Constraction line for girls?

[SailorQuaoar]

I'm not sure if this is the right place to put this topic, but it was inspired by Bionicle discussion.

 

There's been a lot of arguing back and forth about if sexism even exists in Bionicle/Lego. I thought "yes, this is a problem, but I want to DO something about it, not just post on a forum".

 

There have been many discussions about the representation of women in Bionicle. And while I agree that it is frustrating, Lego is (probably) going to continue to market Bionicle as a "boys line" and as a result a majority of the characters will still be male, and, realistically, we will never have a 50/50 ratio.

 

What I think is more likely to happen however, is a separate buildable figure line aimed at girls. Lego Friends or Elves Ultrabuilds could be a thing, or it could be an entirely new concept.

 

My initial thought was magical girl warriors based on fantasy creatures. I'm imagining a lot of pink, purple, azure and other "girly" colors for bones and shells, new human-like heads with hair pieces, and even some pieces with glitter in them.

We'd get a lot of cool weapon, armor, and wing pieces that would be great for MOCing. And I know many of us want more purple anything.

 

Though it would be a separate line, it would be interchangeable with Bionicle because they would both use CCBS.

 

Girls would get an action figure experience that was targeted at them, and they might get into Bionicle because of it.

Boys might start at Bionicle or Ultrabuilds and then end up liking the "girl sets".

AFOLs and MOCers would get bones, shells, and add-ons in rarely-seen colors and be able to add depth to their creations.

 

If only there was a way to garner interest for something like this, because I think it might be the best solution right now.

 

Someone tried to pitch a similar idea on Lego Ideas, but Ideas is only for standalone sets. It wouldn't be a specific idea with a story, just a general concept for a line. Enough people would have to convince Lego that there's a market for girl-targeted action figures. Somehow.

 

So what do you guys think? Do you like this idea, and if it could ever happen, would would it take?

[-Windrider-]

I think LEGO Discussion is the proper forum for this. Also, you reminded me of this news story. Take a look!

[UnderscoreChronix]

Girls can like whatever they want. It doesn't need to be all pink and sparkly - Something LEGO didn't seem to understand when they made LEGO friends.

[Lenny7092]

To be honest, I'm not sure if girls would be interested in a constraction line, but I believe a Powerpuff Girls line, a Wink Club one, or a completely newly girly theme would be interesting to them, since girls are interested in usually girly stuff and the Lego Friends line, so I would like to see if this works out fine, like Friends did.

Edited October 4, 2014 by Lenny7092

[SailorQuaoar]

I think LEGO Discussion is the proper forum for this. Also, you reminded me of this news story. Take a look!

I knew about that project, but it can't work on Lego Ideas. Lego only makes standalone sets and will not make new molds for any Lego Ideas project, which this line would desperately need. I mean I feel bad because I love her designs, but if any of us were to make it happen it could not be through Ideas, it would have to be a separate campaign.

[Aanchir]

Something like this would be amazing and groundbreaking. However, the fact that there's not a lot of precedent supporting girl-oriented action figures (at least, not in the LEGO Group's primary markets like Germany and the United States), and that the constraction category is a bit niche to begin with, means that the LEGO Group would have to be willing to take a pretty significant risk if they wanted to do something like this effectively. I'd definitely support it wholeheartedly if it showed a lot of design quality, but I know there are many other people who might sneer or scoff at the idea.

 

Creating a constraction theme that girls would love could require a lot of research, just as the design for LEGO Friends did. Certainly, the LEGO Group learned a lot about how girls' and boys' play patterns tend to differ while researching for LEGO Friends, but applying some of those principles to constraction would require lots of testing and experimentation.

 

For instance, the reason the mini-doll was created was that many girls had a hard time identifying with a minifigure on a personal level, which was a factor that played a big role in how they played and what toys they played with. It's easy to think of them as characters with their own personalities, but that's different than the challenge of thinking of them as a stand-in for yourself. The same issue could rear its head with a constraction theme.

 

Creating a "sigfig" I'm happy with has always been easy for me (I'm sure with mini-doll parts it could be just as easy, though it'd have to wait until there exists a male mini-doll with glasses). Creating a self-MOC I'm happy with, a constraction character that I'm willing to let represent me as a person, is considerably more difficult. I have a hard time thinking of myself as any kind of action hero even within the context of fantasy role-play. Perhaps this kind of thing doesn't present such a problem for girls or even for other boys as it does for me, but all things considered, constraction sets and building styles have always struck me as better equipped for creating larger-than-life characters than for creating people with more nuanced personalities. I'm sure it's not an insurmountable challenge, but it's a challenge that might have to be overcome.

[Lyichir]

I think we might sooner see constraction sets aimed at girls as an offshoot of a System theme aimed at girls, like the Chima constraction sets, than as a completely original theme. If Lego introduces a girl-focused theme with the kind of sci-fi or fantasy characters that would be well-suited to action figures, and if it can prove its sales potential in a more traditional System setting first, I think Lego would be more willing to take a gamble on the less-tested market for girls' action figures.

[TheGreatSpirit]

I'd like to see one just for the sole purpose of seeing how it would be pulled off.

[Manterax Prime]

I'd definitely buy them, to fill out the female ranks in my collection. I think the supposed Elves line or some other fantasy line would be best to experiment.

[fishers64]

I generally support these sorts of ideas. Not sure why Lego can't make a constraction line to appeal to both genders, as opposed to gender segregating, though. (Separate but equal don't always work. )

 

Still, I think such a line would definitely be cool, and I'd like to see something like it happen, if only to see the cool ideas, stories, characters, etc such a line could produce. (I could use that consulting job. ) 

[Ziontyro Metalhead]

I don't know how well that line would go. I see that they would be looked at as buildable action figures and dolls, but I've never seen anything to compare it to. If they do it well, it could turn out to be a good line.

