It's been a remarkable week. Eight days ago, an excursion to a local LEGO store yielded my first brush with the company's newest minifigure, the Scientist, who had long been anticipated on the pages of this blog. Upon returning home, I sat down and wrote about the experience, adding a brief history of LEGO, gender, and minifigs in the STEM fields for a guest post on the Scientific American blog network. The piece went live the next day.
By Tuesday, it had become the most read article on the SciAm blogs, and it remains in that position as I write this nearly a week later. The post spread like wildfire via social media, and before long, other outlets began covering it on their own sites. News of Professor C. Bodin, LEGO's first female lab scientist minifig, had clearly captivated scores of people around the globe who, like me, were surprised at just how few female STEM minifigures LEGO has produced in 35 years.
My only lament about whole thing is that the actual news became distorted rather quickly. Many outlets claimed this was the first female scientist for LEGO, when I had taken pains to point out in my post that this was not actually the case. Others reported incorrectly that a proposed all-female minifig set had also been released as an official product.
It's been a pleasure, however, to read so many tweets and comments on this story. Most have been positive, although many readers have been flabbergasted at the fact that this could be news in the year 2013. To that end, I hold that there is much yet that can and should be done to increase the representation of women and minorities in all facets of history and popular culture, including toys. I would love, for instance, to see more brown LEGO minifigures representing people of color. It would also be nice to see more minifigs—and LEGO Friends—in other areas of science and technology. This is not just ho-hum wishful thinking; the way people have embraced the news of this particular minifig strongly suggests that toy companies can still make a profit with products that defy the pink-blue, girly-macho gender dichotomy.
Lastly, a wee bit of trivia that didn't make the SciAm post, since I only discovered it later in the week... Just who is this C. Bodin, after whom the new LEGO scientist is named? Some have wondered whether the fig was made in the likeness of Joanne Manaster, a.k.a. the Science Goddess, who was actually one of my first LEGO Scitweeps. But no, it would appear that the real namesake is one Cynthia Bodin, Concept and Product Designer for the LEGO Group, who looks quite like the minifig in real life. It's interesting to note that Bodin's past product concepts include some of the girliest, blingiest, pink-and-purpliest LEGO stuff I've ever seen. These designs were part of the now-defunct Clickits theme that preceded Friends in attempting to woo girls. More recently, Bodin has led efforts to test LEGO products with parents in Denmark, where the company's headquarters are located. I reached out to her for comment, but she could neither confirm nor deny her connection with the new scientist minifig: "I’m not able to provide any detail on my work," she wrote via email, "given that it’s primarily rooted in research and design, which we don’t routinely discuss publicly."
In any case, I am, of course, very happy with Bodin's little plastic doppelganger, and I can only hope the LEGO team decides to produce more like it. ∞
Since 2004, the Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media has worked tirelessly to study issues of gender in children's entertainment, and to spread their knowledge so that others might use it to affect change. This week, the Institute issued a sobering new report [PDF] on the state of gender in today's family programming. Consistent with past studies, the new research found that girls and women are vastly underrepresented; stereotyped; and sexualized in popular entertainment aimed at pre-teens. But this paper hit me particularly hard because it expanded on some unsettling trends in Hollywood's portrayal of women in various high-powered, high-valued careers, including those in the STEM fields.
In a section titled, "Females Still Slam Into a Glass Ceiling," study authors Stacy L. Smith, Marc Choueiti, Ashley Prescott, and Katherine Pieper reported that in their survey of recent family programming, female characters were portrayed in positions of power at alarmingly low rates. For example, of 129 family films rated G, PG, or PG-13, female politicians were all but nonexistant. "[N]ot one speaking character plays a powerful American female political figure across 5,839 speaking characters in 129 family films," the authors write. "Men, however, hold over 45 different prestigious U.S. political positions."
Here are the sad stats for surveyed family films:
Employed Characters Within Sector By Highest Clout Position
The analogous numbers for female characters working in the STEM fields were similarly problematic:
"Males and females are most likely to be depicted working in the life/physical sciences than in other STEM careers in family films ... Yet computer science and mathematics comprise the largest percentage of the U.S. STEM workforce. Even though female characters infiltrate the life/physical sciences, males are almost four times as likely as females to be shown on screen in this line of work in family films. ... Summing across computer science and engineering, the ratio of males to females in these arenas is 14.25 to 1."
