Shopping at LEGO or Amazon?
Please use our links: LEGO.comAmazon
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Overreacting on products

Brick_ObsessionBrick_Obsession in a "Brick" house - Calgary, AlbertaMember Posts: 656
When are adults going to take a long walk off a short pier and let kids enjoy toys.
I bet if you asked all the girls who have these sets or line up if they cared they would not have a clue as to what a person was talking about, let alone seeing the so called "sexual stereotypes"

It would be fantastic if adults would stop over analyzing things.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/unplugged/controversial-lego-friends-among-worst-toys-2012-180502792.html

Comments

  • samiam391samiam391 A log cabin in PA, United StatesMember Posts: 4,398
    Sorry CCFC.....

    "(To be fair, criticism of the range is hardly universal. Lego Friends is also a nominee for the regular, honest-to-goodness Toy of the Year awards in several categories.)"

    I like how they stuck that in parentheses and near the end.

    When are adults going to take a long walk off a short pier and let kids enjoy toys.
    I bet if you asked all the girls who have these sets or line up if they cared they would not have a clue as to what a person was talking about, let alone seeing the so called "sexual stereotypes"

    It would be fantastic if adults would stop over analyzing things.

    So true.

  • drdavewatforddrdavewatford Hertfordshire, UKAdministrator Posts: 6,706
    Yawn. No doubt voted for by the same parents who mercilessly and ruthlessly drive their kids to be the successes that they weren't and deprive them of a childhood in the process.....
    BumblepantsGothamConstructionCo
  • tamamahmtamamahm Member Posts: 1,981
    I think sometimes with articles like this, it becomes important to look at both sides.

    The headline on the article is misleading. It makes it send like it is condemning the entire line...that the entire Lego Friends line is among the worst toys. That to me is ridiculous. A line of Legos, which encourages spatial, 3d and building activities, and imagination, is wonderful toy compared to many out there.

    At the same time, the article is really only focusing on one set, which is the beauty shop, and not the entire line.

    Honestly, out of all the Friends sets, this is the one I do not like. Why? For some of the reason the article alludes to, but ideally far less sensationalistic.

    There are already so many advertisement messages that young girls are bombarded with in regards to beauty. There are really a number of well-written articles I have seen over the years on this. The advertisments and focus on how girls need to be thin or wear make-up, impacts self-esteem and realistic body image. I do not need a toy that I consider to have so many positives, focusing on lipstick, make-up, going to a beauty salon, etc... Not with 6, 8 or 10 year old girls.

    I think there were many girly possibilities that Lego could have gone with, and I don't personally like the direction of a beauty shop. Worst toy of the year? No. As a mom with girls, though, this was one set, I wasn't particular thrilled with. I am a huge fan of Lego Friends, though...just not this set. Personally, I think this particular set was a poor choice.

    The article, though, is written sensationalistically, and misses having a reasonable conversation as to basic reasons some people may not be thrilled with that particular set.

    I also do not get the negative focus on the minifig....honestly, it looks like most 10 year old girls out there both with style, hair, and beginning of curves. Yes, the ladyfig is 'thin', but not overtly, and the overall doll industry has not reached a point of varying body types, so I would not expect Lego to start that. For me, I have no issue with the ladyfigs.
  • akunthitaakunthita USAMember Posts: 1,038
    I read this article yesterday. It is actually really revealing to read the comments. 95% of the people commenting (my unscientific count) focused on the article bashing the LEGO Friends set (instead of the other toys mentioned - just showing how popular LEGO is), and all of those people thought the article was ridicolous. Or rather, the fanatical feminists who make up these ratings. The comments are a great read when you have nothing else to do, try it!...(c;
  • ACWWGal2011ACWWGal2011 Member Posts: 534

    When are adults going to take a long walk off a short pier and let kids enjoy toys.
    I bet if you asked all the girls who have these sets or line up if they cared they would not have a clue as to what a person was talking about, let alone seeing the so called "sexual stereotypes"

    It would be fantastic if adults would stop over analyzing things.

    http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/unplugged/controversial-lego-friends-among-worst-toys-2012-180502792.html

    Actually i love that article. I've been disgusted by the friends series since i first heard about it. If lego really wants to get girl fans, they need a better method then gender sterotyping.