[Pohatu: Uniter of Stone]

For instance, the reason the mini-doll was created was that many girls had a hard time identifying with a minifigure on a personal level, which was a factor that played a big role in how they played and what toys they played with. It's easy to think of them as characters with their own personalities, but that's different than the challenge of thinking of them as a stand-in for yourself. 

My sister actually prefers the minifigures since they can attach better to other Legos. 

[Banana Gunz]

I personally would not really want to see this. I understand that Lego should (and is) opening up the line to more girls, but I feel like releasing lines specifically targeted towards them just makes things worse. The whole idea was that Lego is a toy that boys and girls can play with. The key should be portraying the themes we already have with more girl characters and marketing lines we already have as more than just a boy's toy.

Edited October 7, 2014 by Banana Gunz

[Lyichir]

 

For instance, the reason the mini-doll was created was that many girls had a hard time identifying with a minifigure on a personal level, which was a factor that played a big role in how they played and what toys they played with. It's easy to think of them as characters with their own personalities, but that's different than the challenge of thinking of them as a stand-in for yourself.

My sister actually prefers the minifigures since they can attach better to other Legos.

 

The thing is, many of the girls who preferred minifigures were already fans of Lego. The minidolls were designed because a vast percentage of girls didn't like the minifigures, and thus something more doll-like figures was an attempt to meet those girls on their own turf. And it worked! The Friends theme has been responsible for many, many more girls getting into Lego.

 

I personally would not really want to see this. I understand that Lego should (and is) opening up the line to more girls, but I feel like releasing lines specifically targeted towards them just makes things worse. The whole idea was that Lego is a toy that boys and girls can play with. The key should be portraying the themes we already have with more girl characters and marketing lines we already have as more than just a boy's toy.

Unfortunately, a lot of the difficulty Lego has with reaching girls isn't just their fault. The toy industry as a whole has spent decades segregating toy stores into regular and pink, and there's an entire generation that has internalized that stereotype and is ready and willing to pass it on to their daughters. Lego may be the biggest toy company in the world but that doesn't mean they can single-handedly eliminate that kind of ingrained societal pressure. But they can work in that direction, by designing toys specifically with girls in mind. Before Lego Friends, pretty much the entire industry was of the mindset that girls just didn't like building toys, and Lego proved them wrong by designing a building toy that could appeal to the kinds of girls who previously passed Lego up in favor of dolls. Your solution (marketing existing themes to girls) would have a great effect on the gender diversity of Lego figures, but it would have no effect whatsoever on the girls who didn't buy Lego in the first place, so the effect on the gender disparity in Lego's audience would be negligible. It's a better strategy to meet them halfway, so that the progressive lessons and ordinary educational benefits of Lego's products get to the people who need them most.

 

As a final note, there's nothing wrong with "girlier" themes besides the fact that they're often considered to be only for girls, and that in many toys "pink and girly" is the only option. Themes like Lego Friends fill out Lego's product line nicely by adding a little more pink, a little more sparkle, etc. Pink should never be the only option for girls, but there's nothing wrong with girls who like pink either, so having products that appeal to traditional "girly girls" is just as important as making sure other themes can appeal to girls as well.

Edited October 7, 2014 by Lyichir

[Aanchir]

I personally would not really want to see this. I understand that Lego should (and is) opening up the line to more girls, but I feel like releasing lines specifically targeted towards them just makes things worse. The whole idea was that Lego is a toy that boys and girls can play with. The key should be portraying the themes we already have with more girl characters and marketing lines we already have as more than just a boy's toy.

There's a problem with that argument. A big one. Yes, girls and boys can both enjoy the current LEGO sets, most of which are boyish by traditional standards. But not making ANY sets that are girly by traditional standards is essentially saying that only "boyish" interests are legitimate. "Oh, sorry, you wanted a set with a pink beauty salon and makeup and pretty dresses? Too bad! Pink beauty salons are evil! Have a red fire truck with firefighters in baggy clothes instead."

 

Gendered marketing is not evil, not when it's providing options for kids instead of taking options away. There are some girls who are just fine with BIONICLE! But there are other girls who probably want something that's more directly geared towards them, and their interests aren't illegitimate just because they're "girly". The LEGO Group has already been doing a great job improving their gender ratios and diverse gender roles in some of their boy-oriented and gender-neutral themes like LEGO City and LEGO Creator. Creating some themes aimed primarily at girls doesn't stop those girls from also buying LEGO Creator or LEGO City, any more than creating some themes aimed primarily at boys stops those boys from buying LEGO Creator or LEGO Friends.

 

Equality is not the same as making everything homogenous. Girls should be free to like things society considers boyish, and boys should feel free to like things that society considers girly. BOTH should be free to like things society doesn't assign to one gender or the other, and NEITHER should be told that the things they like are not valid or not legitimate. Ideally, there should be sets covering a full spectrum of interests, from extremely "girly" to extremely "boyish" and every combination in between. Some themes' focus groups can be 80% female, some themes' focus groups can be 80% male, and others can be 50/50. But if you require EVERY set and theme to cater to a 50/50 audience, then you're leaving out boys and girls whose interests are unappealing to many of their peers of the opposite sex.

[Master Inika]

When the OP mentioned magical girl LEGO sets, I immediately thought of Sailor Moon, and realized mostly men would probably buy LEGO Sailor Moon. Including me.

