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

1973 UK "Letter to Parents" gone viral on the Internet...

IstokgIstokg MichiganMember Posts: 2,326
LEGO Letter to Parents.... this appears to have gone Viral on the Internet...

Several folks have asked me in the last 16 hours about this image going around on the internet, and whether it is legitimate or not.

image


Well I have come to the conclusion that this is a real item. And here is why....

-------------------------

1) The term "dolls house" is uniquely British (don't know about Australia?)... we use "doll house" in the USA.

2) The document number 97xxx does date to about 1973.

3) British LEGO Ltd. was based in Wrexham Wales.

4) LEGO brochures at that time were commonly produced in Germany, many of those for Britain, USA and Canada were.

5) The typeface does match that era in the early 1970s.

6) The LEGO logo is the 1973-1997 LEGO logo.

7) You would never find this type of message (boys play with dolls house) in a LEGO catalog where boys might read this, but it could be found in a Parents Guide type message.

8) The Homemaker Sets were introduced in 1971, so this type of message would indirectly hint about these new sets.

9) You can tell that there is writing/imagery on the back of this page. It would be common to see thru this type of paper in LEGO catalogs and documents of that era. This is something that a forgery would probably not have.

10) This is clearly the last page of a multi page stapled LEGO document. It has all the common hallmarks of a LEGO brochure, with the location/date/copyright/trademark info/printer... posted on the back page.
-------------------------

So yes... this has all the makings of a real LEGO page distributed by British LEGO Ltd. of Wrexham Wales, and printed in Germany.
drdavewatfordmargotNatebwAndorBuriedinBricksbobabricksthenos

Comments

  • IstokgIstokg MichiganMember Posts: 2,326
    OK... someone who was still skeptical contacted me, and thought that the upper and lower half of the image were from 2 different source.

    I have over 1000 LEGO document images in my collection, and over the years I've Photoshopped many to clear up imperfections or stains/writing. And in doing so, I have found ways to identify my own changes. ;-)

    One thing that many LEGO documents such as catalogs or brochures have is what I call "bleeding from behind" images... where the backside shows thru when scanning/photographing an image. Here I took the previous image and darkened/contrasted it to show that a lot of the "bleeding" from the page behind does come thru... and this bleeding is on the upper and lower parts of this image. This would be very difficult to fake...

    image
    Andor
  • binaryeyebinaryeye USMember Posts: 1,752
    Istokg said:

    Here I took the previous image and darkened/contrasted it to show that a lot of the "bleeding" from the page behind does come thru... and this bleeding is on the upper and lower parts of this image. This would be very difficult to fake...

    This kind of thing wouldn't be particularly difficult to fake. Assuming one can find an appropriate image to use for the "back" of the page, it would take no more than a couple minutes to reverse it horizontally, rotate it to match the angle of the page, set it to a very low opacity over the base image, and adjust its blending to not cover the darker areas (e.g. the logo). Now, whether someone would think to do this when creating a fake is what makes it unlikely to be present in a fake (in my opinion).

    What is very difficult to fake is the inconsistent baseline of the text as it follows the wrinkles in the paper.
  • IstokgIstokg MichiganMember Posts: 2,326
    Thanks for the comments binaryeye! You obviously are more adept at Photoshopping (et al) than I am! ;-)

    I was able to find a document number, and an example of this same text in German...

    http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/photo-egalitarian-instructions-1970s-lego-set-goes-viral

    The document number for the English text is: 97880-Eng

    The document number for the German text is: 97880-Ty

    This gives me something to help pinpoint the exact mystery document. :-D
  • oldtodd33oldtodd33 Denver 4800 miles to BillundMember Posts: 2,625
    Actually, @Binaryeye and Istokg, this would be difficult to fake as the printing would be on the face of the paper and not the back where it's supposed to be. Gary himself said it when he said he can see the printing from the back onto the front. That is called show through. The other point that you are both over looking is that printing or "imaging" these days is not done in any remote way the same as when that brochure was printed. If you really wanted to fake it you would have to have old printing equipment available to use to make a true fake. Photo shopping an actual piece of paper would be almost impossible these days.
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 20,307
    Although it would be relatively easy to fake if that page was intentionally blank, with the print on the reverse. That would give the faint show through.

    But why fake it? I haven't been following this on other sites. Why has it gone viral and what is the big deal about it?
  • madforLEGOmadforLEGO Chicagoland USMember Posts: 10,479
    Its going viral because people are still hung up about the whole issue of boys vs girls in LEGO today, so anything like this is going to be a big deal, even though it should not be.
    Andor
  • IstokgIstokg MichiganMember Posts: 2,326
    ANSWER!!!! :-)

    Thanks to my good LEGO friend Russell Callendar!

