2) Is the LEGO group responsible for the fact  that most of the movie franchises they make licensing deals with all contain disproportionately low numbers of female characters and also fail the Bechdel Test? Yes, those licensing deals are negotiated by TLG, they are choosing very carefully which franchises to associate their product with. More over, why are none of the female characters from Lord of the Rings present in the first wave of LEGO sets? Eowyn is more important to the narrative than Eomer, but he gets a minifig and she doesn’t?

3) I am equally surprised that the LEGO DUPLO Disney Princess line has not gotten more attention.

4) It’s great that the Friends sets are bringing more racial diversity into a core LEGO product. I hope this trend spreads to some of their other lines. I like your ideas about differently-abled figures as well. Don’t hold out for religions though, LEGO has made it clear it that doesn’t fit within their brand standards. Check out the recent brand standards post on the cuusoo blog for a succinct outline.

In order to play any scenario where women interact independently of men, one needs to have more than one female (or androgynous) minifigs. Without that, female characters lack independent agency. 

There’s a disincentive for girls to want to play with your product.

I understand that LEGO has been talking to women’s groups since the LEGO Friends announcement about trying to come up with better girl-friendly options. I hope somebody seriously suggests increasing the number of female minifigs in sets and kits.

I might be inclined to write about Barbie if I had a sufficient background, but as I LEGO nerd, I am sticking to writing what I know.

My hope for the friends line is that rather than pigeonholing, it might attract girls to LEGO who were otherwise only interested in things like Barbie, and act as a gateway into other LEGO sets.  One thing I’ve not seen attention drawn to is the rather surprising fact that “Girls” is a category on the LEGO shop site – like “Key Chains” or “Books” (there is no “Boys”) – BUT again after the initial shock I interpret this as another attempt to help find sets for girls who may not have been introduced to LEGO yet (similar to the Age Range filter to help find sets that would appeal to those groups) – if they were, then they’d know what they want and be shopping by brand etc.  And the contents are not all pink:

http://shop.lego.com/en-US/Girls-ByCategory

Town Hall, Volswagen Camper Can, Fun with Vehicles, LEGO Master Builder, Basic Bricks Deluxe (for all the “bring it back to the bricks” types), Kingdoms Joust, SpongeBob, Harry Potter, Pirates of the Caribbean…  Now, a lot of those might be considered “boys” sets by some – especially given their male:female head ratio – BUT aren’t they just faithful reproductions of the franchises – why is LEGO getting all the flack vs. the franchises themselves whose characters are predominantly male?

As big of a fan as I am, I was taken aback when I watched a documentary about LEGO recently and a product designer referred to screen-printed pieces as being favored “so that your little boy doesn’t have to put stickers on” or something along those lines – but that was just a casual comment out of context – he didn’t say “and I do mean boy – no girls should be playing with LEGO police” etc.  Less defensible, yet for some reason escaping the scathing headlines that Friends were subjected to is the Disney Princess DUPLO – I’m much more concerned about infecting even younger minds with this syndrome vs. the more rounded Friends line.  But I do think LEGO are actively recognizing diversity, e.g. the Friends are at least available in various skin tones (could be more, but compare to the race-neutral minifig yellow (yes, some of the franchises offer non-yellow, but…)), and even better the DUPLO World People Set:

http://shop.lego.com/en-US/LEGO-DUPLO-World-People-Set-9222

But where are the differently-abled LEGO sets?  There is a wheelchair in the DUPLO Doctor’s Clinic but that’s about it – if LEGO is charged w/ accurately representing society, surely disability, race, sexuality, religion etc. need to be tackled too?  Would make some cool additions to the next minifig series! :)

http://minifigures.us.lego.com/en-us/Bios/Default.aspx

The overarching fact in all this remains: LEGO is about imagination.  All of our LEGO gets mashed up into whatever crazy scenario we want to play out that day – right now at our house, the hundreds of minifigs we own barely factor into our play – instead my daughter has created a playground and “nest” for our LEGO pigs, dogs, and cats, whose primary activity is going to the grocery store to get more piggy food and lamenting the absence of whichever animals departed to make the food run.  LEGO did not have to spoon-feed my toddler this scenario, and her play was in no way prescribed or limited by them – she just took this amazingly adaptable toy and used it for whatever crazy scenario popped into her head.  And that is what makes LEGO such a brilliant toy! :)

In all cases I have given TLG the benefit of the doubt and classified as neutral all minifigs lacking overtly genderized characteristics, even if TLG’s marketing materials (or popular culture) classify the character as male or female. For instance the Han Solo and Kai minifigs I classified as neutral despite the fact the most children will think of them as masculine. Here are the traits I looked for:
Masculine: facial hair (printed directly on the face or as a detachable beard)
and (occasionally) an exposed chest with well-defined abs. I did not count chin lines or cheek bones as masculine.
Feminine: lipstick, eye shadow, exaggerated eyelashes, (occasionally) curves on clothing that imply breasts, or actual cleavage.

That’s why I stuck to really strict definitions of gendered traits in my analysis: masculine (facial hair) or feminine (lipstick, eyelashes, cleveage). If you broaden the definitions, the ratios are even more depressing. My question for you is are there any unambiguously male figures from before 1989? What criteria are you using?

I tend to call for as much gender neutrality as possible, I’m no more into manly men than I am girly girls, especially at the extremities; but I really don’t see the harm in having a minifig with pigtails or a skirt.  If you want to blame anyone, blame society, not the companies trying to create products that people can actually relate to.

By all means call out Barbie for all its atrocities, but a female minifig?  Really?