As I've written previously, it's just about impossible these days for girls and boys not to be bombarded with sometimes subtle, oftentimes blatant cues about stereotypical gender norms. Unfortunately, it's becoming ever more clear that even before children enter school, they're being exposed to imagery that reflects the idea that certain jobs or careers are for men and not for women. If there's a bright note here, it's that the Geena Davis Institute continues to push for education about just how badly the entertainment industry as a whole is doing on this front. ∞
Unless you’ve been living in a cave for the past two months, you probably know that the Lego Group has been under attack for introducing a new brand of modular toys aimed exclusively at girls. The LEGO Friends line has set off a firestorm of criticism from parents and feminists everywhere for its tired gender stereotypes, and for the fact that it fails to address LEGO’s real gender problem: the blatant boy-centered marketing strategy it’s relied upon for the past several decades.
If LEGO’s executives are to be believed, they really, truly care about girls and are simply dumbfounded as to why they haven’t been more successful in reaching them. In this post I list five concrete ways in which LEGO could shift their focus to be more inclusive of girls—and less bound by stereotypes—without losing boys in the process. But first, I highly recommend you watch the following videos from Feminist Frequency founder Anita Sarkeesian. These clips provide a helpful primer on what’s so frustrating about LEGO Friends, plus a brief history of how LEGO’s marketing has evolved into what it is today.
And now, I offer...
5 Ways To Make LEGO a More Girl-Friendly, Less Sexist Brand
1. Get some women on your management team.
I thought the recent announcement of Facebook’s all-male board of directors was bad...but at least I could take comfort in the fact that the company is managed by a highly visible female COO. So of course I was completely flabbergasted to find out that LEGO’s management team is all testosterone, all the time. Of the company’s 21 senior executive management positions, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM is currently held by a man. [LEGO's board of directors is composed of six men, one woman.] And you wonder why LEGO hasn’t figured girls out?? Let’s fix this overwhelming leadership imbalance, guys. Pronto.
2. Produce sets that give girls and women leading roles.
So many of LEGO’s sets today are made in conjunction with a movie or other Hollywood media brand. It’s a win-win for Hollywood producers and LEGO alike. But how many of those brands star girls or women in the lead role? Star Wars? Toy Story? Pirates of the Caribbean? The Lord of the Rings (available in LEGO this summer)? Hermione Grainger is a major character from the Harry Potter series, and there were a fair number of female minifigs incorporated with those sets, so I’ll give them that one. But still, in almost every franchise that LEGO has partnered with, females are secondary or sidekick characters at best. To be sure, this heavy male slant in children’s programming is a problem with Hollywood as a whole, not just with the famed brick-makers. (For an in-depth look at how girls and women are marginalized, sexualized, and stereotyped in family films, check out these studies by the Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media.) And yet, LEGO could go a long way toward increasing its girl-friendly cred by creating sets and minifigs that mirror movies and shows featuring prominent leading ladies—like Avatar, Dora the Explorer, Spy Kids, and The Hunger Games.
3. More female figs, please.
Let’s forget LEGO Friends for a moment. The core identifying character of the LEGO world is and will always remain the minifigure. Over the past couple of years I’ve spent a good amount of time sorting through minifig parts for various LEGO projects I’ve worked on. And it’s certainly nice to know that LEGO has way more female figs than it used to. But there’s been no doubt in my mind that the numbers aren’t close to being even. So I decided to do some counting...
In 2011’s The Cult of LEGO, authors John Baichtal and Joe Meno state that of 4,000 unique minifig designs produced since 1978, male-identified figs have outnumbered female-identified figs 18:1. Even I was a little surprised at this ratio, so I got in touch with Baichtal to inquire about his source. Long story short, while the sheer number of male figs produced probably vastly outweighs the number of females (since in some sets multiple copies are included of the same fig), I think the 18:1 ratio might be a little misleading.
One way to examine the gender balance of minifigs is to explore the stock of BrickLink.com, an independent LEGO marketplace. BrickLink hosts thousands of sellers worldwide and offers not only full minifigs but millions of individual parts representing models produced throughout LEGO’s history. Baichtal and Meno counted minifig models available on BrickLink, but I'd argue that this may not accurately measure the true minifig gender balance. For one thing, many figs could conceivably be any gender. One reason for this is that, if they don’t have hair, many minifigs come with some sort of hat or helmet that obscures the face. Even if not, plenty of figs have gender-neutral faces, hair, and torsos.
I myself decided to looked at the archive of minifig heads to measure how many male faces there are compared with female or neutral faces. While more than one fig model could have been made with the same face, I found it easier to separate faces into distinct genders. So, here’s a little chart with my findigs. The ratio isn’t as shocking as 18:1, but it's still skewed quite significantly toward male-specific parts: I counted four male heads for every two neutrals and every one female.