    Really lego, instead of focusing on actually having city buildings that are not police or fire related and could actually attract girls(pet store, restraunt, bakery, etc) and also open up a whole new area for boys, you take the sterotypical girl route?
  • pcironepcirone Long Island, NYMember Posts: 346
    Brilliant. Anything Suess-ized is wonderful.
    LegoFanTexasLegoPodcaster
  • samiam391samiam391 A log cabin in PA, United StatesMember Posts: 4,398
    Did someone say Dr. Seuss?
  • PicopiratePicopirate Member Posts: 323
    The reality is that most little girls are very girly and feed off the stereotypes. That is one of the reasons why anything princess related is so successful. Lego is also very tame compared to manufacturers of other girl toys. That said, I would still like to see all such stereotypes dropped as it would open up much more set variety. But I see nothing wrong letting kids play with such toys especially if they like the toys.
  • Jabba_the_TaffJabba_the_Taff Member Posts: 213
    The CCFC are just plain wrong. To quote their original nomination, "your little princess won’t need to worry her pretty little head about icky boy things like building." It'll (probably) be the first time a Lego set has come pre-built. It doesn't really connect to the campaign either since it's not a commercial tie-in. I'd suggest their time might be more profitably spent campaigning child poverty, but the dearth of intelligence illustrated by the dingbats would probably mean it actually increased.
    LegoFanTexas
  • YodaliciousYodalicious DagobahMember Posts: 1,366
    ACWWGak2011 does make a good point though. We rarely get City items that are outside of police, fire, rescue, public works, service vehicles, racing, etc. When I came out of my dark ages earlier this year, I was amazed to see City basically exactly what it was in the 1980s.

    Actually, now that I think about it, I wasn't that amazed because it all works and sells well. That said though, it would be nice to see some variety in the City theme from time to time. It may be fine for business to just rehash it all because it sells, but they have so many opportunities they seem to miss in City.
  • AanchirAanchir United StatesMember Posts: 2,949

    ACWWGak2011 does make a good point though. We rarely get City items that are outside of police, fire, rescue, public works, service vehicles, racing, etc. When I came out of my dark ages earlier this year, I was amazed to see City basically exactly what it was in the 1980s.

    Actually, now that I think about it, I wasn't that amazed because it all works and sells well. That said though, it would be nice to see some variety in the City theme from time to time. It may be fine for business to just rehash it all because it sells, but they have so many opportunities they seem to miss in City.

    Part of the reason that TLG doesn't expand City into things that could be considered girlier, though, is because those are the sorts of things that would make their reliable audience of boys avoid LEGO City. Hence, imbalanced gender ratios, "manly" set contents like trucks and emergency response situations, and the avoidance of pastel colors are the order of the day.

    Really, until the prevailing culture changes to the point where "girly" things are considered acceptable for boys and vice-versa (or better yet, we stop thinking of things as "girly" and "boyish" altogether), then TLG trying to create gender-neutral toys will be a losing battle. Because no matter what TLG puts in their sets, a disappointingly large majority of parents and gift-givers will still gravitate towards the "pink aisle" when looking for toys for girls, bypassing the building toys department altogether. I think TLG has the right idea with what they're doing: instead of trying to push their existing product lines into neutral territory and risk losing the ground they've gained with boys, have a two-pronged marketing strategy that targets both girls AND boys independently, and then hopefully eventually expand BOTH segments of their audience until they eventually have products coving a whole spectrum of interests, from blatantly girl-oriented and boy-oriented products to all the stuff in between. But I don't know if a toy company really has the power to affect WHEN that happens; it'll just be whenever the culture is ready.