    This image is the cover to the 1974 UK Homemaker Catalog, also available in other languages!

    image
    margot
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 20,307
    In the 70s Lego was pretty well balanced. Many of the maxi fig sets were home play style sets with both male and female heads. The way the bodies were made meant you could have tall or short, fat or thin, trousers or skirts. Significantly more flexible than modern ones really. I remember playing with both genders. The female ones were mum or nans or friends. I remember girl friends playing with them too.

    So I can believe it is perfectly true that they were trying to market sets to girls via the parents, although back then there was much less an issue of political correctness. No doubt there would still be complaints today if those sets were current ones, for portraying women as house wives, even if it could equally well be that it was a working woman and a house husband, just down to interpretation.
  • IstokgIstokg MichiganMember Posts: 2,326
    edited November 2014
    The irony here is that for any non-LEGO folks trying to turn this into another reason why LEGO used to be more for girls without the "pink" angle... Homemaker Sets (1971-82) were a range that TLG produced for "dolls house" furniture... geared towards girls!

    (Edited: Agree completely CCC!!)
  • AanchirAanchir United StatesMember Posts: 2,979
    edited November 2014
    Istokg said:

    The irony here is that for any non-LEGO folks trying to turn this into another reason why LEGO used to be more for girls without the "pink" angle... Homemaker Sets (1971-82) were a range that TLG produced for "dolls house" furniture... geared towards girls!

    (Edited: Agree completely CCC!!)

    Yes, I agree. To me, the leaflet represents less about how LEGO has changed and more about how it has stayed the same. They still design and market many sets to appeal primarily to certain audiences, but encourage builders to think outside those narrow constraints and build whatever their imagination happens to favor. I wrote a blog entry here to that effect.

    Does anybody know where I might find full scans of the entire catalog? It's a subject that has really piqued my interest.
  • margotmargot Member Posts: 2,310
    Lego just posted this letter on their FB page.
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 20,307
    Were they actually aimed at girls though. I am one of three boys, and we had a kitchen, bathroom, living room and tv. I think they were all second hand, so we might not have got much choice, but I remember playing with them a lot.
  • IstokgIstokg MichiganMember Posts: 2,326
    edited November 2014
    Thanks Aanchir! I would love to be a fly on the wall when some of the more vocal non-LEGO folks find this out! ;-)

    Margot, thanks! I just posted the image on the LEGO FB page.

    I see that Bricklink database has these listed in many continental European languages. Since they list Portuguese... I would assume that each continental European LEGO country language had this produced... as well as Australia.
    http://www.bricklink.com/catalogList.asp?catType=C&catString=349.85

    Since Homemaker sets did not come to the USA until 1979, this 1974 catalog would not be found produced there.
    margot
  • AanchirAanchir United StatesMember Posts: 2,979
    CCC said:

    Were they actually aimed at girls though. I am one of three boys, and we had a kitchen, bathroom, living room and tv. I think they were all second hand, so we might not have got much choice, but I remember playing with them a lot.

    All the packages of the "Homemaker" sets seem to exclusively show girls on the boxes, so I'd say that yes, they were designed for and marketed to girls primarily.

    That doesn't mean it's wrong for boys to play with them, or that they were somehow designed so that boys COULDN'T enjoy them. But then, neither are modern sets. I own the LEGO Friends Dolphin Cruiser myself. Fantastic set packed with detail. It truly feels "liveable", rather than just being geared towards action play like so many more boy-oriented sets. I am really excited for next year's Elves sets, and some of the Friends sets also look stunning!

    I wouldn't mind if the LEGO Group introduced a girl-oriented castle playset one day. If LEGO Friends is any indication, it might even surpass the various Hogwarts Castle sets as the most liveable LEGO castle. Can you believe non-licensed castle sets have never included a banquet hall, or a library, or a keep with a four-poster bed for the king and queen? As a kid I had a Mega Bloks castle that included all of those things, as well as a horse stable and a dungeon and a blacksmith's workshop and a throne room and all that good stuff. Granted, the design and material quality were still terrible, with the entire outer structure being a giant preformed castle-shaped carry case, but it was astonishing years later to see that LEGO never really had any castle that felt quite so liveable. I'm tired of seeing LEGO castles presented just as military fortifications or seats of government. I want to see a LEGO Castle presented as a home, and as a sanctuary.