[Sappholopod]

I could really get behind this, like, on all levels I think this would be a great line, especially if it comes with associated "girl-aimed" colors and pieces, I am just unsure if the market would support it.

 

Friends worked out wonderfully, so I can't be too danny-downer about it, but if Chima couldn't support a secondary Constraction line, I don't know if Friends could.

 

Ideally, the main Constraction line could just appeal to all genders, with a gender-balanced cast that can do both adventuring and slice of life. =V

 

Ideally-Ideally, the market would support that, a slice of life line, and an adventure line, but a perfect world this is not. =P

Edited October 7, 2014 by Cabooceratops

[Click]

The funny thing is, there's plenty of girls who buy the more guy-themed lines, and I'm sure there's quite a few guys that even buy some Friends sets (mainly for parts, and only if they're really bold; a guy walking out of a toy store with a pink frilly box looks a lot more odd than a girl walking out with a different Lego set. Thanks society.). No matter what Lego releases, they'll get an audience from part collectors, doll lovers, and those who just like the looks or story. It may not do as well as Bionicle, but I'd be on board for pink, azure (!), and purple CCBS parts (Toa of Gravity, crazy creatures, and new color schemes galore!).

 

The biggest problem would be the design. It's really hard to take the classic ball-and-socket design of CCBS, with its inherent gaps, and make it look smooth and organic. New parts would need to be designed to fit with the aesthetic and add some solidity to the sets. Not to mention the heads, which always are the hardest part of an organic set design to get right. Lego could always bring on some professional doll designers, or I've had an idea in my head of a fully customizable face for years now that I need to get on paper

 

Oh, and more feminine torsos would be fantastic. Lego has never really made a female Toa that looked proportionate ('01 Gali wasn't bad, but it all went downhill from there. Nevermind that they're toys, and robots with no reason to look feminine, as humans who have reasons for a difference, we expect it), and it would be great for them to finally have an excuse to design parts (not just torsos) that fit a female figure that could filter over to Bionicle.

Edited October 7, 2014 by Click

[Eyru]

A classic case of treating the symptoms and ignoring the disease. Creating a new line of pink! and purple! warriors marketed towards girls is just a sexist as creating a line of strong! and powerful! heroes marketed towards boys. 

[Pomegranate]

If they do something like that, I would hope they'd put as much thought and work into it as they did with Bionicle. Someone mentioned magical girls and Winx Club and I would be totally down with that (by which I mean super excited shhhh), but if all that means is "throw some pink in it", I'm not sure anyone would be able to enjoy that. Making a new line is a lot of work. You know what's easier than making a new line? Easing off the gas on the whole marketed-for-boys things for Bionicle as was mentioned near the top of the topic. When I first read the title, my thought was "Bionicle would be a nice constraction line for girls."

One really big point, I think, is that constraction just isn't as fun as classic system, I think. Not with CCBS, especially not for younger kids. It's just not a lot to work with and barely compatible with classic system parts. How would they even go about making constraction sets that don't involve robots/animal people wearing things on their heads? Unless, of course... Galidor style sets...

[Pahrak Model ZX]

When the OP mentioned magical girl LEGO sets, I immediately thought of Sailor Moon, and realized mostly men would probably buy LEGO Sailor Moon. Including me.

 

Lego Sailor Moon sounds like one of the best ideas ever, not gonna lie.  I can't imagine it not making a profit: Sailor Moon is one of the most influential and well-known anime series (arguably the single most well-known and influential shoujo series), and with the current efforts to revive the franchise, now seems like as good a time as any to try a new form of merchandise.  Just out of curiosity, why do you think it'd be mostly men buying it?

 

Even if it's not Sailor Moon, though, a magical girl constraction line sounds pretty awesome, especially if they gave it a continuing story similar to Bionicle.  Someone should formally pitch that to Lego.

[NickonAquaMagna]

 

I personally would not really want to see this. I understand that Lego should (and is) opening up the line to more girls, but I feel like releasing lines specifically targeted towards them just makes things worse. The whole idea was that Lego is a toy that boys and girls can play with. The key should be portraying the themes we already have with more girl characters and marketing lines we already have as more than just a boy's toy.

There's a problem with that argument. A big one. Yes, girls and boys can both enjoy the current LEGO sets, most of which are boyish by traditional standards. But not making ANY sets that are girly by traditional standards is essentially saying that only "boyish" interests are legitimate. "Oh, sorry, you wanted a set with a pink beauty salon and makeup and pretty dresses? Too bad! Pink beauty salons are evil! Have a red fire truck with firefighters in baggy clothes instead."

 

Gendered marketing is not evil, not when it's providing options for kids instead of taking options away. There are some girls who are just fine with BIONICLE! But there are other girls who probably want something that's more directly geared towards them, and their interests aren't illegitimate just because they're "girly". The LEGO Group has already been doing a great job improving their gender ratios and diverse gender roles in some of their boy-oriented and gender-neutral themes like LEGO City and LEGO Creator. Creating some themes aimed primarily at girls doesn't stop those girls from also buying LEGO Creator or LEGO City, any more than creating some themes aimed primarily at boys stops those boys from buying LEGO Creator or LEGO Friends.

 

Equality is not the same as making everything homogenous. Girls should be free to like things society considers boyish, and boys should feel free to like things that society considers girly. BOTH should be free to like things society doesn't assign to one gender or the other, and NEITHER should be told that the things they like are not valid or not legitimate. Ideally, there should be sets covering a full spectrum of interests, from extremely "girly" to extremely "boyish" and every combination in between. Some themes' focus groups can be 80% female, some themes' focus groups can be 80% male, and others can be 50/50. But if you require EVERY set and theme to cater to a 50/50 audience, then you're leaving out boys and girls whose interests are unappealing to many of their peers of the opposite sex.