    Incidentally, there was a news story recently about a toy store putting out catalogs in Sweden that showed boys playing with toys like dolls and girls playing with toys like NERF guns. So at least it seems like some parts of the world are beginning to be this forward-thinking. If I'm lucky, I might see this sort of change become mainstream within my lifetime.
    thornie
  • LegoFanTexasLegoFanTexas TexasMember Posts: 8,409
    So... just so I understand... you want LEGO to focus on other City sets that won't sell as well and do fewer sets that sell very well.

    Did I understand you correctly?
    BumblepantsStuBoy
  • StuBoyStuBoy New ZealandMember Posts: 623
    edited December 2012
    I think if you collected city over several years you would get a decent amount of non-emergency buildings. There's been #7633 Construction Site, with an ok building, #3661 with a sweet Bank, #7641 with two nice buildings, #8403 with a pretty cool house, and of course #10184 Town Plan, to name a few.

    It just doesn't make sense for Lego to saturate the City line with sets such as these every year, as new customers are entering the market and wanting the popular Police, Fire etc. Same reason why there are so many re-hashs of key Star Wars sets.

    When I think about it now, it seems the last few years Lego has been giving us a bit of both with a nice building as a backdrop for a Police set, like the Bank and Money Transfer, and with the #60008 Museum Break-In (even though the museum isn't that good) and the #60009 Helicopter Arrest.

    atkinsar
  • YodaliciousYodalicious DagobahMember Posts: 1,366

    So... just so I understand... you want LEGO to focus on other City sets that won't sell as well and do fewer sets that sell very well.

    Did I understand you correctly?

    I actually didn't say that at all. I said I get why they do it. It makes complete sense. All I'm saying, as someone that got their fix with fire, police, etc. 25 years ago, it would be nice to see more variety. Sure there has been some variety over the years, but not a ridiculous amount. If that were the case, people wouldn't be critical of even more fire-related items for 2013.

    I'm rarely critical of what LEGO does and I'm not being so here either from a business standpoint, just making an observation. But I get it..."Sedan" isn't nearly as exciting to the target audience as "Fire Truck."
  • sadowsk1sadowsk1 Member Posts: 124
    Give the people what they want and turn a profit. Lego knows what they are doing. As for the critics, it's not as though Lego is coming into people's homes and shaking them down for money and giving them sets they don't want. Or at least I don't think they do...
    y2josh
  • pcironepcirone Long Island, NYMember Posts: 346
    How about let the market dictate what gets produced? If the Friends line was really a problem then people wouldn't buy it and Lego would stop making it, except it seems something else is happening? Hmmm...
  • YodaliciousYodalicious DagobahMember Posts: 1,366
    I think we're all missing the most important part of the article...

    We can now make Slurpees in the comfort of our own homes.
    thenos
  • YodaliciousYodalicious DagobahMember Posts: 1,366
    StuBoy said:

    When I think about it now, it seems the last few years Lego has been giving us a bit of both with a nice building as a backdrop for a Police set, like the Bank and Money Transfer, and with the #60008 Museum Break-In (even though the museum isn't that good) and the #60009 Helicopter Arrest.

    Very true. I like that direction a lot.

  • BastaBasta Australia Member Posts: 1,259
    Ok, so we don't want girls to be "Girly"? I assume that boys should not be "boyish"? Obviously science should be putting all its effort into genetics and creating a race of hybrids that are neither girl nor boy, that would fix things!

    Personally I do not have a problem with the set, and although I will most likely be confirming to stereo types and not buying this for my son, I really think that there is not enough onus put on parents to raise their children. Do we really want organisations like CCFC to be the ones telling us what is and what isn't acceptable for out children.