    Just read the LEGO Facebook post. Somebody in the comments had the gall to say how much they preferred the Homemaker sets to the "dumbed-down" pink and purple sets today. Right, because giant Duplo-sized cabinets and plumbing fixtures are ANYTHING but "dumbed-down"... And a palette of five different colors gives girls much more creative freedom than the diverse spectrum of colors in the LEGO Friends sets...
  • binaryeyebinaryeye USMember Posts: 1,752
    edited November 2014
    oldtodd33 said:

    Actually, @Binaryeye and Istokg, this would be difficult to fake as the printing would be on the face of the paper and not the back where it's supposed to be. Gary himself said it when he said he can see the printing from the back onto the front. That is called show through.

    I'm not sure what you mean about the printing being on the face and not the back. As best I can tell, Gary has only an image, not the actual piece of paper. It wouldn't be difficult to make it look like something else was on the back of the paper; for example:
    image
    Of course, if I were really trying to make a fake, it would be much lighter and I would have spent time making it match the shape of the page.
    oldtodd33 said:

    The other point that you are both over looking is that printing or "imaging" these days is not done in any remote way the same as when that brochure was printed.

    That depends on the kind of printing. Volume printing on an offset press is still done very much like it was when the brochure was printed. The main difference is what happens before the content is sent to the printer. Back then, the art, copy, photos, etc., were all combined into a "paste-up" that was then photographed. The printer would use that photo to create plates. Now, we bypass all the messy and error-prone stuff and the printer creates plates directly from the digital files sent to them. The printing process itself is almost exactly the same; it's the pre-press stuff that has changed.
  • madforLEGOmadforLEGO Chicagoland USMember Posts: 10,479
    edited November 2014
    Aanchir said:

    CCC said:

    Were they actually aimed at girls though. I am one of three boys, and we had a kitchen, bathroom, living room and tv. I think they were all second hand, so we might not have got much choice, but I remember playing with them a lot.

    All the packages of the "Homemaker" sets seem to exclusively show girls on the boxes, so I'd say that yes, they were designed for and marketed to girls primarily.

    That doesn't mean it's wrong for boys to play with them, or that they were somehow designed so that boys COULDN'T enjoy them. But then, neither are modern sets. I own the LEGO Friends Dolphin Cruiser myself. Fantastic set packed with detail. It truly feels "liveable", rather than just being geared towards action play like so many more boy-oriented sets. I am really excited for next year's Elves sets, and some of the Friends sets also look stunning!

    I wouldn't mind if the LEGO Group introduced a girl-oriented castle playset one day. If LEGO Friends is any indication, it might even surpass the various Hogwarts Castle sets as the most liveable LEGO castle. Can you believe non-licensed castle sets have never included a banquet hall, or a library, or a keep with a four-poster bed for the king and queen? As a kid I had a Mega Bloks castle that included all of those things, as well as a horse stable and a dungeon and a blacksmith's workshop and a throne room and all that good stuff. Granted, the design and material quality were still terrible, with the entire outer structure being a giant preformed castle-shaped carry case, but it was astonishing years later to see that LEGO never really had any castle that felt quite so liveable. I'm tired of seeing LEGO castles presented just as military fortifications or seats of government. I want to see a LEGO Castle presented as a home, and as a sanctuary.

    Just read the LEGO Facebook post. Somebody in the comments had the gall to say how much they preferred the Homemaker sets to the "dumbed-down" pink and purple sets today. Right, because giant Duplo-sized cabinets and plumbing fixtures are ANYTHING but "dumbed-down"... And a palette of five different colors gives girls much more creative freedom than the diverse spectrum of colors in the LEGO Friends sets...

    I want to comment that this is not being snide to @Aanchir‌ but just responding to some points made.

    A 'girl oriented' Castle? So a Castle? I mean that is what the people want right? I'm not sure anymore. They wanted LEGO more 'accessible' to girls, but not, in their view, 'insulting'.. So they wanted LEGO sets with a few more female characters thrown in? No, then I'm confused.,. Supposedly they do not want to be treated any differently than boys.. or do they?
    I would also say that Medieval Market Village, and even Mill Village Raid, had females in it. Were they soldiers? No, but then again they seems portrayed in a good light and I am fairly certain that most females in Medieval times were not really favored well in the populous. Does this mean Castle now has to go away now, or is LEGO needing to re-write history? I'm sure there are those sadly that would suggest that. I guess they could do the Amazon's as a line and see how well it does.

