{"id":46784,"date":"2012-05-08T11:27:38","date_gmt":"2012-05-08T16:27:38","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/socimages\/?p=46784"},"modified":"2012-09-05T14:01:44","modified_gmt":"2012-09-05T19:01:44","slug":"part-i-historical-perspective-on-the-lego-gender-gap","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/socimages\/2012\/05\/08\/part-i-historical-perspective-on-the-lego-gender-gap\/","title":{"rendered":"Part I: Historical Perspective on the LEGO Gender Gap"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>The\u00a0splashy introduction<\/a>\u00a0of the new LEGO friends line earlier this year\u00a0stirred up a lot of controversy<\/a>. My goal with this set of posts is to provide some historical perspective for the valid concerns<\/a>\u00a0raised in this heated debate.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

1932-1977: The Brick Era<\/strong><\/p>\n

The LEGO Group started as a family business with the motto \u201conly the best is good enough<\/a>.\u201d The company produced primarily wooden toys for the first two decades of its existence. It wasn\u2019t until 1958 that the iconic LEGO brick was\u00a0patented<\/a>\u00a0as we know it today. LEGO bricks were\u00a0originally marketed<\/a>\u00a0as toys for both boys and girls. The 60s saw the introduction of new elements to the LEGO system like wheels, windows and hinges.\u00a0Marketing images<\/a> from this era tend to feature\u00a0boys<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0girls<\/a>\u00a0equally.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

In the 70s we encounter the first LEGO theme marketed specifically at girls: Homemaker<\/a>. The sets aren\u2019t very different from the rest of the products offered at that time (there\u2019s some bricks and you build stuff), but the\u00a0pictures<\/a>\u00a0of smiling girls playing with the sets clearly mark them as “girls only.” Homemaker sets are clearly meant to be\u00a0furniture for dolls<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Dolls are popular toys, so finding ways to integrate the LEGO experience into this existing model of play\u00a0was a shrewd business strategy for TLG, but one that nevertheless perpetuated stereotypes.<\/p>\n

The 70s also saw TLG experimenting with different types of human-like figures. The first figures<\/a>\u00a0(sometimes called maxifigs to contrast with their later mini brethren) were built from regular LEGO bricks and new head pieces. These appeared in a line of sets with the uninspired name \u201cLEGO Building Sets with People<\/a>.\u201d These line as a whole was marketed at\u00a0both boys and girls<\/a>, but some sets were\u00a0more<\/a>\u00a0targeted<\/a>. Co-existing for a brief period with the maxifig was a\u00a0proto-minifigure.<\/a>\u00a0The minifig we all know and love today was next.<\/p>\n

1978-1988: The Golden Era<\/strong><\/p>\n

In 1978 the\u00a0minifigure<\/a>\u00a0first appeared as we know it today and, after an\u00a0awkward<\/a>\u00a0period of co-existence with the maxifigs, the “minifig” became the standard for tiny plastic people. The minifig is now as iconic as the LEGO brick and equally important in defining the LEGO brand, over the years has tried to introduce\u00a0other<\/a>\u00a0types<\/a>\u00a0of<\/a>\u00a0figures<\/a>, but none of them have the staying power of the minifig.\"\"<\/a>For the next decade LEGO minifigs existed in a gender neutral\u00a0utopia<\/a>. One can argue that the hairstyles are slightly gendered, but keep in mind that\u00a0unisex hairstyles<\/a>\u00a0were all the rage at the time. When people talk about wanting to get back to the \u201cgood old days\u201d of LEGO, this is generally the decade they are referring to.<\/p>\n

In response to the LEGO Friends launch a lot of people have been passing around\u00a0these images<\/a>\u00a0from an early 80s ad campaign:\"\"<\/a>Even at this time, however, LEGO was\u00a0promoting<\/a>\u00a0gendered play.\u00a0 The short-lived\u00a0Scala Jewelry<\/a>\u00a0theme, for example was a major deviation from the core LEGO product line. There is virtually no building in these sets, they are completely\u00a0superficial<\/a>\u00a0— a triumph of style over substance.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Contrast this with\u00a0Technic<\/a>, which is all substance and no style. These complicated sets (originally called Expert builder sets) are\u00a0clearly<\/a>\u00a0for<\/a>\u00a0boys<\/a>. Boys also seem to have\u00a0taken<\/a>\u00a0over<\/a>\u00a0LEGO trains. It\u2019s great that TLG provides a\u00a0range of products<\/a>\u00a0for builders of all skill levels, but why is it that the products for girls are always on the low-skill side of the spectrum and the high-skill side always reserved for boys?<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

The segregation of LEGO into feminine and masculine sets would escalate in the next 15 yrs, however, and I\u2019ll cover that development in the next installment.<\/p>\n

Read Part II of A Historical Perspective on the LEGO Gender Gap<\/a>.<\/p>\n

—————————<\/p>\n

David Pickett is a social media marketer by day and a LEGO animator by night.\u00a0 He is fanatical about LEGO and proud to be a nerd. Read more from David at Thinking Brickly<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The\u00a0splashy introduction\u00a0of the new LEGO friends line earlier this year\u00a0stirred up a lot of controversy. My goal with this set of posts is to provide some historical perspective for the valid concerns\u00a0raised in this heated debate.\u00a0 1932-1977: The Brick Era The LEGO Group started as a family business with the motto \u201conly the best is […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":51,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[55,2102,253,1711],"class_list":["post-46784","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-gender","tag-gender-history","tag-history","tag-toysgames"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/socimages\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46784","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/socimages\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/socimages\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/socimages\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/51"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/socimages\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=46784"}],"version-history":[{"count":15,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/socimages\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46784\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":46821,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/socimages\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46784\/revisions\/46821"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/socimages\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=46784"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/socimages\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=46784"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/socimages\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=46784"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}