    YodaliciousStuBoy
  • LegoFanTexasLegoFanTexas TexasMember Posts: 8,409
    Aanchir said:

    Incidentally, there was a news story recently about a toy store putting out catalogs in Sweden that showed boys playing with toys like dolls and girls playing with toys like NERF guns. So at least it seems like some parts of the world are beginning to be this forward-thinking. If I'm lucky, I might see this sort of change become mainstream within my lifetime.

    Not everyone agrees that such things are forward-thinking.

    Personally, I think such thinking is nuts, but to each their own.

    My girls play with pink dolls, my boys play with fire engines.

    And that is how it should be. :)
  • graphitegraphite USMember Posts: 3,270
    ^ well.. you are from Texas... =)
  • 12651265 The Great State of TexasMember Posts: 1,049
    It's sad that the majority of the media advances and pushes the minority voice vice what the majority believes and/or agrees upon.
    StuBoy
  • LegoFanTexasLegoFanTexas TexasMember Posts: 8,409
    graphite said:

    ^ well.. you are from Texas... =)

    Yes, but I work hard to overcome my handicaps. ;)
  • mrseatlemrseatle Member Posts: 410
    Why change what has worked for thousands of years? When women are with child it really helps to have a man to provide... They say men should never harm a woman, but if you put them on the battlefield, some man may have to kill them, and that ain't fair... He may hesitate since he's been indoctrinated in tradition.
  • legobulder9001legobulder9001 Member Posts: 5
    Because Barbie totally isnt sterotypical.
  • tamamahmtamamahm Member Posts: 1,981
    See, and that is what has me annoyed. Looking at the TOADY Award website, the actual verbage is as follows:

    "How do you turn one of the all-time great toys into a TOADY contender? Give it a makeover! Introducing LEGO Friends, just for girls and so jam-packed with condescending stereotypes it would even make Barbie blush. Bye-bye square, androgynous figures; hello, curves ‘n eyelashes! And at the LEGO Friends Butterfly Beauty Shop, your little princess won’t need to worry her pretty little head about icky boy things like building. Instead, she can “get primped and pretty and have some serious salon fun,” “shop for makeup and hair accessories,” or “gossip out on the bench by the scenic fountain.”"

    One can't get more sensational than that. Instead of coming out with a clear rational argument and reason, they actually do far more harm than good, and turn off about anybody to any point. That is evidenced by just the responses on the thread. Any meaningful concern gets lost in the face of sensationalistic incorrect info.
    Tey have quite false information.
    a) Look at the female 'androgynous' minifigs, and one will see eyelashes. That is one of the primary ways Lego differentiates standard minifigs. That and lips. This is not new to Friends at all.

    b) "Worry her pretty little head about icky boy things like building". Again, this is false, because it is a good building set.

    c) "Gossip out on the bench by the scenic fountain." Really?? They are going to interpret a fountain and bench as negative?? Where is Lego showing Friends ladyfigs sitting on the bench gossiping?

    d) Curves. Oddly enough, it is true. Girls have curves. Usually starting around 10. I've never understood the uproar about 'girls' with slight curves. We aren't talking Barbie level curves here.


    What frustrates me, though, is that by going sensationalistic, groups take a real issue and it becomes completely lost when folks see 'fanatical feminists'.

    There really is an issue out there in regards to the impact that the 24/7 advertisement of an ideal look, weight(thin), and beauty has on society and girls. This happens in movies, tv shows, games, cosmetics, dolls, magazines and about any advertisement means out there. It isn't about one toy or message, but a continual bombardment. Obviously, parents need to parent around it, but it can be very hard to address all of it when it is so pervasive. This is a pretty common topic on some doll boards in regards to how dolls impact the definition of beauty especially in regards to race. The Clark experiment is a pretty sad, where young kids are asked questions about two different baby dolls, where the only difference is race. The American Psychological Association, has a fairly large report on the sexualization of girls, from a task force that was done. The UK Parliament had an all party group lookinng into media and body image. They came back with an 80 page report. The UN had a summit on it. My point, is there is a bunch of info and studies out there.