 

 

 

The problem with this, I believe, is that they push it too far. They ARE taking something away, because they're actively discouraging girls from taking an interest in anything that ISN'T pink and frilly and all that jazz.

 

Think of it this way. Girls get pink, while boys get, well, pretty much every color there is. It isn't an endless sea of blue. I think this reflects the mindsets we encourage kids to have. We're encouraging boys to be open to all sorts of crazy, cool things, all the while telling girls to conform to a smaller, "special" world made just for them. I know it's going to take a long time to break this societal programming, but there ARE little girls who like other things. Heck, when my mother was a little girl, she didn't want to be a princess. She wanted to look for dinosaurs.

 

It's just kinda weird that most of the things boys are into are... well, basically normal, with things that are "made for girls" just sorta being brushed off to the side. The whole concept of something made "just" for girls continues to baffle me with it's strangeness. Girls can be cool, too. It's not like they're only allowed to buy Lego Friends sets, but from the way it's marketed, you'd think that was the case! Like they get this ONE theme, while boys get everything else under the rainbow to play with.

Edited October 7, 2014 by NickonAquaMagna

[Aanchir]

The problem with this, I believe, is that they push it too far. They ARE taking something away, because they're actively discouraging girls from taking an interest in anything that ISN'T pink and frilly and all that jazz.

 

Think of it this way. Girls get pink, while boys get, well, pretty much every color there is. It isn't an endless sea of blue. I think this reflects the mindsets we encourage kids to have. We're encouraging boys to be open to all sorts of crazy, cool things, all the while telling girls to conform to a smaller, "special" world made just for them. I know it's going to take a long time to break this societal programming, but there ARE little girls who like other things. Heck, when my mother was a little girl, she didn't want to be a princess. She wanted to look for dinosaurs.

 

It's just kinda weird that most of the things boys are into are... well, basically normal, with things that are "made for girls" just sorta being brushed off to the side. The whole concept of something made "just" for girls continues to baffle me with it's strangeness. Girls can be cool, too. It's not like they're only allowed to buy Lego Friends sets, but from the way it's marketed, you'd think that was the case! Like they get this ONE theme, while boys get everything else under the rainbow to play with.

Except it's not like that, not at all. Themes like LEGO Friends are hardly just a blanket of pink — they use DOZENS of colors, just like any other LEGO theme does. They just use colors that girls are often more open to and enthusiastic about than boys are. The same goes for the types of interests they cover — the current Jungle Animal Rescue subtheme shows that the LEGO Friends aren't just prissy girls who never go on any kind of dangerous adventures. Even at home, they enjoy a wide range of interests and hobbies such as music, sports, scientific research, fashion design, and animal care. They're not just generic fashionistas who only care about how their hair and outfits look.

 

Besides that, having certain themes be girl-oriented doesn't mean all other themes automatically EXCLUDE girls, not by a longshot. I actually wouldn't be surprised if themes like LEGO Friends have increased the number of girls buying City, Creator, and Ninjago sets. Before LEGO Friends, a lot of parents assumed that construction toys were specifically a boys' hobby, and themes like LEGO Friends have helped obliterate that stereotype and prove that girls can enjoy building just fine without it having to be simplified or dumbed down.

 

The idea that things boys like are "normal" and the things girls like are not is kind of sexist in and of itself. Why do we assume that girls can only be "cool" by enjoying the same colors and interests boys enjoy? If a boy OR a girl is into fashion design, cooking, dancing, animal care, interior decorating, fairy tales, or other things that our society has arbitrarily decided are girly, good for them! Because it's insulting to tell kids who like these kinds of interests that they're less "cool" or legitimate than auto racing or sports or space travel or medieval warfare or international espionage.

Edited October 7, 2014 by Aanchir

[NickonAquaMagna]

 

The problem with this, I believe, is that they push it too far. They ARE taking something away, because they're actively discouraging girls from taking an interest in anything that ISN'T pink and frilly and all that jazz.

 

Think of it this way. Girls get pink, while boys get, well, pretty much every color there is. It isn't an endless sea of blue. I think this reflects the mindsets we encourage kids to have. We're encouraging boys to be open to all sorts of crazy, cool things, all the while telling girls to conform to a smaller, "special" world made just for them. I know it's going to take a long time to break this societal programming, but there ARE little girls who like other things. Heck, when my mother was a little girl, she didn't want to be a princess. She wanted to look for dinosaurs.

 

It's just kinda weird that most of the things boys are into are... well, basically normal, with things that are "made for girls" just sorta being brushed off to the side. The whole concept of something made "just" for girls continues to baffle me with it's strangeness. Girls can be cool, too. It's not like they're only allowed to buy Lego Friends sets, but from the way it's marketed, you'd think that was the case! Like they get this ONE theme, while boys get everything else under the rainbow to play with.

Except it's not like that, not at all. Themes like LEGO Friends are hardly just a blanket of pink — they use DOZENS of colors, just like any other LEGO theme does. They just use colors that girls are often more open to and enthusiastic about than boys are. The same goes for the types of interests they cover — the current Jungle Animal Rescue subtheme shows that the LEGO Friends aren't just prissy girls who never go on any kind of dangerous adventures.

 

Besides that, having certain themes be girl-oriented doesn't mean all other themes automatically EXCLUDE girls, not by a longshot. I actually wouldn't be surprised if themes like LEGO Friends have increased the number of girls buying City, Creator, and Ninjago sets. Before LEGO Friends, a lot of parents assumed that construction toys were specifically a boys' hobby, and themes like LEGO Friends have helped obliterate that stereotype and prove that girls can enjoy building just fine without it having to be simplified or dumbed down.

