On Barbie and LEGO

[Duxwing]

Dear Forum,

It strikes me as odd that human tertiary sex characteristics so deeply extend into the realm of childhood play that the female sex (transvestites and pre-transvestites being acknowledged as worthy human beings, but simply being ignored for being so few) plays predominantly with toys resembling barbie dolls and their attendant accessories and themes while the male sex with toys resembling LEGO bricks and their attendant accessories and themes.

Although I grudgingly acknowledge that acceptable customs of communication and thought are necessary for a functioning society to exist, such scope and depth is surely more damaging than it is helpful. Take, for example, LEGO, which is one of the most creative toy sets known to man: Its users are so predominantly male that even explicitly female-oriented LEGO sets sell poorly if at all. How many engineers have we lost not to workplace discrimination but lack of early childhood experience?

Moreover, in the realms of cosmetology, the culinary arts, fashion, and interior design, we see men facing a choice between their masculinity and an appreciation for aesthetic beauty that lacks deep, underlying themes. In other words, in our society, no man makes pretty things. And, just as with the LEGO sets, how many hair stylists, chefs, and designers have we lost not to schoolyard bullying but to a lack of experience during early childhood?

Thus I pose to you, the forum, the question, why is our culture so, and can it be resolved such that Barbie and LEGO are no longer mutually exclusive options at playtime? Of course, for the practical types among us, how could we accomplish this goal, and at what cost?

-Duxwing

 

[crippli]

Things are changing slowly. Gender roles are deeper set then religion, biology and probably most anything known to human kind.

Most child imprinting is done by the female sex. To solve the issues that you have outlined, that I agree with. You need to change the worldview of the majority of female parents. This happens as we speak, mainly through media, but the people who can see clearly, and is in a position of influence are few and far between. The trend with kindergarten from age 4 could also be influential enough to deal with the issues. But strict guidelines would have to be followed, and for that to occur is little likely. Try to tell a mother(mothers have the most influence, greatest power) that her parenting sucks. That does not tend to go well.

But I believe resistance is futile, what you outline will happen, a few generations probably just need to die out first.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Thus I pose to you, the forum, the question, why is our culture so,

Capitalism and consumerism.

and can it be resolved such that Barbie and LEGO are no longer mutually exclusive options at playtime? Of course, for the practical types among us, how could we accomplish this goal, and at what cost?

-Duxwing

This depends on what the parents want for their children, and telling parents how to raise their children is a touchy subject.

I see that you're saying what hobbies kids might have when they're young could influence their future careers, but it's kind of a weak argument for gender discrimination. There are many factors that affect what career path someone takes, not just childhood obsessions.

There'll always be a gender divide somewhere, it's something biological and has a psychological influence, and the social gender influence itself seems too strong to really make any significant change.

 

[Etheri]

I love lego. Lego technic probably taught me more than this forum, or atleast that's what it felt like at the time.

 

[crippli]

I wish I was given barbie dolls. But I was given lego, and please don't get me wrong, I loved them. And probably what made me take an engineering degree in mechanical design. But I am sure barbie dolls would have fit me better. Or not. The point is the choice, and not the value judgment. That is what I have an issue with.

 

[Trebuchet]

My 8-year-old daughter has both. She likes her Barbie quite a bit (actually this doll has a different name but I forget what it is). But I think she likes the enormous collection of LEGOs more.

She recently received as a birthday gift a couple of sets of "LEGOs for girls." I'm sure you've seen them. They look more like humans and have a lot of pink stuff. I thought they would offend me but they were actually kind of cute. First she decided that they were a married couple ("In my version of California, Prop 8 didn't pass.") Then they turned on the astronaut minifig because he was a zombie and systematically dismembered him, taking over his spaceship as a place to hide. Then she built a TARDIS (with working chameleon circuits so it didn't look like a phone box) so they could be Time Lords and go meet some new aliens.

Choice of toy is good. And you can't control their imaginations with the outward form or traditional uses of a toy.

Anyway, my answer to the OP is that it doesn't matter how we got here, but how we are changing: a bit at a time. And yes, it is certainly possible to play with Barbie and LEGOs together, but it takes a lot of LEGOs to make anything sized for Barbie, so I don't think it is terribly popular.