Images of Masculinity and Gender from LEGO
I have often heard parents in my generation lament the changes in one of the favourite toys from their childhood. LEGO, the colourful, gender-neutral building toy that taught kids to use their imaginations, have been transformed into “think inside the box” kits. Basic blocks are still available, but LEGO is putting its considerable marketing skill into its tremendously popular sets based on established franchises (Star Wars, Toy Story) and LEGO’s own characters and storylines (Atlantis, Hero Factory).
LEGO kits offer children one way to build a structure—no imagination required, at least at first. My experience has taught me that the act of creating is not completely endangered by the “new” LEGO. My son initially builds as instructed, but after a while, he grows tired of the items he was told to build, takes them apart, and repurposes them into some truly fantastic vehicles.
Still, there is cause for concern with LEGO as it is manufactured and marketed today. The company pushes children to become avid consumers by marketing their kits as “collectibles” instead of toys. Further, their sets build on one another to tell a story, so, in most kids’ minds, one is not enough.
Then there is also the issue of blatant gender stereotyping in the company’s toys and marketing.
The images of masculinity and femininity proffered by LEGO are a reflection of the main themes I discuss in my book: the dominance of male characters in children’s pop culture, the lack of female heroes, rigid gender stereotypes, and the tendency for males to use violence to solve problems (perpetuating the notion that “real” men are tough and aggressive.)
Picture from Toys R Us Canada
Consider the Hero Factory line, which LEGO deems suitable for children aged 6 to 16. The original incarnation of character William Furno “torches enemies with flames of fury from his dual fire shooter,” while Dunkan Bulk is “[a]rmed with a multi-functional heavy metal weapon, loaded with metal sphere ammo.” There was one female among the original heroes. Named Natalie Breez (pictured at left), she was a “natural diplomat” with an energized boomerang and unique air powers. Although she looked nasty, she didn’t sound quite as menacing as the males.
I refer to Natalie Breez in the past tense because the 2.0 versions of the heroes have had their gender stripped, leaving most kids to assume they are male. Now known as “Breez 2.0,” Natalie’s description has no gender indicated.
In the Ninjago line, lone female Nya is as courageous as her brother Kai, but relies on her psychic powers to battle evildoers. Kai, on the other hand, is “[q]uick to anger, even quicker to act and armed with his golden sword.” Not that female characters should resort to violence (nor should males), but is Nya likely to be seen as equal to her brother or the other male characters if she “thinks away” the bad guys?
LEGO Pharaoh’s Quest also has a single female character, but the marketing is not exactly gender-neutral, as the clip on this page shows.
Even the names of some products play a role in stereotyping the target market. In the World Racers line, sets are called “Desert of Destruction,” “Wreckage Road,” “Jagged Jaws Reef,” and “Snake Canyon.” Wonder who these toys are designed for?
Contrast Pharaoh’s Quest and World Racers with Belville, the “girls’” line. The brief animation on the Belville home page leaves a different impression, as do the product names: “Sunshine Home” and “Playful Puppy” among them. (The LEGO Harry Potter line very likely has cross-gender appeal, but Belville is the line aimed most clearly at girls.)
And then there are the minifigures, cheap, collectable and highly stereotyped (including some ethnic stereotypes). In Series 1, there are two females out of sixteen characters—a nurse (not doctor) and cheerleader. The cheerleader “waves her pom-poms around wildly whenever she talks, which is pretty much all of the time.” The nurse is “[c]heerful, professional and devoted to making people feel better.” Series 2 through 4 offer at least one decent female representation each—the lifeguard who wants to study medicine, the snowboarder with nerves of steel, and the athletic “surfer girl.” But these females are offset by some egregious stereotypes, like the series 2 Hula Dancer, and the series 4 “Kimono Girl” and female ice skater who is “elegant, graceful and light on her feet,” compared to the male hockey player who was raised by wolves and described as fast, tough, and ferocious.
Granted, most young kids won’t read the website descriptions of these characters, but what conclusions will they draw from the images alone? And what will kids who can read conclude? Males are portrayed as musketeers, ninjas, wrestlers, scientists, “hazmat guys,” “tribal chiefs,” explorers, and athletes of all kinds. They are also the only minifigures to have weapons (Zombie, Forestman, Ninja, Spaceman, Spartan Warrior, Samurai Warrior, Viking). Add to the stereotypes the fact that only 11 of the 64 characters released so far have been female and you have a very male-centric product line based on a very narrow view of boyhood and masculinity.
Boys are bombarded with messaging across pop culture that shows males not only as tough and strong, but also tougher and stronger than females. It’s shame that one of the most popular and influential toy manufacturers has chosen to reinforce this highly gendered view instead of combating it.
