Ladies. Do you think this is a sexist stereotypical action by the toy company Lego? Story inside + guys can->?

• Answer too & give their thoughts. Please be respectful in your answers. Here is the story i read from a Petition website that i read. -> Iconic toy brand LEGO recently launched a new line of toys meant just for girls -- but two young women, Bailey Shoemaker-Richards and Stephanie Cole, think the products are unfairly "dumbed down" for girls. The new line is called LadyFigs, and it's made up of busty, pastel-colored figurines that come with interests like shopping, hair-dressing, and lounging at the beach. The uninspired toys even come with pre-assembled environments -- so there is no assembly (or imagination) required. Bailey and Stephanie say they're frustrated that LEGO is pushing outdated gender roles on girls and cheating them of the opportunity to build and discover. So they took to the internet, blogging about what they call the new "Barbielicious" LEGOs and petitioning the toy company to lose the sexist LadyFigs line and go back to empowering both boys and girls with its original products. . LEGO hasn't always thought its toys were only for boys. In the 1980s, the company was actually celebrated for a major advertising campaign that spotlighted a young girl and her LEGO creation with the tagline "What it is is beautiful." But since then, LEGO reversed course and decided to market its products only to boys. The company claims its research shows girls just don't appreciate the original LEGO line. But Bailey and Stephanie argue that with LEGO's renewed emphasis on boys -- featuring only boys in its ads and stocking products in the boys' aisles of toy stores -- it's no wonder young girls wouldn't think LEGOs were meant for them. Bailey and Stephanie's fight to get LEGO to return to its gender-neutral toys is already making waves, with the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and Time weighing in on the issue. But LEGO is stubbornly holding its ground and told Business Week that the LadyFigs launch is a "strategic" move to "reach the other 50 percent of the world's children," as if girls have never been part of LEGO's focus. Public pressure can prove LEGO wrong. If enough people sign Bailey and Stephanie's petition, it could convince LEGO that the new LadyFigs are bad business and the company should return its focus to empowering boys AND girls with toys that inspire creativity and innovation. From the change.org website.

• Answer:

  I don't know...to me it seems like Bailey and Stephanie are being a tad overly dramatic. I think Lego was just trying to make a product that is perhaps a bit more visually appealing to some little girls. That doesn't mean these same little girls cannot or should not play with "regular" Legos. Heck, I played with regular Legos when I was a kid, and I absolutely loved them! I was never told they were a "boy's toy." You know...most dolls aren't marketed towards boys. Does that mean boys can't play with them? No. It just happens to be primarily girls who are interested in them. It doesn't make it wrong for a boy to play with dolls OR for a girl to play with Legos! I can *somewhat* see where they're coming from with this: "The uninspired toys even come with pre-assembled environments -- so there is no assembly (or imagination) required." It would be neat of there was "assembly required" like the other Legos where you have to snap pieces onto each other, but I hardly think Lego's intention was to "dumb it down." Well, that's my take on it. :)