This is at once a response to both the New York Times article which Professor Silliman linked to on 2 January and to Emily Follin's post on the subject.
I've been torn about this issue since I first heard about it. Lego has slowly dug themselves into a hole over the course of the last decade or two, and this new effort of theirs could either make the hole deeper or give them a better shot at climbing out. They've sort of pigeonholed themselves as a boy's toy -- despite their founding proclamation that Legos Are For Everyone -- because they got very few girls in their focus groups because they were perceived as a boy's toy because there were so few girls in their focus groups...a vicious cycle with no visible beginning.
To me, this new line of "girls' Lego," despite enforcing/promoting gender stereotypes, is a well-intentioned attempt to refute the assumption that Legos are for boys. I think that it could be a step in the right direction, though perhaps a poorly-executed step. It could cause problems further down the road if they continue to separately produce products for both genders, rather than gradually merging them in order to return to the universal appeal they once had.
It's interesting that your analysis mostly operates from the point of view of the success or failure of the business. This is of course one legitimate perspective, though it's possible that it is a rather narrow one.
ReplyDeleteThat was not quite the view I was intending to put forward, though now I see it does read that way. I had meant to refer to the potential success or failure to stop targeting the genders separately, rather than the success or failure of the business itself. I suppose I was not as clear as I maybe could have been.
ReplyDeleteI think you raise a good point that it is well intentioned, although sometimes even the most noble of acts can wind up reinforcing the harm they meant to prevent, in this case perpetuation of gender stereotypes. Again the intention is there and I am conflicted in trying to blame a corporation for at least making a genuine effort to bring change, albeit one that may play out to be more harmful than beneficial.
ReplyDeleteApologies if I misinterpreted your post.
ReplyDelete