On its Corporate Responsibility page, LEGO notes that the company does its best to “make a positive impact on areas such as: human rights, working environment, environment, anti-corruption, charity etc.” Clearly, gender is not something they have considered.
While LEGO toys have many benefits, and some products are okay, the male dominance, stereotypes, and violence in the toys are troubling. I am in the process of drafting a letter about my concerns to LEGO and will post it here within the next couple of days for anyone else who is interested in contacting the company.
It is true that a gender divergence happen with LEGO at the moment. It may be forced by competing against cheap toys from China or maybe adjusting to the market who have a dangerous increase at gender differentiating may it toys for girl or boys ..it is a common belief in marketing to “make you product pink” to increase or deliver the market for females so the vise versa thought of that is to “un-pink” something
I also discover the genderisation of toys by the PLAYMOBIL brand who was in its beginning well know for good toys that have a ind of simplification on it to help develop the imagination of children.
Also there is a strong misconception with baby and child clothing… it is not about dress them pink and nice for girls and dirty blue and sloppy for boys.
You do a great work opening eyes
I have now your book on my amazon.de order list and can’t wait to read it.
Thanks for your comment and the book order
. I have also noticed a change in Playmobil, even in the past few years. Our own collection of Playmobil toys shows a decent amount of gender balance–a good mix of males and females among firefighters and ambulance crews–but other lines tend to be more stereotyped. I have actually been working on a blog post about the changing nature of Playmobil, but I have not yet finished doing research into the newer toys in this product line.
I calculated the equivalent numbers if the gender imbalance in China was represented in Lego minifigures. It would be about 29 female out of 64 figures. And the world is concerned about the social impact of that level of imbalance! (Just type “gender imbal” into Google and “gender imbalance china” is on of the top suggestions.) You are pointing out a subtle but, I think, significant influence on the construction of gender in children. They get used to not “seeing” females around them in “important” roles. In fact, this is not that new, it is just played out differently now, so we all have had a problem when it comes to “seeing” women in roles of authority. That is, mostly we don’t see women in roles of authority, and that is “normal”.
I am a toy design student, and recently we had a presentation from an industry expert where-in we were presented with statistics regarding the success of various toys in the industry broken down by category, age, and sex. One of the most interesting pieces of information was the fact that in the construction category, of which LEGO controls a significant majority, the breakdown of purchases male to female showed (that despite our class’ assumptions) girls actually were about 40% of sales even in what is considered predominantly boys themes. So even though the product may seem to be more heavily gendered towards boys, the girls make a huge impact in terms of sales. You would think this would perhaps give them a reason to increase the diversity and availability of female characters, but the opposite seems to have occured without significant reduction of girl toy users.
Thanks so much for your comment. This is very interesting. I wonder if the high number of females is a result of the perception that most people have of LEGO as being a gender-neutral toy. I wonder if the same gender split exists in Meccano sets or Lincoln Logs? It would also be interesting to see which sets the girls are buying. Harry Potter and Star Wars? Or are they buying Hero Factory and Power Miners? So many ways to parse the data
Your last point is a good one. You would think that they would want to have more diversity in their offerings, but if sales aren’t affected, perhaps they see no reason to change.
I have 2 boys and a girl and I too find that when my daughter wants to play LEGO, there are very few female figurines to choose from. Even the Star Wars figures have Leia dressed only once in Bounty Hunter gear, otherwise she is in long flowing white gowns or in her ‘sexy’ slave outfit when caught by Juba!
Go Jessie, the ‘roughest toughest cowgirl’ in Toy Story – the only female figurine created in the series!
I agree that there is a real imbalance! Does LEGO assume that only boys play with their products?
Judging by their ‘we want to reach the other 50% of the worlds children’ comment, i’d say yes.
As the father of three young kids, toys like Lego are things that I have fond memories of from my own childhood and have been looking into introducing into our household (once the youngest is old enough to play with them safely). But, I also wonder if this is not really more of a chicken and egg issue. Is Lego to blame for reinforcing stereotypes? Probably not – they are a business who is trying to stay profitable and competitive. Do they have a moral responsibility to fight social stereotypes? Or is the responsibility on the parents who obviously buy the stereotyped toys in large enough volumes that companies such as Lego are forced to adapt to the market?
I am not trying to suggest that it is right to promote the stereotypes, but I would suspect that Lego is reacting to the market instead of driving it.