    I am a fan of Friends. My girls enjoy Friends. I don't have an issue with girly, unless the only thing provided for girls is girly.
    I do think, though, there is a rational point to be made that if Lego is targeting a set to 6-12 year olds, that it doesn't need to focus on the love of a posh salon, or "shop(ping) for lipstick, makeup and hair accessories", nor the focus on "look(ing) fabulous", especially not for that age range.

    It becomes just one more subtle or not so subtle message in many that promotes the importance of physical and ideal beauty for girls/women...a message that only becomes that much pervasive and stronger from all directions as they move to tween and teen years.

    So, while I believe that write-up and award are just horrible, and is written , and comes off fanatically, , I do not think we can simple dismiss everything as fanatical or over-analyzing adults. I really have to work hard, and so do many moms I know, to handle the never-ending narrow message of the importance of physical and ideal beauty. This particular set does not help.

    jadeireneStuBoymechteachMandarine
  • LegoFanTexasLegoFanTexas TexasMember Posts: 8,409
    ^ So what is the solution? Force political correctness on toy companies and make them produce dolls in various shapes and sizes and colors?

    We already have so much PC you can choke on it.
  • tamamahmtamamahm Member Posts: 1,981

    ^ So what is the solution? Force political correctness on toy companies and make them produce dolls in various shapes and sizes and colors?

    We already have so much PC you can choke on it.


    Obviously, not. :-)

    If we are looking at the larger issue of unrealistic body image, this is a complex problem, and goes across far more than just dolls, it goes across all advertisement schemes. It hits toys, cosmetics, games, print, media, etc. Complex problems mean complex solutions. I would not proclaim to have a solution for that. Some of the articles I have read, though, have suggestions.

    In regards to dolls, i have no issues with Friends ladyfigs. I think they are well done. I do think it is understandable, though, why some parents may have concern with an item targeted specifically to 6-12 that really focuses on promotion of beauty products, despite such a poor article.

    That is my point in regards to the OP.

    As for dolls, Body size changes will not occur anytime soon. Diversity in dolls is a complex issue, with a chicken/egg component. The more media shows a narrow view of beauty, the more that is the norm, and more what consumer wish/expect/aspire to, which makes it harder to sell diversity down stream in areas like dolls. I have read enough in this area, to know that toy companies have tried, but often attempts have not been successful. There have been some small successes, though, and more doll lines than when K was growing up that include diversity.
    mechteachMandarine
  • tamamahmtamamahm Member Posts: 1,981
    Aanchir said:

    Really, until the prevailing culture changes to the point where "girly" things are considered acceptable for boys and vice-versa (or better yet, we stop thinking of things as "girly" and "boyish" altogether), then TLG trying to create gender-neutral toys will be a losing battle. Because no matter what TLG puts in their sets, a disappointingly large majority of parents and gift-givers will still gravitate towards the "pink aisle" when looking for toys for girls, bypassing the building toys department altogether. I think TLG has the right idea with what they're doing: instead of trying to push their existing product lines into neutral territory and risk losing the ground they've gained with boys, have a two-pronged marketing strategy that targets both girls AND boys independently, and then hopefully eventually expand BOTH segments of their audience until they eventually have products coving a whole spectrum of interests, from blatantly girl-oriented and boy-oriented products to all the stuff in between. But I don't know if a toy company really has the power to affect WHEN that happens; it'll just be whenever the culture is ready.


    I seemed to have lost my earlier post. I have discussed this earlier in the female minifig thread, but Lego has had success with several gender neutral lines.

    Harry Potter has appealed to both genders.

    Monster Fighters. It is not coincidence this line has more than the token female minifigs and has similarities to Harry Potter. A castle, a train, a tree.. More than the norm of sets focused on scene, even if there was a vehicle accompanying it. To me there is no question that theree was seem amount of gender neutrality occurring with this theme, to the point that they were reusing elements of a successful HP line.