 

The idea that things boys like are "normal" and the things girls like are not is kind of sexist in and of itself. Why do we assume that girls can only be "cool" by enjoying the same colors and interests boys enjoy? If a boy OR a girl is into fashion design, cooking, dancing, animal care, interior decorating, fairy tales, or other things that our society has arbitrarily decided are girly, good for them! Because it's insulting to tell kids who like these kinds of interests that they're less "cool" or legitimate than auto racing or sports or space travel or medieval warfare or international espionage.

 

 

I should clear up a coupla' things I've said... I'm not just talking about Lego Friends exclusively. I'm also talking about barbie an' all that other stuff, this general "girl culture" or whatever people may call it. Seeing them as I pass through the lego aisle at the store, I actually think the Friends sets can be kinda cool. I like the cruise ship. Still... when I see the girls on the boxart who all have the same face an' whatnot, it creates this image to me, like... "Yeah! This is what girls are SUPPOSED to like!" and that's pretty screwed up.

 

When I say normal, I mean just that. I don't mean it in the "normal=good, abnormal=ungood" way, or that pink is bad. I mean that it's silly to me that girls have "special" toys reserved for them, while "boys toys" encompass so many other things. Just think about that... a SPECIAL toy intended to be JUST for girls. Why do we still do this?

 

If lego wants girls to play with more of their toys, well, then they should feature girls in more of their commercials. You ever notice how you almost always only ever see boys playing with Chima an' whatnot? how many little girls see that and think "Oh... I guess I'm not supposed to like this. Those are toys for my brother. I would be wrong to play with those toys the boys play with." Surely, there must be at least one girl in the world they can find for a commercial like that. Anyone ever seen that Lego poster from, like, the 80s? The one where a little girl is smiling, holding up her prized creation, with the tagline "What it is is beautiful"?

 

I do appreciate the Lego movie for having similar messages, and a fairly gender neutral appeal. I do appreciate the steps lego is taking to get girls more interested in legos. I just think they need to do... more.

 

Heck, this is one of the reasons half of my Toa are girls.

[Nidhiki of the Shadows]

While this would be ground-breaking... I don't think Lego would go that route, especially seeing their work on Friends. But man it would be awesome to get pieces from those, assuming they use more "girl-oriented" colours haha

 

-NotS

[Zeddy]

I definitely would like to see a line targeted at girls. I guess the only thing I can see being an issue is that the line would just have a lot of pink, purple etc. ("girly" colors) as the sole indicator that it is a line for girls. We don't need to play into the idea that pink things are for girls and blue for boys. What I would support would be Bionicle/Hero Factory like figures that may be shaped a little more "feminine-ly", and a majority of the characters would be female. Like just switch the genders around.

 

However, in an ideal world we wouldn't need separate lines for boys and girls, but just one line that represents both groups equally. I also agree with the above point that commercials should feature girls and boys both playing with lines such as Hero Factory or whatever.

[Thormen]

I think the pros and cons mentioned by everybody in this thread are almost equally important. Yes it's a good idea to draw girls to a type of toys that is stereotypically meant for boys, but on the other hand creating a line that is specifically meant to be the girl version of BIONICLE actually reaffirms the split between toys for boys and toys for girls. So if it's yes-no question I find it hard to pick a side.

 

However, I think the OP is on to something and I think with a little modification his idea could take the best of both worlds. The OP already mentions how parts from the girly line and BIONICLE parts could be mixed while MOCing and girls and boys might that way cross over between "each others'" lines. How about taking it a step further to the actual story level?

 

What I'm thinking is: make a BIONICLE kind of story with the necessary modifications to be able to market it as a girls' toy. Actually set the story within the same universe as BIONICLE, but keep that secret initially. Now, Greg said BIONICLE was always supposed to have story you had to "work" to understand. Essentially BIONICLE had a superficial yearlong story linked to an intricate backstory that kept existing. The story of the girl line could then remain "girly" and disconnected from BIONICLE on the superficial level, but at the more intricate level where the hardcore fans are concerned, crossovers could occur (in serials, books etc.). This has the advantage of drawing in girls since the line is actually marketed for them, while at the same time destroying the boy/girl separation for the girls and boys who are already fans.

 

Now I get that people might shudder at the idea of something like Barbie becoming a part of the BIONICLE canon, but that's not what I'm advocating. Mixing BIONICLE and Barbie is a bad idea, but mixing BIONICLE and LEGO Castle is just as bad an idea. The "girly" version of BIONICLE should still be compatible with BIONICLE itself, but there's no reason it can't be. I don't think any BIONICLE fan thinks the color pink doesn't exist in the BIONICLE universe or that nothing sparkles there, and while I understand that that is a gross simplification of what it means to market toys to girls I think the point is still valid. I don't think anyone is honestly opposed to a change in the BIONICLE universe aimed at girls, as long as the change doesn't seriously ruin the line. For example, the point about the skewed gender ratio has been brought up a lot and not everybody thinks the same way about it: some think BIONICLE should move towards a 50/50 ratio to defeat gender stereotypes, other people don't think it's a big issue and think BIONICLE is fine the way it is. But as far as I know nobody was ever actually for a skewed gender ratio. Nobody ever said that they preferred 5/6 of every Toa team to be male. The only arguments in favor of the skewed gender ratio that have ever been presented here, are based on BIONICLE being marketed towards boys and what I'm proposing doesn't change that.