    As for things MB had in their castle set, when you have lesser quality than LEGO and are competing against them you better add a ton into the set; also was that set with all of its bells and whistles cheaper or the same price as the LEGO set?
    LEGO Castle traditionally has not had many of those things. Occasionally you get a 'throne room' or a 'Dungeon/cell, but not both. I think a couple of LEGO's castles though have been pretty detailed though and #6090 I believe comes to mind. But for stuff missing I guess kids could.. dare I say it, imagine it and build into the Castle those things (makes money for LEGO and allows both boys and girls to add what they wish into the Castle system).

    As for the facebook comment, I agree and it only re-enforces the notion that people will go to bizarre lengths to state their side of an argument.

    All in all, last I checked, the Creator houses (and now the new Creator urban housing scenes) are likely played with by both boys and girls. These are essentially 'homemaker sets'. There are no swat team members raiding the meth house with bad guys in it, nor is the house on fire, nor are aliens trying to destroy it. It is just a house. Would be interesting to see the demographics on who are playing with those sets; to see if there are kids (boys and girls) that may play with a set without all of that muddying the waters.

    Could LEGO finally add more females into the 'standard' theme sets? Sure and I endorse that. Why not? Add a different hair piece and torso, both minor and cheap parts, but even when they do that it would not be enough for some sadly (not referring to @Aanchir‌ on that point either)
  • oldtodd33oldtodd33 Denver 4800 miles to BillundMember Posts: 2,625
    ^ Back in the day this job could have been done either offset or letterpress since it was still very common at the time. This job would only be done on a low volume basis since there were so many different countries the manufacturing and licensing was done in. If that were printed today as a fake it would be done digitally and that is easy to tell from offset.
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 20,307
    I think this one is a boy. 70s haircuts and all that ...

    image
    bobabricks
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 20,307
    edited November 2014
    Actually looking back at the boxes, it is interesting to see "boy" sets don't tend to have boys on them, whereas "girl" sets do. It makes you wonder if the internet existed back then, would there be the same sort of discussions. Aiming domestic sets at girls (by including the girl) and more exciting sets such as hospital (above) and cars to boys (often by omission of the girl, therefore must be for boys).
  • AanchirAanchir United StatesMember Posts: 2,979
    edited November 2014

    I want to comment that this is not being snide to @Aanchir‌ but just responding to some points made.

    A 'girl oriented' Castle? So a Castle? I mean that is what the people want right? I'm not sure anymore. They wanted LEGO more 'accessible' to girls, but not, in their view, 'insulting'.. So they wanted LEGO sets with a few more female characters thrown in? No, then I'm confused.,. Supposedly they do not want to be treated any differently than boys.. or do they?
    I would also say that Medieval Market Village, and even Mill Village Raid, had females in it. Were they soldiers? No, but then again they seems portrayed in a good light and I am fairly certain that most females in Medieval times were not really favored well in the populous. Does this mean Castle now has to go away now, or is LEGO needing to re-write history? I'm sure there are those sadly that would suggest that. I guess they could do the Amazon's as a line and see how well it does.

    I'm not saying the LEGO Group has to rewrite history to make things appealing to girls. Though, they don't have to be entirely faithful to history either, because LEGO is about imagination and how people remember or imagine history can often be more important than how it really was. A "fairy-tale castle" can include these kinds of features just as easily as a more historical castle.

    And "girl-oriented" doesn't just mean "more girl characters". What the LEGO Group found during the research they did leading up to the LEGO Friends theme (starting in 2007) is that girls and boys genuinely had differences in their play patterns. One of the biggest differences was that girls were more likely to act out stories in the first person (using the figures as avatars for themselves) rather than in the third person, for instance, which is part of the reason why the mini-doll was introduced — girls had an easier time identifying with a figure that was less blocky and abstract than the minifigure. Also, girls really preferred their creations to have a sense of harmony and order. And as was already sort of suspected, girls tended to prefer character-driven role-play to more mechanical action play.

    I think a lot of these things have helped inform the design of recent girl-oriented sets. For instance, a lot of girl-oriented sets are designed to feel well-rounded from a role-play perspective. This is the kind of "liveable" detail I'm talking about. My #41015 Dolphin Cruiser features a small kitchen, a small bathroom, two comfortable-looking beds, and a shower. That's more than most houses in LEGO Town or LEGO City have! This kind of detail doesn't have to be so glamorous or luxurious, of course — the #41038 Jungle Rescue Base has a modest outhouse-style water closet (though it does have a slight luxury in the form of hot and cold water), and instead of large 4x6 twin beds with plush-looking comforters, it has a pair of small, simple 2x6 cots. All this at a lower price than another current "adventure base", #60036 Arctic Base Camp (of course, that set has like four vehicles, while the Jungle Rescue Base just has a boat and a zip-line).