    Winter village. I have seen this appeal to boys, girls, adults.

    I think it would be a disaster to create all gender neutral lines, and I do not think anyone would be for that. I do think, though, we can't simply say gender neutral lines are a losing battle, when there are examples of Lego having successful lines. In fact, I think some lines would have been a greater success as a gender neutral line. I use Pharoah's quest as an example a lot. I had three kids nuts about the Playmobil Egyptian line, and zero interest in Pharoah's quest. I think Pharoah's quest would have done better as an adventure line targeting both genders.

    I think a Greek line, would be a perfect example of a line that could be gender neutral and appeal to both, and where girl/boy minifigs would be accepted. Greek mythology is very hot with both boys and girls. Percy Jackson, Hero's Quest, Goddess Girls, Pandora, are all popular Greek series.

    The problem I have with a two tier approach, is that it is not a two-tiered at this time, and it may never be. Basically, there is pretty much all of Lego, and then one theme for girls. With two girls, a single theme is simply not sufficient. They have created interest for girls, but there is nowhere to move to at this point. I am far more supportive of a system that is three-tiered. Keep the main boy market, diversify it a bit with 1-2 lines of neutral lines that are out, and then have a girl market. I do think the diversification is important for both boys and girls. I look at my son's interest, and he adored the MBA 7-9 sets. Pure adventure sets, with a story, with hidden features, treasure, and yet there is nothing available for him like this. I would love to see a gender neutral adventure set. I really would like to see that bit of diversity for all of my kids.

    My big fear, though, is that Lego sees they were successful with Friends, and decides there is no reason to even attempt to appeal to girls in any other line.
    mechteachMandarine
  • RedbullgivesuwindRedbullgivesuwind Brickset's Secret HeadquatersMember Posts: 2,011
    ^I dont think Lego will split off into girl and boy groups at all. A lot of the lines are mixed. CMF, phaorah quest had women in it, poc, pop, star wars lines now have women in, monster hunters, city, Superheroes. All have women in. I cant imagine where lego why lego would only ever create a single sex line. It would limit their sales far to much.

    Good luck with a greek line lots of god rape and baby eating :-).

    As for people pushing a stereotype. I know women hate to hear it but its women that push it. Im flicking through OK from last week which is running a worst beach body of 2012. I look at the staff list and its 90% women on their. Same with Cosmo etc all run by women. There are plenty of strong women out there who dont fit the stereotype Adele, Susan Boyle, Lucy Rose, Little Mix. But these are ignored by the gossip col. written by women because they dont want to write about them. One because they dont do anything and two because they arent considered by other women to be exciting. Girls want to be like theremothers. Its why my friends keep showing me pictures of their kids in make up that they put on to be like her. And why boys want to be like their dads. Its up to the parents to show the responsability if you plaster your face with make up and only eat lettice when there is a full moon because you want to lose weight. Then your child will copy you. Same goes for dads. Its up to imo for parents to change first and then the companies. Not the other way around.

    Plus there are evoultionary stuff as well. But ive gone on long enough.
    StuBoy
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 20,017
    Aanchir said:


    Incidentally, there was a news story recently about a toy store putting out catalogs in Sweden that showed boys playing with toys like dolls and girls playing with toys like NERF guns. So at least it seems like some parts of the world are beginning to be this forward-thinking. If I'm lucky, I might see this sort of change become mainstream within my lifetime.

    It's good training so that they can star in videos like "girls and guns" when they are older.

  • icey117icey117 DenmarkMember Posts: 510
    I'm so for equalizing gender rights and opportunities. But in order to remove diverse gender preferences it might not be the LEGO bricks that need to be changed - maybe it's the DNA bricks?
    StuBoy
  • LegoFanTexasLegoFanTexas TexasMember Posts: 8,409
    icey117 said:

    I'm so for equalizing gender rights and opportunities. But in order to remove diverse gender preferences it might not be the LEGO bricks that need to be changed - maybe it's the DNA bricks?