So how do kids acquire minifigs? These days, you can buy some of them individually...though individual figs are packaged so that, for all but the most dedicated LEGO fans, a buyer doesn’t know which one she’s getting until she opens the bag. This is fine if you want a surprise and frustrating if you want to buy the minifig you most identify with—or to not get duplicate figs if you buy more than one. More maddening is the fact that while the ratio is getting slightly better, the series in which individual minifigs are released continue to include significantly more male-specific figs than female-specific figs.
Really, though, sets have become the norm, so unless you shop through a specialty Web store like BrickLink, you’ll get whichever figs come in a set—and the reality is that those remain predominantly male-focused. To be sure, not everything LEGO’s done in this area is bad. For example, the City Community Minifigure Set features images of a female construction worker, a female EMT, and a female police officer, all careers that play against stereotype. I saw at least one space set in stores recently with a female astronaut. But here’s another big problem: Whenever there’s only one minifig included in a set, it’s invariably a male. Would it be so hard to include one extra part, a female head, and show the female version clearly on the box of every set? Or, if one extra part would break the bank, why not include a dual head, with a female face on one side and a male face on the other?
Finally, I’ll offer a quick word on LEGO Friends figures. My biggest beef with them is just their being completely separate and different from regular minifigs. I have a hard time believing that if LEGO made more/better female minifig options, and if they coupled them with awesome new sets, that they couldn’t capture the interest of girls and their parents. More on this in points 4 and 5.
4. Quit it with the stereotyping.
As mentioned above, there are plenty of gender-neutral torsos that can work for any minifig. Unfortunately, though, female-specific figs have tended to be decked out in stereotypical, overly feminine features.
My suggestion here? Less cleavage, less pink, fewer hearts, and less excess skin. Mind you, a little of any of these things is perfectly fine. But when such a large percentage of female-specific torsos includes one or more of these factors, it becomes a problem.
Which brings me to a related point. I cringed—and probably swore a little too loudly for a toy aisle—when I saw this scene in a big box store this past fall:
Et tu, LEGO?
When I was a kid, LEGOs were among my favorite toys. Of course, I had plenty of dolls, too, but I didn’t need my LEGOs to be pink or purple in order to enjoy using them. Nor did I need to be presented with stereotypically girly situations such as those in the LEGO Friends sets to be happy with my supply of bricks and minifigs. And while I’m generally fine with the fact that minifig designs have become more detailed—and thus more gendered—over the years, I feel that the way it’s been done has only helped reinforce, rather than break down, stereotypes. And that’s sad.
So I urge LEGO to take the lead on bucking this mode of thinking in which manufacturers feel like they have to offer separate boy/blue and girl/ pink versions for all of their products. It’s true, boys and girls may play slightly differently, but plenty of evidence shows that their tastes are shaped at an extremely young age by what’s around them...including the toys they see in ads, online, and in stores. Do we really want to teach our kids that girls and boys can’t play and build together? Or that they’re so different that they can’t possibly enjoy the same things?
5. Inspire.
Last but not least, if you want to focus on new, girl-empowering products, you’ve gotta provide plenty of inspiration. Why not focus more on sets that show girls doing inspirational, socially valued—dare I suggest cerebral—things? The characters could be scientists, engineers, CEOs, politicians, teachers, journalists, technology specialists, architects—the list goes on.
Model scientists (clockwise from top left): Astronaut Sandra Magnus; Physicist Lisa Randall; Primatologist Jane Goodall; Astronomer Jill Tartar; Oceanographer Sylvia Earle; Planetary scientist Carolyn Porco. Individual versions on my photostream.
Now, I have to give LEGO some credit here: The Friends line does include sets for an invention workshop and a vet’s office. But why do these all have to be bathed in pink, purple and other stereotypically girly pastel colors? And why do the more cerebral types of situations have to be the exception rather than the norm?
At the end of the day, it’s certainly possible LEGO will make money off of their new initiative. And I do wish them well, as they will always hold a special place in my heart. But my call would be to drop LEGO Friends as a distinct “girl only” product and to add some meat to the offered sets. More specifically, I would encourage LEGO to reinterpret Friends in a way that incorporates gender-neutral colors and normal female—and male—minifigs. And then make more sets that include girls in inspiring careers or situations. The fact is, in just a few short years, the company has morphed from childhood favorite to ubiquitous mega-player in today’s toy sector. I believe that with LEGO’s success comes a special responsibility to set an example on gender issues such as these. ∞
I don't really hate pink. As colors go, it's brilliant when leaning toward magenta and, well, pretty in its paler form. I own (among other things) a hot pink rain slicker and myriad writing implements in various shades of fuchsia and rose. But I have to say that I see red when I think about the pinkification of anything and everything related to the female gender.
