So we are upset because they finally market to girl? I am not sure why the outrage about set cater for girls or special line tailor for girls.
The frustration is because, imo, having a set specifically tailored for girls is an unnecessary decision that (simply by existing) reinforces the mistaken notion that "regular" Lego is for boys only. What's even more frustrating (for some) is that it markets itself using somewhat reductive stereotypes about what girls enjoy.
I think if Sarkeesian's video is slightly out-of-date, however, it would be because later entries in the Friends franchise
have included an emphasis away from the leisure-related and strereotypically feminine activities she mentions in the video, but I am not sure how prevalent those are in the theme.
The city line has stuck with what I would consider a fairly gender neutral tone. Usually a mix of male and female minifigs in the sets.
Just out of curiosity, what is the gender ratio in those sets like? Does it approach 1:1?
LEGO went to licensed sets and they went with mostly boy targeted franchises. They are now going with some girl targeted franchises with the Disney line.
Can we really hold LEGO to account when the franchises out there are pretty much male or female with few gender neutral franchises they could license. Now granted, It would be nice if they had more licensed sets for girls, and maybe Friends will lead to that.
Certainly, it is unfortunate the vast majority of licenses that Lego could choose from have been highly unbalanced in terms of gender representation - the Star Wars licence is perhaps one of the most egregious examples of this - but this should not deny the Lego Group's agency in choosing to acquire and prioritise those licences. (I imagine that their decision to acquire the licences of franchises targeted to boys was also influenced by the self-reinforcing results of their male-orientated marketing.)
But the sets themselves, I see no problem. Like any set they can be torn down and rebuilt into whatever someone can think of.
True, but that is not how Lego markets the Friends line, as the adverts in the video show. With the main Lego lines building the set is always an integral and important part of the narrative the toy provides - "Build this set and save the day!" - but with the Friends line building the set is not emphasised. Rather, the implication is that girls should want to buy this product because they like playing with dolls and their accessories. (Perhaps, of course, more recent adverts have changed this tact.)
Just FYI, but she lumped together gender neutral minifigs with male identifiable ones to come up with that claim. Looking at the most recent sets I've been building, it's a lot more balanced.
If you're referring to the image she used
here, then I think her claim is defensible irrespective of that. Notice how the female minifigure (even with the basic smiley face) is identified: her long, feminine hair. Maybe I'm just projecting the other minifigures' genders on the basis of my own, but it seems to me that the de facto implication is that the other characters are not, then, female.
Too bad she dismisses creator sets and tends to focus on licensed properties where it's really outside of their control.
I think she dismisses the Creator sets because, unlike Lego's other lines, a minifigure-based narrative isn't at their centre.
