Legos Are Supposed To Be For Everyone

So unless you have been living under a rock for the past few months (or just do not go into toy stores, care about Legos, or know anyone with children, in which case, this post probably isn't for you), you have probably heard about the new line of Lego, Lego Friends, targeted specifically for girls. The toys are finally out in stores, and I've given them a looksee. I've also been reading the various and sundry articles that have popped up on my particular web radar on the topic. There has been quite an uproar about the new line. A lot of it from the female community.

If you're unfamiliar with the Lego Friends line, it features several specific new characters and buildable playsets for those characters. The color scheme of the sets can be classified as decidedly "girly," lots of purples and pinks and such. The playsets feature a beauty shop, vet, "cool" convertible, stage, fashion design studio, dog show, cafe, and a bakery. The minifigs are not the standard Lego size. They are a bit bigger and have actual curves. In general they look more like actual people than bricks. There are no boy minifigs, just girls. I think you begin to see where some of the uproar is coming from.

To be fair, there are two playsets that show some great promise to me and seem less "girly;" a nifty looking tree house and an inventor's workshop. Lego's official stance on these new sets is that they did years of marketing research to find out what girls want, and this is what their results showed was desired. They are just trying to give girls what they want. Okay. Well, on the surface, there's nothing wrong with that. Nothing at all. You can insert the obligatory argument that of course this is what girls want if this is what we keep giving them play with, but it only holds so much water.

For myself, my objection isn't really to the playsets themselves. With the exception of the two I mentioned above, when I went to look at these sets, none of them really appealed to me at all. I don't really like the overall look of them. But I am not a girly girl. I tend to stay away from the swaths of pink in stores unless I know there is something specific I am looking for in that section (*cough*MyLittlePony*cough*). If my daughter wants these sets once she's old enough for them, I probably will get them for her. Right now she seems to love all things "girly" and "boyish" pretty much equally. I don't necessarily want to play with this new line of Legos, but I am not their targeted demographic, and I am not offended they exist.

No, I am not offended that Lego is upgrading their line to include sets that they think girls would enjoy. I am offended that Lego is making new Legos For Girls. There are two implications here: The first is that all of the Lego lines that don't come in those shiny new pretty pink boxes aren't for girls. The second is that girls don't already play with Legos.

I believe that both of those statements are undeniably false.

Yet some executive somewhere got the idea that girls don't play with Legos. That executive (who, for the sake of argument, I am going to just assume is a guy) felt that, in the interest of the Lego business, this was something that needed to be rectified. Okay, well, I'm with him up to this point. If he really thinks that girls don't play with his product and he really wants them to (probably more because he wants their parents' money than out of a desire to share the joy of Lego with them, but, whatever), then that's cool. It's awesome that he wants to make a product that is accessible to everyone. Totally on board with that.

So this executive then ordered years of research to find out what girls want to play with. I don't know if it was specifically asked what they want to play with in a Lego, or just what they want to play with in general. I don't know if these girls were asked what they think of the current Lego sets available and if they found them too boyish. I wonder how big their sample size was or if it was specifically girly girls who were targeted. Maybe I am not giving the executive enough credit and he does realize that some girls do play with Legos and just wanted to attract those who prefer Barbies. Either way, he did apparently decide that research was necessary, and that, too, I am okay with. I do kind of wish we could get an idea of that actual research process to know how accurate it actually was to the young female population at large. But hey, if wishes were ponies, right?

Where I am not okay is with the fact that this new line brings with it a very clear segregation between "boy" Legos and "girl" Legos. The colors of the boxes are split by gender. The toys themselves are relegated to "boy" aisles and "girl" aisles in the stores. No longer can a girl stumble across a Lego set and think it looks cool and go seek out more. Now, girls will see the pink Legos next to the Barbie dolls and maybe pick them up, and then go back to that same pink aisle for more...and likely never see the really cool other sets they might also enjoy in the next aisle over. Because the toys in the pink aisle are for girls and the toys in the blue aisle are for boys.

An interjection: Yes, some kids (like me, both then and now) wander through all of the aisles. Some girls don't want to conform. Some parents won't let them. But those aren't the girls that executive was aiming at when this whole thing got started.

I am not trying to deny agency to children or their parents in the act of choosing out toys. I know I have some very certain ideas on things I will be buying for my daughter throughout her childhood whether she would have picked them out or not. I know she will pick out some toys I would never have otherwise considered getting her.

I am quite frankly baffled that a company that has for so long been awesome and for so long had a product that I have felt truly did not care about fitting gender norms has all of a sudden decided to throw all of that out of the window. No more being a universal plaything. Now there are Legos and there are Legos For Girls. This isn't just me getting up in arms about there all of a sudden being girly additions to the existing lines. Lego is clearly separating the genders now.

