Q5

[butterflydreaming]

5. pastel Legos marketed at girls - good or evil?

Pastel Legos, good. Marketed at girls, not so good.

I strongly dislike the defining of gender roles. Perpetuating the idea that girls like girly things and boys like rough-and-tough things really is evil, I think, and maybe even Evil. Why can't kids just be kids? Why, when you aren't even using it yet, should your plumbing determine your wiring? Boys should be "allowed" to like pastel colors and play with dolls -- hell, they should be "allowed" to wear dresses and ribbons! And kiss boys! Girls should... be "allowed" to play soccer! And build things with tools! And kiss girls! Our gender role definitions are arbitrary, anyway, and differ from culture to culture and historic time period to historic time period.

Marketing in general also makes me itch. Don't think for me. I can think for myself. And don't encourage people to be sheep.

Comments

[rainmage.livejournal.com]

That's so retarded. Maybe I was a weird girl, but I loved Lego. I played with Medieval legos, Pirate Legos... all involving swords and cannons and bows and horses and spears... er, yeah, maybe I *was* a weird girl since I played more Lego than Barbie dolls. However, I did have a Californian pinkish beach house set with a pool that looked like a Barbie dread house. So there, there were female-targeted sets after all.

And for the record: I don't think I'd have liked a bucket full of pastel blocks. Just no.

[rainmage.livejournal.com]

*dream, not dread ^^;;;;

[butterflydrming.livejournal.com]

That's a funny Freudian slip, though: Barbie dread house

With most "girl" toys, it's not like we had a choice. And a lot of the houses in California actually are pink -- not *usually* Barbie pink, LOL -- it's a realistic representation.