's studies or political science or any other major from voicing their personal opinion about a topic on the internet - indeed, they're almost certainly more likely to have and voice strong opinions.

 

[Fuchsdh]

Woah, this thread's moving really fast again. But did anyone post this?

http://www.destructoid.com/a-response-to-some-arguments-in-anita-sarkeesian-s-interview-230570.phtml

I think this is A) a very well thought out piece that disagrees with Sarkeesian without framing it an a "right"/"wrong" light, and B) explains my issues with the entire process. I've seen little indication she puts the effort into all her arguments that is needed for them to be compelling--I felt like there were a couple holes in her masters' thesis, too. Disregarding people's right to spend their coin as they see fit, I'm not exactly hopeful that the resultant videos will be high quality in the actual content side.

But it is just a video blog. Funded via a wildly successful Kickstarter and subject to absurd amount of debate and scrutiny, but just a video blog all the same.

It turns out you can have a college degree and still do stuff unrelated to academia. There's nothing that precludes people who majored in women's studies or political science or any other major from voicing their personal opinion about a topic on the internet - indeed, they're almost certainly more likely to have and voice strong opinions.

That's because women's studies and political science are just a few of the worthless majors colleges provide--and I'm saying this as someone with a BFA. (No, really, polysci is horrible. If you're going into politics you're better off with a history degree.) Universities shouldn't be trade schools but when I look back at my college career I saw a lot of useless "knowledge" without context that didn't help me understand or critically evaluate the world, and that was with a double major and a minor. I dunno what the solution to that is, but all these niche, not-job-applicable areas of study aren't helping things. (That's a rant for another thread.)

 

[Lancehead]

There is absolutely ZERO research that says if toy companies and video game companies produced products and conducted marketing in a manner that this woman approves of, then these problems would go away.

Forget the financial aspect of it, even if a social problem existed, why would a company alter how they operated based on policy that isn't even shown to affect change.

The discussion is not whether Lego toys be made according to specification-Anita, but whether toys be made so as to be inclusive of girls just as much as boys.