Certainly a great ad series compared to most of the advertising aimed at children today (Lego or not), although these ads aren't exactly devoid of gender.  In both of these the girl is younger/smaller and in the second one she's "backgrounded" a bit.  Taken as a whole with the other ad in the series  of the girl pictured by herself (was this all of them from this campaign?), though, pretty gender balanced.

Clearly these ads are racist dog whistles.  White children, and only white children are shown, along with the words pride and proud.  White pride?  And notice that all the children are holding airplanes, that is clearly meant as coded imagery intended to invoke the Luftwaffe. 

amidoinitrite?

Something I noticed (a curiosity, not a criticism) is that in all of these ads, including the one simply depicting a girl, the girls are wearing overalls, as opposed to pants, skirts, or dresses.  I recall overalls being relatively popular for young girls when I was preschool aged (early 90s), but they weren't really ubiquitous.  Were they a lot more popular in the 80s?

There is one question i ask myself. Where them female characters in the set ? I don't recall any women in my spaceship... 

They did a mommy session about the new Lego on Tell Me More - and no one, including the usually totally on it Michelle, brought this old campaign up. It was a decent discussion as far as it went, but it was really missing a more nuanced sense of history and advertising.

I'm gonna trust that badass Ricky Clintface below was simply pointing out that back in the early 80's, Lego thought that more white families got feminism than black families bought lil plastic blocks and advertised accordingly - or that it was too early for two colors of children, and as far as two colors AND two genders....no, that woudla lost the account for sure.

So now girls of all colors are being offered koolaid to serve at their boutique, and the boys are off building bunkers & condos - and getting ready to protect them with red,blue & yellow guns. The swinging blade of monified oppression just keeps swingin...

Thank you!!!

Thank you for doing this work/research!!

Read the copy too here folks, not just the image.

See, all companies really need to do to get girls to buy their product is show that they've thought of them- don't put misogynistic stuff on or in the product and include girls in the advertising.  It's not that hard!

From a girls point of view, it is not fair that the boy looks like he made a better plane.

I can't find it now, but some post here said that "the basic lego form is adrogynous.."  That is an obvious but overlooked and profound point in all this.  Another overlooked point is the copy of the 80s ad.  It is adrogynous  referring to "children." Not girls or boys

While the 80s tomboy Lego ad has a question of power with the older brother as in the scenario that his little sister was "allowed" to play with her brother's legos (going by what some posters have observed)---   I find these 80s ads with a message  that does convey females can build complex "things" using legos.  And they don't have to be pink!  Compare that to today.

I think the use of overalls in the ad does show that the girl is emulating her brother on several levels. That may be a subtle  implication that Lego is a more masculine world/brain yet, we see  do see the girl with her own creation and her participation feels natural.

I just noticed this set http://www.brickset.com/detail/?Set=852769-1 which shows the trend in how female lego minifigs have changed. The most interesting is the 80s one, when there was only one type of face, so women didn't need to be marked out by eyes and lipstick (it's interesting that she is assumed to be a nurse in the reviews, though she could be a doctor). It makes for an pondering for why we assume the spacemen of the time need actually be men (if the only thing that seemed need to mark the difference was hair - which spacemen don't have - replaced by a helmet - though later on this distinction is made with more varied faces - http://www.brickset.com/detail/?Set=3928-1, or throwing in blonde hair as well - http://www.brickset.com/detail/?Set=8827-9 - though I guiltily think that minifig is pretty awesome, and want one, and so do some boys and girls I've talked to). It does show though that women minifigs can be represented effectively without the need to resort to overly "feminised" representations .

It seems to me that in both images the girl is being used to advertise the smaller set for younger children, and the boy for the older, more complex sets. It makes me think that the Lego is mainly the brothers, which gets passed on to the sister. I actually have a job running a school holiday program for kids 5-12 playing with Lego. Most kids who do it are boys, and they seldom (if ever) talk about Lego they normally play with as being anything other than theirs, whereas the girls will usually talk about the Lego other family members have, and even though they play with it, the Lego is stated as their brother's Lego, and not theirs.

I just noticed this set http://www.brickset.com/detail/?Set=852769-1 which shows the trend in how female lego minifigs have changed. The most interesting is the 80s one, when there was only one type of face, so women didn't need to be marked out by eyes and lipstick (it's interesting that she is assumed to be a nurse in the reviews, though she could be a doctor). It makes for an pondering for why we assume the spacemen of the time need actually be men (if the only thing that seemed need to mark the difference was hair - which spacemen don't have - replaced by a helmet - though later on this distinction is made with more varied faces - http://www.brickset.com/detail/?Set=3928-1, or throwing in blonde hair as well - http://www.brickset.com/detail/?Set=8827-9 - though I guiltily think that minifig is pretty awesome, and want one, and so do some boys and girls I've talked to). It does show though that women minifigs can be represented effectively without the need to resort to overly "feminised" representations .