    This is the kind of detail I feel is missing from non-licensed LEGO castles. Sure, the knights are protecting the castle, and the king is sitting on the throne in the castle, but there's not a sense that anybody actually lives there. There's rarely any place for them to leave their horses, eat, or sleep when they're not on the battlefield. There's a dungeon, of course, and plenty of catapults, and usually a treasure room and a throne room, but not even the most meager "creature comforts". And I think a girl-oriented castle might be better at this kind of thing. The Disney Princess theme has dabbled in it already, though Cinderella's Romantic Castle is too small to include all the sorts of features that I think non-licensed LEGO castles are missing. The Harry Potter theme has done an even better job with the various renditions of Hogwarts — which have certainly been informed by their potential for "dollhouse play", and were often even listed with the "For Girls" tag/category back when they were still available on shop.LEGO.com.


    As for things MB had in their castle set, when you have lesser quality than LEGO and are competing against them you better add a ton into the set; also was that set with all of its bells and whistles cheaper or the same price as the LEGO set?

    I'll let you see some pictures:
    Left Side with blacksmith shop, armory, banquet hall, and storeroom
    Right Side with bedroom, library/treasury, throne room, stable, and dungeon
    Full instruction scans

    It had 725 pieces, according to bricker.info. I don't have any clue what it cost — there aren't a lot of good resources for looking that kind of thing up for really old clone sets.

    LEGO Castle traditionally has not had many of those things. Occasionally you get a 'throne room' or a 'Dungeon/cell, but not both. I think a couple of LEGO's castles though have been pretty detailed though and #6090 I believe comes to mind. But for stuff missing I guess kids could.. dare I say it, imagine it and build into the Castle those things (makes money for LEGO and allows both boys and girls to add what they wish into the Castle system).

    Believe me, I agree! LEGO has had some great castles. And kids are totally free to add what they like to them. But I think what the LEGO Group includes in sets still matters. Obviously, 1990s Mega Bloks was generally even lower quality than what they have out today (both in terms of design and materials). But I hardly think that means the LEGO Group somehow can't afford to put out a castle with these kinds of contents, especially when they've already come close in other themes. #4842 contains a banquet hall and two common rooms. #70728 has a bed and a kitchen. Perhaps some of this stuff isn't important to a lot of LEGO Castle fans, but I still feel its absence each time we get a big new LEGO castle — despite those sets generally having all the features we've come to expect from previous big LEGO castles like dungeons and throne rooms and catapults and treasuries.

    Maybe I should break out the bricks (or even just LEGO Digital Designer) and try to design a "liveable" LEGO castle for LEGO Ideas. Been a long time since I dabbled in castle building, even though it was something I loved as a kid.
    Andorjadeirene
  • madforLEGOmadforLEGO Chicagoland USMember Posts: 10,479
    edited November 2014
    I see your points. However, I think a 'fairy tale' castle would still be as patronizing as Friends to some people I think.
    There are those that will never be pleased no matter what, and those are the people to tune out.
    Could LEGO do a better job? Sure, but LEGO did have blacksmith shops and other modular type sets in the 80's to make a larger castle, and is many ways was tailor made to be customized. Really that is what LEGO needs to get back to and keep doing that IMO.
    But could LEGO made a 'perfect' castle? Should and be prepared to pay perfect type money for it. I think one thing LEGO wants to do, especially lately, is keep many of the them sets to around 99.99 or lower (Themes that are ot City or Mods, SW, etc), and that will hamstring many plans
  • paul_mertonpaul_merton UKMember Posts: 2,967
    It's clearly a fake - here's the original :)
    CapnRex101margotDougoutTechnicNickricecakeChrisbstmLostInTranslationbobabrickspricey73
  • DougoutDougout Member Posts: 888
    What's wrong with gender roles? If a boy gets tormented his whole childhood for playing with dolls is that Lego's fault for promoting it? Kids are mean, it would seem this promotes anti-social behavior more than equality. Isn't estrogen attracted to testosterone?

    Why go against society without doing anything MAJOR to change it, unless.............$$$$$$$$$$?
  • AanchirAanchir United StatesMember Posts: 2,979
    edited November 2014
    Dougout said:

    What's wrong with gender roles? If a boy gets tormented his whole childhood for playing with dolls is that Lego's fault for promoting it? Kids are mean, it would seem this promotes anti-social behavior more than equality. Isn't estrogen attracted to testosterone?

