When I was a kid I had a huge bag of Lego! And I mean huge!

I loved playing with Lego and I think part of it was that my Dad would help me build the most detailed houses, with windows and doors and trees and cars, and I had a collection of Lego people and I could spend hours and hours playing with my Lego. I never wanted to put them away, because the houses my dad helped me built were perfect.

They weren’t pink and that was ok! Believe me being that pink and purple were my favorite colors, I had enough of that elsewhere and my primary color Lego were just fine. I totally relate to the ad from 1981, because that was exactly me!

I do have to admit, that I’m sure that if Lego at it’s time had a selection of Lego female characters and that I could have had a set that would let me build my own restaurant, shop and whatever else, I would have wanted it in addition to what I had.

But this brings me to my original reason for this post. I don’t like the marketing of Lego Friends being targeted for girls while implying that the other sets of Lego are for boys.  I hate gender differentiated marketing for children. It makes me feel disappointed that Lego had to create a whole new set of Lego as they were a different brand almost.

Don’t get me wrong, as I said I would have liked some of the items that are now in the market back in my day, but I think the way that they portray them is wrong. They should still be marketed as Lego just as the others, and they could have kept to the primary colors. All we needed was some Lego people with long hair or pony tails or whatever, and then some sets that would let us build some of those cool aspects of a city, like your store, restaurant, bakery, vet, school… you name it.  But it wasn’t needed to have a whole new page and add all the bling and glitz and glamor to the sets, because now they are clearly just for girls.

Am I wrong to think that if they had created a set called Lego Cities that could have been for both genders.  You could build your houses, police station, Fire station, restaurant, banks, stores, etc and that wouldn’t have been a great idea for both genders?

So as a consumer in a house where we love Lego, would I buy any of these items for my daughter? The answer is yes, if she wanted one of these sets I wouldn’t say No. But we would incorporate them to the ones we already have, and I’d reinforce the idea that Lego is for all kids (not girls vs boys), because guess what, some of the Lego she has, are from the 80s yep! And for the record, she has NEVER ever ever said anything to remotely even hint towards the idea that Lego weren’t meant for girls. We’ve spent hours and hours non-stop building towers to see just how high we could go, she’s built fences and castles and structures for her Barbies (with blocks and with Lego).

A couple of years ago we got her a bucket that had pink Lego incorporated into it where you could build a car and a house, and she really liked it, but she builds an even bigger and more complex house with the rest of the Legos she has not even caring or thinking about colors or types…

So even though I’m disappointed with Lego’s strategy to market to girls in that fashion, I will keep my rant to this post and will continue to do what every parent should do: Educate your child and show them values and morals that you want them to have as an adult.

BTW, we all want the Harry Potter Lego sets next, and we don’t think those are for boys! 😉