It might surprise you to learn that pink didn't always conjure images of princesses and other precious playthings; the truth is, until the late 20th century blue was actually considered the daintier, more girly color, while regal pink was considered stronger and more masculine. Today, of course, we've done a complete 180, and then some. Consider, if you will:
Exhibit A: Toys! Step into any major toyshop—or chain store featuring a toy section—and it'll be painfully obvious which toys are intended for girls and which are for boys. I won't even go into how horrible it is that we're socializing our children to assume that certain skills/pastimes/careers are more masculine or feminine, but I will share with you one example of mind-blowing pink stupidity. A recent Toys "R" Us catalogue featured simple telescopes and microscopes for budding young scientists. The 'scopes were available in different colors and with different levels of magnification. Sickeningly, the lowest-resolution options for both microscopes and telescopes were (wait for it...) the pink ones. How idiotic is that?! Even the newly announced Computer Engineer Barbie, one of very few toys portraying women in technical fields, has to come with a pink laptop, pink cell phone, and pink accessories like shoes, glasses, and wristwatch. Yeesh!
Exhibit B: Electronics! When you offer a product in a rainbow of colors—think candy-colored earbuds or iPod Nanos—pink is a perfectly good option to add to the mix. But when you throw pink in as a second color simply to try to woo certain female customers, the outcome is often just ridiculous. Let's see...pink SLRs? Check. Pink PSPs? Check. Pink Wii remotes? Check. And then there's this monstrosity. Excuse me while I find somewhere to throw up. But seriously, who buys this stuff? I am genuinely curious to know.
Exhibit C: Team sports apparel! So apparently the people who own major sports franchises have decided that instead of offering items for their female fans in, say, their team's colors (a logical choice, right?), they'll instead provide only one option: pink or pink. No joke, most of the time it's either pink jerseys and caps or black t-shirts with pink rhinestone studs. This isn't a fashion show, folks, it's a sporting event. Oh, and have you ever been to a ladies' giveaway day at the ballpark? Nothing screams "Let's beat the Evil Empire!!" like a pale pink visor, ya know? (Small consolation: The Evil Empire gives away pink visors, too.) Mind you, it's not exactly rocket science to figure out why no professional sports team that I can think of—male or female—has pink as it's primary color; even women's teams would be seen as too feminine or girly for that. Unless, of course, they're dressing up for a special occasion...which leads me to my next point!
Exhibit D: Breast cancer awareness! Yup, even the pink cancer ribbon (and the pinkification of anything in the name of breast cancer awareness) bothers me. Now obviously, cancer of any type is a very serious matter. But I completely agree with social activist Barbara Ehrenreich, who recently wrote in the LA Times of her frustration with the fact that pink has become a symbol for what I'll call "feminism lite":
"To some extent, pink-ribbon culture has replaced feminism as a focus of female identity and solidarity. When a corporation wants to signal that it's 'woman friendly,' what does it do? It stamps a pink ribbon on its widget and proclaims that some minuscule portion of the profits will go to breast cancer research....Instead of embracing the full spectrum of human colors—black, brown, red, yellow and white—we stick to princess pink. While we used to march in protest against sexist laws and practices, now we race or walk 'for the cure.'"
I must say, I'm happy to know I'm not the only one truly bothered by the pinkification of the female gender. While the marketers of the world continue to do their damnedest to make sure pink = girl/woman, I've seen more articlesinthelastseveralmonths examining the role of pink in modern society than I have in many years of caring about this. There's even a new book about the subject, Pink and Blue: Telling the Boys From the Girls in America by University of Maryland professor Jo B. Paoletti, due out later this year.
I was especially happy—dare I say tickled pink?—to read about a new campaign out of the UK that hopes to "challenge the culture of pink which invades every aspect of girls' lives." Called Pink Stinks, the organization aims not only to encourage girls to think in other shades of the electromagnetic spectrum (okay, truth be told pink isn't even cool enough to be inthe visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum...), it also strives to reverse gender stereotyping by providing positive role models for girls in all walks of life—especially those traditionally closed to women.
Sadly, the two sisters who started Pink Stinks, Abi and Emma Moore, have already been branded by naysayers as "dour and humorless feminists," "communist loonies," and worse. I find it amazing how strongly these Defenders of Pink can come out against what seems like such an egalitarian agenda! Well, I, for one, support Pink Stinks and everyone else who's raised awareness about this issue of late. To be clear, I don't think pink should be demonized as a color, but niether should it be the only color associated with feminity. Why not start on day one? If we could get to the point where babies come home from the hospital dressed not in pink or blue but in something a little more gender-neutral (chartreuse, anyone?), I think we'd all begin to see the world through slightly more rose-colored glasses. ∞
Editor & polymath; lover of science, space, music, film, design, and giant anteaters; strong supporter of women and girls; Wikipedian; LEGO tinkerer. maiaw.com