    If a boy gets tormented his whole childhood for playing with dolls, the only people to blame are his tormentors. If you would blame the victims of such tormenting or the people who support them, you're part of the problem.

    The point of this letter was never to encourage kids to do anything that is against their natural inclinations. On the contrary, it's to encourage parents to EMBRACE their kids' natural inclinations and imaginative spirit, even if those things seem at a glance to run counter to "conventional wisdom" about gender.

    Being open to ideas outside of traditional gender roles doesn't make you any less of a man or woman than others of your gender. In fact, it's often a sign of creativity and "thinking outside the box". This article I read recently seems relevant.

    Of course, yes, money is a factor. LEGO is a creative toy. By encouraging creativity, LEGO stands to make money. That doesn't make this message any less truthful or genuine.
    tamamahmmnbvcmargot
  • DougoutDougout Member Posts: 888
    Victims? I never said that, don't put words in my mouth. People that support, no, people that know better than to promote fallacies. Boys make fun of boys that play with dolls. End statement, no ignoring that. You can if you wish.

    I'm really, really, really sick of the promotion of fallacies. There's plenty fathers who choose not to be around. When companies and government have opportunities to teach kids and then choose otherwise. Well that's the definition of traitor.
  • AanchirAanchir United StatesMember Posts: 2,979
    edited November 2014
    Dougout said:

    Victims? I never said that, don't put words in my mouth. People that support, no, people that know better than to promote fallacies. Boys make fun of boys that play with dolls. End statement, no ignoring that. You can if you wish.

    On the contrary, boys and girls alike should be raised to know that making fun of others is wrong. Treating bullying of any kind as just "boys being boys" is a serious problem. I do not think there's anything "manly" or even "natural" about hurting other people who have done nothing to hurt you.

    A person who torments others is a bully, a person who is tormented by others is a victim of bullying. I was not trying to put words in your mouth, just assuming you had the brainpower to understand the underlying meaning of your own words. I hope that I was not assuming too much of you.

    What's more, your statement assumes that things like dolls being a girls' hobby is an innate biological impulse and not just a societal bias. And societal ideas about gender roles vary with time and place. In a society where cooking is seen as feminine, should boys be discouraged from becoming chefs because other boys will pick on them? In a society where music is seen as feminine, should boys be discouraged from becoming musicians? In societies where gardening is seen as feminine, should boys be discouraged from becoming gardeners or botanists? Certainly people raised in these societies might see bullying as "inevitable" for boys who have these kinds of interests, but in fact it's anything but.

    Plenty of boys already play with dolls anyway. But clever marketers made it okay by calling them "action figures". The nature of the toy was not fundamentally altered, but by cloaking it in more masculine language it was made acceptable, a perfect example of how the stigma against boys playing with dolls is a product of society, not a product of human nature.
    margot
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 20,307
    Aanchir said:


    A person who torments others is a bully, a person who is tormented by others is a victim of bullying. I was not trying to put words in your mouth, just assuming you had the brainpower to understand the underlying meaning of your own words. I hope that I was not assuming too much of you.

    Bullying isn't only physical. Demeaning people using language is verbal bullying.
  • DougoutDougout Member Posts: 888
    As much as I do, I don't intend to come to the Lego forums to talk politics, but the issues that separate boys and girls are not helped by your sentiments.

    I really wouldn't call playing with army men playing with dolls. There is a big difference.

    In America, women are told that cooking, cleaning and gardening is now seen as somewhat sexist. I know very little women that willingly do that stuff. For me, I had to learn to cook for myself. It's very important to nourish yourself, especially after a good workout. I enjoy music and I enjoy botany. I don't see how when women are told not to do that stuff, men can't either. Someone has to.

    And referring to bullying, it isn't boys on boys. Many girls, teachers, bosses, or whoever will bully. It's a bully society. I wasn't condoning or encouraging, just stating it's a little ignorant to assume it won't happen.

    Why not teach boys masculine traits which will inevitably help them with women later instead of telling them to pickup a doll when in reality women don't chase boys that play with dolls. We only have to look at the predictions thread with the I get 27% more/less than whenever to see there is a big disconnect. It needs to change, that's all I want.

    It's one thing if a boy chooses dolls, it's another to gear them towards it. I don't think it's okay to teach guys effeminate traits. Thats all.
  • AanchirAanchir United StatesMember Posts: 2,979
    edited November 2014
    Dougout said:


    It's one thing if a boy chooses dolls, it's another to gear them towards it. I don't think it's okay to teach guys effeminate traits. Thats all.