Some examples:
-The minifigs and many of the bricks for the Lego Friends line aren't compatible with the rest of the Lego pieces. The rest of the Lego sets use pretty much universally compatible bricks and minifigs. If they were really trying to get girls interested in Lego as a whole by hooking them on the more accessible girly sets, then the girly sets would be compatible with everything else.
-When you open up a new Lego kit, you get a bag with a bunch of pieces and instructions on how to assemble them. Even the minifigs need to be put together. This is not the case with Lego Friends. Many of the pieces come pre-assembled and can't be taken apart. There is, flat out, less assembly available in the Lego Friends sets.
-In the U.K. the Lego Club Jr. magazine has now been split, there is an edition for boys and an edition for girls. Pictures submitted of creations by girls or girls playing with Legos all go in the girls' magazine now. Even if the girl still chooses to subscribe to the boys' edition. There are no photos of girls anywhere in the boys' magazine now, telling boys also that girls don't play with Legos (and that they shouldn't want to play with the new line).
-On the Lego website when you go to the shop and then click "categories," the new line isn't listed under the name of the line or the type of playset, like the others out there. It is listed under "Girls." That's right, there are all of the other products available on the site, and there are the products for girls. I took a screenshot, look:

Also, compare the for girls minifig with the others.

Again, I am not mad that Lego wanted to make more money by making a line they thought more girls would buy. I am not mad that these new Legos exist. I just really, really, really wish they had put some more thought into how they were going to introduce this new line. Good lord. Just make them Legos not Legos For Girls. Make them compatible with the rest of your bricks. Make the bakery and the vet and the cafe part of the Citi line. It would have fit in so wonderfully. Continue to tell the world that you want to offer toys for everyone to enjoy, and now they have a bigger choice! Don't say, oh, by the way, we don't think girls want to play with what's already out there. We're just gonna go ahead and call all of that Lego and make some pink stuff and call it for girls. That's what they want, after all. I can't imagine there are any boys out there who want some pink bricks, or to be a vet, right? (HEADDESK)

I am a geek. I love geeky things. Things like video games, books, comic books, movies, cartoons, science fiction in general, archaeology, history, taking things apart to find out how they work, attempting to put those things back together again, toys designed specifially to be taken apart and put back together again, and then put back together in an entirely different way, and so on. Lego has always fit right in there with that. But I am also a girl. Not the girliest of girls, maybe, but still a girl and totally cool with that. Except for when I have to deal with the stereotypes that girls don't do or like, well, any of the things that make up pretty much the core of who I am. I've come to notice that attitude a lot more lately as I get more involved in the worldwide geek community. It makes me angry and sad and annoyed and insulted all at once. And it exists because of things specifically like this, like what Lego has done right here with its Lego Friends line. As long as marketers keep trying to tell everyone that girls don't like these things, or that these things must be made more girly for us to enjoy them, then people are just gonna keep going on assuming that this is the case. It isn't, damn it. It isn't.

Anyway. Sorry. Really trying not to rant. It is just so hard to believe that Lego dropped the ball so hard on this one. At least from my perspective. I know I am not the only one out there who sees it that way, either. I have seen many similar entries from Lego fans, parents, girls, and guys who see this issue like I see it. So I am adding my voice into the mix. Maybe if enough of us speak up, Lego will get the hint and go back to remembering their product has been loved by everyone--boys, girls, kids, grownups--for decades. Why start trying to pigeonhole us by gender now?

Dear Lego,
Bottom line here: Keep your new line, but make it accessible to boys and girls. Please make future installments compatible with the rest of your toys, and allow the girls as much chance to put all the pieces together as everyone else. And for the love of Pete, please don't stick us off in our own little corner as if we should have no interest at all in the rest of what you have to offer.

Thank you,
A concerned mother, kid at heart, and lifelong Lego fan.

The Thing About Eureka

So this past week the internet (well, the part of it that I frequent at any rate) has been all abuzz about the breaking news that Eureka was "cancelled." I put the quotation marks in there because I honestly feel that "cancelled" is not actually an accurate term for what has happened here. The actual situation is this: Syfy officially decided not to renew the series for a sixth season. Currently airing on Syfy right now? The back half of season four. Season five is currently filming and about to wrap up, but will be aired in full next year.

In my mind, a show has been cancelled when it has a season in filming and the plug is pulled in such a way that filming shuts down at that point and/or the network yanks the show from the air, declining to show the remaining episodes (or burning them off in the summer well after the show is pulled from the regular schedule). Alternatively, I would consider a series cancelled when the current season has finished being produced, but not aired, and the series is not allowed any sort of chance to resolve the story of the show. Neither of those situations is the case here.