[NickonAquaMagna]

Now I get that people might shudder at the idea of something like Barbie becoming a part of the BIONICLE canon, but that's not what I'm advocating. Mixing BIONICLE and Barbie is a bad idea, but mixing BIONICLE and LEGO Castle is just as bad an idea. The "girly" version of BIONICLE should still be compatible with BIONICLE itself, but there's no reason it can't be. I don't think any BIONICLE fan thinks the color pink doesn't exist in the BIONICLE universe or that nothing sparkles there, and while I understand that that is a gross simplification of what it means to market toys to girls I think the point is still valid. I don't think anyone is honestly opposed to a change in the BIONICLE universe aimed at girls, as long as the change doesn't seriously ruin the line. For example, the point about the skewed gender ratio has been brought up a lot and not everybody thinks the same way about it: some think BIONICLE should move towards a 50/50 ratio to defeat gender stereotypes, other people don't think it's a big issue and think BIONICLE is fine the way it is. But as far as I know nobody was ever actually for a skewed gender ratio. Nobody ever said that they preferred 5/6 of every Toa team to be male. The only arguments in favor of the skewed gender ratio that have ever been presented here, are based on BIONICLE being marketed towards boys and what I'm proposing doesn't change that.

 

Ah yes, that pesky gender ratio. Sorry to refer to this again, but... half of the characters you see below are girls. I'm seriously hoping Lego follows suit with future Toa teams, introducing more girls with elements we may not have expected. Maybe someday even have a hot headed Toa of fire girl? That would be pretty rockin'.

 

A while ago, in another thread, I mentioned Young Justice being cancelled because "too many" of its viewers were girls, which the network assumed don't buy toys... which is stupid. And I can tell you part of what drew in those girls was that they had SOOOO MANY heroines on that show representing them. Drawing them in to something like this is as simple as throwing more girl characters in there and, well, not making them stupid.

[Thormen]

And I can tell you part of what drew in those girls was that they had SOOOO MANY heroines on that show representing them. Drawing them in to something like this is as simple as throwing more girl characters in there and, well, not making them stupid.

That might be true, but as Lyichir pointed out you shouldn't simply take the girls themselves into the equation. A lot of parents also buy "girly" stuff for their daughters, most of the time without even thinking about how that relates to stereotypes. Picture a random parent in 2008 walking into a toy store to buy a gift for their daughter. Would they buy Gorast or Gali or would they directly go to the pink section of the store? Mind you, the packaging never said those characters were female.

[Kopekemaster]

Girls can like whatever they want. It doesn't need to be all pink and sparkly - Something LEGO didn't seem to understand when they made LEGO friends.

This pretty much sums up what I'm thinking, exactly.

Bionicle, as is seen extensively, especially in this very forum, is loved by girls and boys alike. It would be nice, though, for LEGO to try to equalize the appeal to both genders.

 

 

Anyone ever seen that Lego poster from, like, the 80s? The one where a little girl is smiling, holding up her prized creation, with the tagline "What it is is beautiful"?

This is a pretty good article that I found recently that mentions that same thing, and seems overall pretty cohesive to this conversation. (I'm not saying that I agree with everything in the article, but it certainly provides a good helping of food for thought on the subject.)

Edited October 8, 2014 by Kopekemaster

[NickonAquaMagna]

 

And I can tell you part of what drew in those girls was that they had SOOOO MANY heroines on that show representing them. Drawing them in to something like this is as simple as throwing more girl characters in there and, well, not making them stupid.

That might be true, but as Lyichir pointed out you shouldn't simply take the girls themselves into the equation. A lot of parents also buy "girly" stuff for their daughters, most of the time without even thinking about how that relates to stereotypes. Picture a random parent in 2008 walking into a toy store to buy a gift for their daughter. Would they buy Gorast or Gali or would they directly go to the pink section of the store? Mind you, the packaging never said those characters were female.

 

 

Yeah, I see what you mean... but in that case, I see parents as part of the problem too. It's not that different from a parent letting their 6 year old get CoD or GTA or whatever at gamestop because they can't be bothered to look at the ESRB rating, and then they get mad at the store. Some parents are just dumb or don't care what their kids play with as long as they can plop them in front of uncle television for half the day while they go have their "me time." Daddy goes to the local bar to watch the game, and mommy gets her hair and nails done or whatever they've been programmed to do since they were kids. Oy...

 

At least in Hero Factory, they gave one of the characters a normal sounding girl name... not that it really says much. I guess it would help if they made more feminine looking pieces. Not to "sexualize" them (rolls eyes) but to... well, again, I must refer people to Imber and Mieli and so on. I know they're basically caricatures of Bionicle, but it's not impossible to make a toy that looks like that with new thigh and chest pieces or whatever without overdoing it.

 

On another note... this made my day.

 

 

I think Riley is a great name for a girl, btw.

[Mr. House]

While I think it would be a somewhat better solution for Bionicle to add more female characters, I have no problem with making a separate, girl-oriented line. As long as they do it respectfully and tastefully, it can sure as heck work. Just because a line is targeted toward a single gender does not mean it is inherently wrong. There are no laws saying girls may only like girl things, or visa versa. Especially in regards to LEGO, the glorious thing about it is the fact that one can take a bucket of pieces and make any hero they want, story be dammed. That's the magical thing of it.

 

I will give to the fact that LEGO needs to include more girls in its commercials, to both sell their product to a new market and defy stereotypes as well.

Edited October 9, 2014 by Mr. House

[Thormen]

 

Anyone ever seen that Lego poster from, like, the 80s? The one where a little girl is smiling, holding up her prized creation, with the tagline "What it is is beautiful"?

