Pay attention, 2014 Mad Men: This little girl is holding a LEGO set. The LEGOs are not pink or “made for girls.” She isn’t even wearing pink. The copy is about “younger children” who “build for fun.” Not just “girls” who build. ALL KIDS.
In an age when little girls and boys are treated as though they are two entirely different species by toy marketers, this 1981 ad for LEGO — one of our favorite images ever — issues an important reminder.
This is my favorite advertisement. Also, a short story about sexist parenting with LEGOS.
I work at a toy store that sells thousands of dollars of legos and I’ve seen time and time again parents refusing to buy blue box legos for girls and refusing to buy pink box legos for boys even when they ask for them.
One girl came in with her parents and she wanted LEGO CITY because it was her birthday and they wanted to buy her gift with her at the store. [LEGO CITY is a LEGO series that lets a child build train stations, firetrucks, passenger ships, space exploration vehicles, drawbridges, garbage disposal trucks, basically anything related to the running of a city and it is not a gender based toy.] I showed them the LEGO CITY, but the mom told the child over and over “No, this is for boys you can’t get that” and eventually, she made the little girl choose a LEGO Disney Cinderella Castle instead because it was “more appropriate”.
Even after I pointed out that every box has female and male LEGO people because the toy is meant for both boys and girls, she refused because it looked like a “boy” toy. I’ve had many occasions where a girl will be drawn to the LEGO CITY series only for the parents to come to me and ask “Where are the GIRLS Legos, you know, princesses and stuff. I’m not buying her this sort of thing” and it makes me so, so, so, so, sad every time because I can already imagine the types of values in education and career choices the parents will be scolding child for wanting in the future when they aren’t even allowed to play with anything blue.
Let girls be kids without all the forced gender stereotyping, dammit.
You know what little girls could grow up to be? Architects, engineers, builders.
You know what little girls cannot ever be, no matter what they do in life? A princess.
We sell real life careers to little boys, but to girls we sell lies and fantasy. Then we have the gall to say that girls ‘choose’ careers that earn them less, that girls just aren’t interested in STEM fields, that girls are stupid for pursuing frivolous nonsense, etc. etc.
This is gender in action. Not nature, but socialization.
That last comment especially 👏🏻👏🏻
As a female architect I approve this message.
I loved LEGO when I was little, and it was an activity I enjoyed with both my sister and my two brothers. It galls me how the brand was marketed so heavily to boys in the 80s and 90s, because now those kids are adults and remember it as ‘something for boys’ and keep it away from their girls. Marketing can do damage for *generations*, not just in the immediate short term.
GENDER IN ACTION what a great fucking way of putting it
Adjacent to this I worked at Toys R Us about a decade ago and in the science section they had one pink telescope. It was the least powerful and pretty basic, but I saw more than one person pick it up because it was ‘the girl’s version’. Nevermind that there were better ones for not much more.
Also the whole store was more or less laid out as a girls area and a boys area.
Still not sure what to make of the pink ouija board though…