Thanks for your comment. It is a chicken and egg argument. Parents are ultimately the ones who make decisions about where to spend their money. Still, the toy market is pretty limited and becoming more so, leaving parents with fewer and fewer choices. LEGO is not to blame for the creation of stereotypes, but I think there is a lot of disappointment in what they’ve been doing lately. (See their attempt to woo girls and the reaction it is getting on Facebook).
I explained my position better in another post about LEGO. Here is an excerpt:
This seems a heavy load for me to dump on one company, and I am certainly not trying to pin the blame for gender stereotypes and their impact on LEGO alone. The themes I’m talking about here emerge across all of the pop culture aimed at boys from preschool through the primary grades. But unlike some other toy companies, LEGO is uniquely positioned to do something about it. It is one of the largest toy companies in the world, loved by children around the globe.
When I have written about LEGO in the past, people have commented that the company is under no obligation to promote gender balance and non-violence. True enough. But LEGO has made itself a leader in other areas and seems keen to tout its corporate responsibility bona fides on its website.
In an era when the chemicals used in toys are often in question, LEGO stands out as one of the safest toys in the world. The company has a lengthy description of its safety practices on its website, and also notes that it is part of ICTI CARE, an ethical manufacturing program. LEGO donates toys to SOS Children’s Villages and children confined to hospital. The company was also the first in the toy industry to join the UN’s Global Compact, which covers issues like human rights, labour standards, and environment.
Clearly the company has many progressive practices in place, so why the retrograde attitude toward gender and the increasing emphasis on violence?
I can understand the disappointment, if for no better reason than I share a great deal of it myself. When shopping in toy stores, I (as a parent) am turned off by the Lego sets I see these days. I feel a nostalgic preference of the Space Lego sets (which might have already been a gender bias anyways) that I grew up with in the 80′s. The emphasis on the violence I see in many of the modern sets, and the specialized and specific themes (Harry Potter etc…) leave me (again as a parent) feeling that the toy has less encouragement for the young mind.
The themed sets are encouraging the kids to recreate a scene, and seem to be giving kids unique pieces which can do so, but which might not lend themselves to more generic creativity. The violent themed pieces also seem to offer a limited set of creative scenarios.
What I enjoyed about something like my Space Lego, was that while you had booklets which could teach you how to build all sorts of neat spaceships and moon bases, they were generic ships and generic moon bases. You could very easily take building concepts from the designed pieces and adapt them to be creative on your own. Something which I think helps kids to be more creative than just being left with standard blocks that have no design. It is basically giving the kids creative tools so they can build bigger and better.
However, for all of that being said, my disappointment is not directly with Lego – it is with society. Lego is a company, and they exist to meet a consumer demand. Because they have a name, an image, and not to mention a lot of money – I think they become an easy target. They are someone that people can identify and say ‘there – THAT is the problem’.
But the more I think on it, the more I disagree (respectfully) with that. The problem begins and ends with the parents and the society raising the children. When a company discontinues and replaces a product, they take something which has (in relative terms) poor sales and use research to replace that item with something which they feel will sell (again, in relative terms) better.
If Lego is selling stereotyped gender roles, it is because our society is buying it. So, how can you blame them for what we (as a society) are responsible for?
At best, I think that I can point to something like this in Lego and say that it is a depressing symbol and reminder of what our society has become. Modern Western society likes to believe that we have risen above the discrimination of age, race, gender and sexuality – but I think this Lego example is nothing more than an indication that we (as a collective society) are currently doing nothing more than lying to ourselves.
Thanks again for taking the time to comment. I agree with what you are saying–society’s attitudes to gender are part of the problem. I wrote my book to help raise awareness of these kinds of issues as they pertain to boys.
But I also believe that parents, like kids, have been conditioned to accept whatever toy manufacturers are offering. Here is where we get into the chicken and egg argument again
Movies, TV shows, and marketing of kids’ products continuously tells parents that girls like pink and frilly things and boys like noisy, violent toys. So parents buy into this mythology because they think it is the norm. I’m not saying parents’ autonomy is completely usurped by toy marketers, but the marketing messages do have a powerful influence over what parents think is appropriate for their children. It’s really a vicious circle, e.g. LEGO tells you they have done “research” and found that little pink dolls lounging poolside is what girls want; parents feel justified in buying these toys because they fit with what they’ve been taught about gender and help their daughters conform to the “norm” for their sex; LEGO’s sales go up and the company can claim there is a great demand for these highly gendered toys. So social and corporate influences have a role to play here.
I think that the action against LEGO is a sign of a desire for change in the gender messages toys send to kids. Those of us who want change have to target the companies making the toys. So that’s why I have written so much about the company here and why there has been such a strong reaction to the new LEGO girls’ line.