This is a pretty good article that I found recently that mentions that same thing, and seems overall pretty cohesive to this conversation. (I'm not saying that I agree with everything in the article, but it certainly provides a good helping of food for thought on the subject.)

 

I looked at the picture and read the article. It's a nice ad and the author makes a couple of good points, but one question remains unanswered: was the ad successful? 'Cause it's a nice idea that TLG was marketing to girls in the '80s by simply including them, but unless the ads actually worked, they didn't help anybody: they didn't bring in more money for TLG, but they also didn't increase the number of girls who played with LEGO. In fact, the only purpose the ad seems to serve to me is so that we, years later, could look at it and marvel at the gender equality.

 

So was the ad successful? I highly doubt it. The author doesn't say anything on the subject. TLG is not stupid, they have a marketing team full of professionals who know how this stuff works. Aanchir mentioned the research that went into designing LEGO Friends, that kind of research is expensive and TLG really wouldn't have bothered if it didn't make a difference. If marketing was as simple as saying "What it is is beautiful." they could just fire their entire marketing team. Dunno how this is supposed to be a new thing with LEGO Friends either, to my knowledge there has always been something like LEGO Scala or LEGO Belville or whatever. What TLG is doing is trying to design something for girls, evaluating the results and learning from those results how to proceed with trying to design the next line for girls.

 

The author does mention that TLG's sales increased by 24% in six months, although he manages to present that in a bad light. He acts like this figure only reflects on TLG's corporate greed, but guess what? This 24% represents girls (mostly I guess, there could also be boys in this category though but definitely not as many) who play with LEGO because of LEGO Friends and wouldn't be playing with LEGO if it weren't for LEGO Friends. And I highly doubt they'd be playing with monster trucks. This 24% represents kids who play with the pink sparkly stuff, whether it's because they themselves want to or because that's the stuff their parents buy for them is irrelevant here. A heavily emancipated toy doesn't help anyone if it just stays on the shelf in toy stores, only when the toys actually arrive at the girls for them to play with do they make any real change.

 

So the question is: do you want this demographic to play with Barbie or with LEGO? 'Cause that's where LEGO Friends makes a difference. It's great if you want to challenge society's stereotypes, but you're going to have to have a successful approach if you want to do so and that requires meeting society halfway.

 

Yeah, I see what you mean... but in that case, I see parents as part of the problem too. It's not that different from a parent letting their 6 year old get CoD or GTA or whatever at gamestop because they can't be bothered to look at the ESRB rating, and then they get mad at the store. Some parents are just dumb or don't care what their kids play with as long as they can plop them in front of uncle television for half the day while they go have their "me time." Daddy goes to the local bar to watch the game, and mommy gets her hair and nails done or whatever they've been programmed to do since they were kids. Oy...

That's definitely true, but that doesn't mean TLG can't try. Is TLG going to change the world by getting rid of gender stereotypes in toys? No. That doesn't mean they can't make some change. Yes it's completely nonsensical for parents to blame TLG for the way they market LEGO Friends if those same parents only buy LEGO Friends for their daughters because of the way it is marketed to girls, but that doesn't mean LEGO Friends or the OP's girl-marketed constraction line can't make a change.

[Banana Gunz]

I think Friends is pretty good as a transition or starting point for breaking the idea that girls have to get only pink and girly stuff. Lego Friends use many other colors in the mix, and introduce more girls to Lego. The more girls start getting into Lego, the more likely they're gonna get introduced to other lines.

[Aanchir]

I think Friends is pretty good as a transition or starting point for breaking the idea that girls have to get only pink and girly stuff. Lego Friends use many other colors in the mix, and introduce more girls to Lego. The more girls start getting into Lego, the more likely they're gonna get introduced to other lines.

Very true! A lot of AFOLs make a big deal about the figures not being compatible, but not only are things like the hair, buildings, vehicles, and accessories generally 100% compatible, but if compatible minifigures were all kids cared about then there wouldn't be any overlap at all between BIONICLE fans like us and fans of minifigure-based LEGO themes. One figure's more than seven inches tall, the other is less than two inches tall, but many of us have still loved and collected them both. The figure is just one part of the experience — the actual pieces and building experience are where real crossover appeal between different LEGO themes tends to be born.

 

It would not surprise me one bit if LEGO Friends has increased the number of girls buying other LEGO sets and themes, including both mostly gender-neutral themes like Creator and much more boy-oriented themes like Ninjago or Legends of Chima.

[Alyska]

It's weirding me out how close the idea you're describing is to a thing I did a couple of years back.

 

Okay- bit of background- it started with a discussion on here as to whether Bionicle could or should have more gender neutral appeal with a few slight tweaks (more female characters, cleaner, more streamlined designs, and some wider-reaching story media.)

 

The response generally was "Nope, wouldn't work." Even from GregF himself.

 

So I tried a different tack. I posted a concept on Lego Cuusoo (the early form of Lego Ideas, which was less rigid about project guidelines and still accepted ideas for themes). The project is long gone now, but the concept was very similar to what you described. It was a magical girl series about a group of teenage girls with powers based on various mythical creatures, who had to defend their home town from magical beasts who got in through dimensional portals, as well as human villains who sought to use them for their own ends. I never did MOCs for them, but the designs I drew were basically a more feminine version of the Marvel/DC constraction builds, with humanlike faces. 

 

It got a bit of positivity and a bit of criticism- I think the main thing is that it got people thinking about the possibility. I got praised for being feminist and also rather brutally attacked for being sexist. So, it was a fun thought experiment while it lasted. 