    But that's the point. This letter isn't saying parents should TELL their boys to build dolls houses or their girls to build spaceships. It's saying that some boys and girls will want to do those things on their own, and that parents should allow their kids to build whatever they want, however they want, rather than training the kids to build only what the parents think is gender-appropriate. It's about encouraging creativity rather than stifling it. LEGO is designed for open-ended creative play.

    Personally, I think it's a little bit dumb to raise boys a certain way so that girls will "chase" them. There are a lot of girls who might find a LEGO hobby an unappealing quality in a potential boyfriend, but that doesn't mean we should teach our kids not to play with LEGO at all. When and if a boy becomes interested in finding a girlfriend I think he can decide on his own what kind of girl he wants and what lifestyle changes it might take for him to win her affections.

    But adolescent or adult courtship is not really even relevant to discussion of a leaflet that's about childhood play. When you try to turn playing with LEGO into some kind of training for adolescence or adulthood it takes away the inherent openness of the play experience. This leaflet is telling parents NOT to do that, and to instead keep playtime a sacred time when kids are free to be kids without adults imposing a structure or lesson plan on that experience.
    tamamahmmargot
  • tamamahmtamamahm Member Posts: 1,985
    edited November 2014
    Dougout said:



    I really wouldn't call playing with army men playing with dolls. There is a big difference.

    I.

    Why would you not consider an army man a doll? It is really no different than the idea of a Polly pocket. They both act as avatars that kids can use to play with and have imaginative adventures with. It is really no different than minifigs either, which really are also a type of doll.

    If you look at the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of doll, you find

    1
    : a small-scale figure of a human being used especially as a child's plaything

    Last I heard an army man is a small-scale figure, is human, and is used as a child's plaything.

    That sure sounds like a doll. A doll does not inherently mean baby doll.

    What is interesting is that when I was a kid, There were the barbie-size Star Wars dolls out. Today they are back. Not only are they back that they have the same size Marvel character dolls as well. They may not use the name 'doll', but they are dolls.

    http://www.target.com/p/marvel-titan-hero-series-super-hero-collection/-/A-14528457?ref=tgt_adv_XSG10001&AFID=google_pla_df&LNM=14528457&CPNG=Toys&kpid=14528457&LID=34pgs&ci_src=17588969&ci_sku=14528457&kpid=14528457&gclid=Cj0KEQiAkdajBRCJ_7_j6sCck7wBEiQAppb2i_TYy2t-OSNjLSB2yX5ufvde3efo0yD16KVpxYNAQp8aAlrx8P8HAQ
  • tamamahmtamamahm Member Posts: 1,985
    Dougout said:



    Why not teach boys masculine traits which will inevitably help them with women later instead of telling them to pickup a doll when in reality women don't chase boys that play with dolls. We only have to look at the predictions thread with the I get 27% more/less than whenever to see there is a big disconnect. It needs to change, that's all I want.

    It's one thing if a boy chooses dolls, it's another to gear them towards it. I don't think it's okay to teach guys effeminate traits. Thats all.

    Why would gearing a boy towards a doll be an issue? If one thinks of a traditional baby doll, the child is learning nurturing traits, which I would think are pretty important items for someone to have. Why is playing with a doll considered effeminate? In most preschools there are baby dolls and kitchen and building items, and boys and girls play with both quite readily.

    When one moves out of baby dolls, the 12" dolls or smaller sized dolls them really become avatars for full blown pretend play.
  • mnbvcmnbvc Member Posts: 142
    Dougout said:



    Why not teach boys masculine traits which will inevitably help them with women later instead of telling them to pickup a doll when in reality women don't chase boys that play with dolls.

    Haha, this reads like you're encouraging paedophilia! Women shouldn't be chasing boys at all. ;) (Or girls for that matter!)

    For the record, men/women, boys/girls, sex/gender are all entirely different - as a society we're not one massive block which all thinks in the same way. You should be encouraging the children in your life to be happy, confident, well-adjusted people; not treating the way they play with toys as an avenue to dating the 'correct' sex.

    Adults are generally the ones with gender issues; and unfortunately, adults push those thoughts onto children - who then attack each other when someone doesn't conform.
    margot
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 20,307
    Minifigs are dolls too. Not necessarily dollies, but dolls. Of course much of this is down to language, marketing using dolls for girls' toys and action figures for boys'.
    NatebwAndorBJ21
  • AanchirAanchir United StatesMember Posts: 2,979
    CCC said:

    Minifigs are dolls too. Not necessarily dollies, but dolls. Of course much of this is down to language, marketing using dolls for girls' toys and action figures for boys'.