    There is a difference between removing unequal rights and opportunities and trying to make boys and girls the same.

    I have no issues with removing limits to what boys and girls do, so long as the rules are applied evenly.

    For example, I have no issues with women serving in any role in the military, so long as they can pass the same standards as the men. Carry the same ruck sack, run the same course, and they should be able to do any job they like.

    That being said, we would all be fools to try and remove any difference between men and women. After all, women can have the kids, men can't, we are in fact different and that is ok.

    The fact is, most little girls have natural maternal feelings that most little boys don't. My daughter just naturally wants to tuck her little brother into bed. My son wants to throw a ball at him.

    Humans evolved for tens of thousands of years this way for a reason. Those reasons are diminished today, but that doesn't mean you can just erase who and what we are.

    Men hunt and women gather, that is what and who we are as human beings. There are of course outliers, but the grand bulk of people in the middle fall into those roles.
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 20,017


    Men hunt and women gather, that is what and who we are as human beings. There are of course outliers, but the grand bulk of people in the middle fall into those roles.

    So men find the cheap lego, and women load the boxes into the trolley?
  • cheshirecatcheshirecat Member Posts: 5,332
    Personally i'ld worry far less about what toys we play with and how that makes us as people and far more about the crap parents feed their children (and themselves) day in day out. The minidolls may be somewhat more curvy and less bulky than minifigs but they're a very good target for girls to be aiming at and far better than most they'll find in their community. Somewhat off topic perhaps but just that if these people are worrying about Friends lego they need to get their priorities straight. The number of fat kids 4-7 years old I see and the type and quantity of food the parents hand them as they leave the school is saddening.

    I do wonder though how much what kids play with is down to their parents as well as their friends. For about 4 months one of my boys would push around a pram with the girl next door. He loved it, I hated it (although i know I shouldn't) and was relieved when the pram turned into a wheelbarrow full of stones. Thankfully he now likes star wars, dino lego, mining lego, police lego, castles and space. Phew.

    As an aside, pink was considered a boys colour until fairly recently.

  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 20,017
    edited December 2012

    The number of fat kids 4-7 years old I see and the type and quantity of food the parents hand them as they leave the school is saddening.

    You're not even allowed to call them fat these days. Or so I got told last week outside my sons' school.

    And I am sure most boys' parents have been through the "Oh no, he's playing with a pink dolly's pram" stage. The princess dress phase is even worse, but for us that was only one weekend.
  • LegoFanTexasLegoFanTexas TexasMember Posts: 8,409
    ^ Fat, they are fat and I'll call em' fat! :)

    I can't stand PC terms... "oh, that person is "full figured"... What kind of crap is that, if someone is fat, they are fat.

    Some people are fat, not because they eat too much, but because they have medical conditions, or their bodies are that way. Some people indeed just can't be super thin, it isn't in their DNA.

    That being said, I'm pleased to see the model industry has woken up to the fact that the rest of us don't really want to see paper thin models.

    For example, Kate Upton is not paper thin, but she isn't fat, she just has a larger bone structure and curves, like a women should have.

    Not too big, not too small, just right.

    Ok, now that I've offended everyone, back to LEGO. :)
    Redbullgivesuwind
  • SherlockbonesSherlockbones Member Posts: 411
    I agree on the fat thing, it's so funny when people get offended.

    This is stupid, although I'm not going to buy friends, I respect LEGO'S decision.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Shopping at LEGO.com or Amazon?

Please use our links: LEGO.com Amazon

Recent discussions Categories Privacy Policy Brickset.com

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Brickset.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, the Amazon.com.ca, Inc. Associates Program and the Amazon EU Associates Programme, which are affiliate advertising programs designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.