 

Ultimately, though, while it would be a nice idea, it's not what I would really hope for in an ideal world. What I really want is a world where franchises like Bionicle percieve girls and young women as an important part of their audience , not just an "added bonus," and alter their marketing accordingly (Oh, well, at least they don't percieve a female audience as completely unwanted to the point of cancelling the thing, like in the case of Young Justice.)

 

I will tell you, though- if you're serious about this- more serious than I was two years ago-  and have access to some time and talent- here's what you do.

 

Start with the MOCs. Use as many existing parts as you can. Adjust the colours in Photoshop if you have to. Make the heads with a 3D printer, out of polymer clay, hey, even plasticine would do- you just need the "look" made up. Post these as individual projects on Lego Ideas if you like.

 

Have sketches and/or 3D renderings of any parts that don't exist (weapons, maybe?), and design a simplified "look" for the characters suitable for animation.

 

Now get writing. Get the backstory nice and tight, then write some little bios for your characters. Post them online- make a blog for this stuff, post it on DA, get a Facebook page, go on Twitter, Tumblr- everywhere you can get. 

 

Write comics, one-shot short stories, serialized fiction, start an in-character blog for one of the characters, get some of your friends together and record a podcast serial series. Build up a brand that stands on its own from just being girly Bionicle spinoff, and could exist independently of LEGO if it wanted to.

 

Be polite and responsive to people who want to help you out. Get some amateur animators, voice actors, artists, writers, web designers, game designers, whoever comes your way.

 

Every now and then LEGO puts out a call to the public for new story-based themes. If this happens, jump on it. If not, wait for public interest to rise independently, and then maybe, years down the track, you'll be a well-known producer of online transmedia content who walks into Lego's office with a story bible under one arm and an offer they can't refuse. 

 

So, basically, you can take this as far as you want if it's something you're truly passionate about. Good luck.

[LewaLew]

Girls can like whatever they want. It doesn't need to be all pink and sparkly - Something LEGO didn't seem to understand when they made LEGO friends.

 

I think LEGO understood that it doesn't need to be that way. But the research told them that it sure helps sell sets, and the LEGO Friends sales confirms that.

 

I personally would not really want to see this. I understand that Lego should (and is) opening up the line to more girls, but I feel like releasing lines specifically targeted towards them just makes things worse. The whole idea was that Lego is a toy that boys and girls can play with. The key should be portraying the themes we already have with more girl characters and marketing lines we already have as more than just a boy's toy.

 

Once again, LEGO Friends proves that this isn't a problem. It's been a huge success in spite of the controversy, and I can testify to it because my little sisters love LEGO Friends. Before, they were never interested in LEGO for any reason other than the fact that I was. Once I decided to stop buying LEGO sets and actually start saving money for college and so forth, they lost their interest until LEGO Friends came along. I tried to get them into BIONICLE by telling them about Gali and Hahli and so forth, but they never really cared about that or any other LEGO theme until LEGO Friends. The truth is that a lot of little girls simply enjoy girly things, and even female characters who almost look the part, like Hahli Mahri, can't really do the job the way a mini-doll with a pet store can.

 

How would they even go about making constraction sets that don't involve robots/animal people wearing things on their heads? Unless, of course... Galidor style sets...

 

This is the main reason that I doubt this idea. Constraction doesn't lend itself well to smooth, clean looking creations. It's blocky and often rather clunky, which is a major complaint many people have been having about the new Toa. The only way I could see something like that happening would be something along the lines of Galidor, but given the utter flop that was, I don't see it happening. (Nor do I want it to.)

[Sumiki]

I reject your walls of text and express my desire for some pink Bonkles.

[Alyska]

 

 

How would they even go about making constraction sets that don't involve robots/animal people wearing things on their heads? Unless, of course... Galidor style sets...

 

This is the main reason that I doubt this idea. Constraction doesn't lend itself well to smooth, clean looking creations. It's blocky and often rather clunky, which is a major complaint many people have been having about the new Toa. The only way I could see something like that happening would be something along the lines of Galidor, but given the utter flop that was, I don't see it happening. (Nor do I want it to.)

 

I can picture some new limb and torso pieces that use smoother designs, possibly incorporating some swirly Celtic-looking designs for armour rather than mechanical-looking shapes.

 

One thing I was unsure about when I did my own concept was whether the characters have tools/weapons. I'd lean towards "yes, kind of"- they certainly wouldn't be enormous and bulky like the Bionicle ones, but I think a magic wand, staff, even the odd sword or bow if it fitted the character wouldn't go astray. And the success of toys like the Nerf Rebelle suggests that some girls might even appreciate a blaster or two.

[LewaLew]

 

 

 

How would they even go about making constraction sets that don't involve robots/animal people wearing things on their heads? Unless, of course... Galidor style sets...

 

This is the main reason that I doubt this idea. Constraction doesn't lend itself well to smooth, clean looking creations. It's blocky and often rather clunky, which is a major complaint many people have been having about the new Toa. The only way I could see something like that happening would be something along the lines of Galidor, but given the utter flop that was, I don't see it happening. (Nor do I want it to.)

 

I can picture some new limb and torso pieces that use smoother designs, possibly incorporating some swirly Celtic-looking designs for armour rather than mechanical-looking shapes.

 

One thing I was unsure about when I did my own concept was whether the characters have tools/weapons. I'd lean towards "yes, kind of"- they certainly wouldn't be enormous and bulky like the Bionicle ones, but I think a magic wand, staff, even the odd sword or bow if it fitted the character wouldn't go astray. And the success of toys like the Nerf Rebelle suggests that some girls might even appreciate a blaster or two.

 

 

I don't suppose you have any concept sketches of your idea? It's hard for me to imagine any constraction set that could look smooth while also retaining full posability, particularly on at the joints.