    This is a very good point. Also, consider that the leaflet is referring not to dolls but to "dolls' houses". And on a certain level, some of the Modular Buildings are just as much "dolls' houses" as what you might see in LEGO Friends. The Haunted House exclusive set even more so. What separates dolls from action figures is not their design so much as how they are played with, and that distinction begins to erode when talking about LEGO because LEGO play is designed to be so open-ended — even today, there are some "mini-doll" sets that are designed for action or adventure play, and some "minifigure" sets that are designed for slice-of-life role-play.

    The leaflet also does not refer strictly to PLAYING with dolls' houses so much as BUILDING them, and I like to think that building is neither an inherently masculine or feminine activity. A kid, male or female, who builds dolls' houses today could be the next great architect of tomorrow, just as a kid who builds spaceships could be a future aerospace engineer. And building a playable dolls' house can require more critical thinking than just building a model house for display purposes, because it involves thinking intently not just about how the house looks but whether it is suitable for a person or family to live there.
  • pcironepcirone Long Island, NYMember Posts: 346
    edited November 2014

    #10188

    Best doll house. Ever.
    pricey73
  • DougoutDougout Member Posts: 888
    Oh no it's as if some of you work for Lego and you don't like what I'm suggesting :)

    Dolls are for girls to pretend they have a child of their own. Army men are for guys to act out war or pretend they are in one. Promote whatever you want, just don't complain to me when your child gets bullied at school or can't find a date later in life.

    I realize not all boys can be men. There would be too many bar fights. So if that is your reasoning, it's fine.

    And for the record, most women think guys playing with toys is childlike too. I'm not here to change society. Apparently no else here is either.
  • LostInTranslationLostInTranslation UKMember Posts: 5,594
    pcirone said:


    #10188

    Best doll house. Ever.

    Even more so in the version by @pricey73 ! :-D
    Mrs_Wobbleheadpricey73Galactus
  • NatebwNatebw Tampa BayMember Posts: 339
    @Dougout‌ According to you, where does "My Buddy Doll" fall?

    http://www.ebay.com/bhp/my-buddy-doll

    It seems to me that your doll distinctions are arbitrary based on your personal preferences.
  • AanchirAanchir United StatesMember Posts: 2,979
    Dougout said:

    Oh no it's as if some of you work for Lego and you don't like what I'm suggesting :)

    Does anyone in this thread work for LEGO? News to me. I'd love to work for LEGO, one day. But I'm not there yet (and more likely than not, I still have a ways to go before I even stand a chance).

    People don't have to be on the payroll of a major company to have opinions that conflict with yours. Sometimes people's opinions are genuine, or even rooted in personal experience.
  • madforLEGOmadforLEGO Chicagoland USMember Posts: 10,479
    My friend and I liked his sister's dollhouse.. Then again we were running G.I. Joe through it to storm the house being held by COBRA.

    I just think this piece of paper from LEGO is just way too over analyzed, like much in life these days.
    It is a statement from 1973, and there is no hidden meaning as to what LEGO was saying on it.
    AndorDougout
  • DougoutDougout Member Posts: 888
    edited December 2014
    Lego has an uphill battle to fight to get boys into dolls and such. I guess I see the importance of it now, although it does come off as a bit damaging to young boys today. It can be done, but (1) needs to be when boys are the youngest and society hasn't taught them it's not okay yet. (2) They also have a greater deal of work to do to convince girls that intelligent boys are something to be fancied. #2 is important to #1, so that must be done first. I see Lego is on the way to that, but it still isn't enough, I don't think pink sets in the Barbie aisle is truly a good effort.

    I saw a woman buy RI on BF morning, she seemed interested in it, I don't know really. Maybe more sets like that on a small scale and then make bigger themes around intelligent women. Society is powerful, Lego is up against a big opponent. What I was saying before wasn't ignorance, it was arrogance, I am still mostly right from a societal standpoint.
    Natebw
  • sklambsklamb speaker of American EnglishMember Posts: 512
    Dougout said:

    What I was saying before wasn't ignorance, it was arrogance, I am still mostly right from a societal standpoint.

    Depends on where you live. Not merely nation-state where you live, but whether you're urban, suburban, country, college town, industrial complex....

    Society is not monolithic world-wide, or even across one nation.
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.