It seems to me that in both images the girl is being used to advertise the smaller set for younger children, and the boy for the older, more complex sets. It makes me think that the Lego is mainly the brothers, which gets passed on to the sister. I actually have a job running a school holiday program for kids 5-12 playing with Lego. Most kids who do it are boys, and they seldom (if ever) talk about Lego they normally play with as being anything other than theirs, whereas the girls will usually talk about the Lego other family members have, and even though they play with it, the Lego is stated as their brother's Lego, and not theirs.

So gender neutral, that the boy is always the eldest, the tallest... ;)

The boy is older in both cases. It reminds me of my childhood, I was the younger sister, and my nice older brother let me play with his Lego. My parents never bought me any until I was older. My first Lego sets (a knight, and some pirates) came from my brother as a Christmas present. Only after that did my parents occasionally buy the the ~$30 sets.

Thanks for doing an article on this.  As a little girl, my two absolute favorite toys were Legos and Star Wars action figures.  I was not a tomboy either; I actually would only wear dresses and skirts.

Thank you for bringing this to one's attention! Although I do agree with the those commenting on the traditional/ sexist roles given to the boys and girls in the ad, and the sudden awareness how those roles are perceived in our society, I still think that these ads are still far, far, FAR better than what we see now. Despite the implication that older girls wouldn't want to/ be able to play with the more advance Lego, it still emphasizes "children" not "boys" and not "girls."

As a child, I played with those very Lego sets, as did my friends, including girls, and none of us thought of it with a "gender" attached to it. Of course, my girl friends may have hidden feelings to the contrary, but no one felt more privileged over another as to who it "belonged" to.

It only recently came into my awareness how Lego has been all about specific lines rather than just "blocks." Granted, the sets can often be turned into other things, they are all specifically conceived by a designer not an average child.

I remember when Lego introduced "girl" Lego's. At first I was excited to see other colors available, as I always wondered why there weren't more prior, but then I realized these wouldn't be "allowed" for a boy -- that these would bring derision and un acceptance if I had them.

I've never understood why certain colors are supposed to be attributed to one gender over another. I also have never understood why pastels are attributed to girls, other than the wrongly conceived notion that because they are "soft," "gentle" colors that that makes them "feminine," or rather, the very wrong view that they are also "weaker" colors than the "true" colors they represent.

At least in the 1980's, androgyny was very big; not only was the fashion, with pastels for men, and makeup and what have you were much more accepted than today, but also, there was much more marketing in toys for *children*. Granted, there were still genderized toys, but much more today. Care Bears were for both boys and girls, and in the cartoon this was evidenced by the Bears helping bous and girls. Today, there is much more attention given to the aid of girls, and more emphasis put on the pastel colored, girly female bears. In the '80's, Lotsa-Heart Elephant was pink and male, now that certainly wouldn't be the case.

Cabbage Patch Kids were seen in boys and girls hands but there'd be "none of that" today.

Although the new My Little Pony cartoon has bridged the gap, and the creators of the cartoon happily acknowledge this, the toys are still set in the "Girl toys" section. Despite having male characters in the show, and released as toys in years past, there's none of those today, and pastels are still used the most for colors.

It's sad that unicorns were once representative of Christ, and strong noble, powerful creatures but now are simply horned horses with rainbows for girls to dream about riding. The Faerie were filled with malevolent and harmful variants, and even the kind ones were seen as powerful and definitely seen in various forms and sizes. Now they are, like fairy tales and princesses, seen as a girl's thing, and that if you want the "real" ones, you'll turn to Disney.

It frustrates me to no end how there is such forced gender divisions in our society, and how it seems that in toys there is such an extreme division as to what is acceptable for a boy or girl, not including, of course, those children, teens, or adults who are both or neither, in such a small amount of time.

It was funny when Superman Returns came out in 2006, and Supermand Lois Lane dolls were actually put among the "boys" stuff, as usually they would be with girls. Funny, in a sad, sad way, for they were more towards the bottom of the shelf, as if it wasn't too good having dolls for boys, but also because it implied Superman wasn't for girls. When Mattel released their Barbie's Famous Friends line of DC super heroes, these were only with the other Barbie's, and the controversy was, despite being considered adult collectibles, that Black Canary was too sexy for Barbie and not suitable for little girls. Not unlike the Barbie with tattoos being under scrutiny by "concerned" parents, despite it being an adult collector's Barbie, nor the realization of far more troubling aspects of Barbie's on the shelf.

Now Barbie aisles are treated to the pink "carpet" treatment, as the aisles have a pink "carpet" stuck to the floors and pink everywhere, almost daring anyone not a girl to step into the aisle. Yet, Barbie still has some good points, especially compared to Bratz dolls and the hypersexualization of many "girl" toys.

In any case, Lego, as others have stated, could easily made their sets with more female characters and heroes, and bypass this insult of "construction bad for girls, hurt their head like math" mentality, pastel, stereotyping mess. Yes, there is an inventor, but that is still diminished by the rest. Furthermore, the line is called "Friends," which also stereotypes the notion that girls just want to sip tea and gossip amongst each other, and, as others have stated, continues the idea that violence/ war is fun and acceptable for boys, where girls are to be more passive. It's like any strength or indignant anger for many female character is diminished by the fact that she's also so sweet, sexy, and "sassy," and pink -- while those that deviate from it are masculine ... But I digress.