Now this isn't to say I'm not still upset about the news. It's just a little hard for my nerdrage to get a full head of steam when I know that there is a full season (and then some) left to go before I have to actually say goodbye to these characters and this story. Also, unless Warehouse 13 is also not picked up beyond Eureka's swan song, it isn't as if we won't still have an avenue to revisit these characters. With the crossovers the two shows have been doing of late, the door is wide open for characters from the quirky little town to meander over to the warehouse from time to time.

Do you want to know what really upsets me over this whole thing? It's not that a show I truly love is going away--that happens all the time, I am sadly getting used to it, and I will have the entire series on DVD to watch again whenever I want. It's not even that just last week, Syfy had gone on the record as stating that six episodes had already been ordered for the show's sixth season (said statement having been issued in order to reassure the fans that the show hadn't been cancelled, no less). No, what bugs me is that, justified or not, I think that this is just an idiotic move on Syfy's part.

Lemme 'splain.

The reason that Syfy has given, officially, for choosing not to pick up a sixth season is that right now the cost of producing Eureka can no longer be justified by the ratings it is receiving. Okay. That makes a modicum of sense, until you actually stop to think about it. Because there is still an entire season of this show to be aired after the current season wraps up (and a holiday episode). Has Syfy all of a sudden started employing fortune tellers? Do they already know what Eureka's season five ratings will be? Somehow, I don't think so.

Look, there are a number of factors that can influence a show's ratings. Among them are things that Syfy totally has within its control, such as what time of year to air a show, what day of week, what time of day, etc. Then, there is the show itself. As of yet there is no telling how this season's finale will impact what the viewership looks like when the show returns for its fifth season. In between the fourth and fifth seasons Syfy will have plenty of time to crunch some data and decide if and where to move Eureka on their schedule to attempt maximizing viewership and determine if the series is worth a sixth season pick up or if it is not. Based on why Syfy says it declined to continue the series, this only makes sense if they aren't planning to air the fifth season. That realization makes me nervous. While it would seem a ridiculous waste of their precious money to go that route, the network's track record isn't really reassuring.

I completely one-hundred percent understand their position that right now it doesn't make financial sense to renew the series for another season. The problem with that position is that it technically already has been, they are looking at the season after that. So why does that decision have to be made right now? Granted, I am not a television producer and I have no desire to get into the business. At all. But if it were me? I would have decided to wait and see. I would have held off on ordering/beginning production on anything for season six and given the show the first half of season five to find out what was up. Then I would make my decision. From what I can tell (thanks to my trusty friend, the internet) that is, after all, still the standard procedure for scripted television these days.

My suspicion is that it has to do with the cast. For one thing, there are contracts to consider. Five is a nice round number, and for many shows the goal in order to allow syndication. I don't think syndication is really a concern of Syfy, and Eureka tends to have shorter seasons, so that's likely not a factor. But maybe the actors' contracts were all originally for only five seasons and Syfy doesn't want to undergo the process of renegotiating and renewing them, especially given that doing so would probably mean they would all get a pay bump. Then, there is the matter of availability. Surely the actors need to know if and when they will need to be available to start producing the new season so that they can take that into consideration when offered or seeking other work. This trickles down to the crew as well, I am sure. But it sounds like the internet was informed before any of the cast or crew about the show's denial of a sixth season (another trademark bonehead move on the part of Syfy). Those that I follow seem genuinely surprised and upset about the situation. I think it is more than possible many of them would have accepted that the decision on season six had been delayed as long as they had a date on when they would be told for certain yes or no so they could get on with their lives in the mean time. But I am (more or less) an eternal optimist.

Putting all of that aside, however, this is still a frankly stupid move on Syfy's part, the way this went down. Because this? What this says to me, and to all of the other people out there who pay attention to this kind of stuff:

"Sorry kids, we just have no faith whatsoever in Eureka season five. We think it is crap. Don't even bother watching."

That can't be the message they are trying to send, not with a whole season of the series left to air and viewers to lure to their network, can it? But that is sure as hell how it sounds. Wil Wheaton has been heavily involved in season five, however, and he seems to think it is actually going to be a pretty fun ride. As he is a gentleman of discerning taste, I think I will go with his recommendation, rather than Syfy's mixed messages. They have already (frequently) proved themselves to be of questionable judgement. At the very least, I would like for someone at the network to sit down and reexamine the way they are producing these shows. Short seasons are fine, but call them what they are, don't give us six months (or more) between halves of one season. I would be perfectly fine if you wanted to break up the year into three or four "seasons" with six to ten episodes a season and have a year between full seasons as long as that's what we are admitting is going on. The British model is fine, it actually makes for some much tighter and much more amazing story telling. But the way you are trying to do it, Syfy? You are doing it wrong. Don't produce stuff so far in advance that you have no way of knowing if the expense will be justified. These practices aren't working for you, Syfy. Just stop.

I just feel like this network is on its way out. I am incredibly saddened by this, because Syfy has been the home to many wonderful, innovative shows that I just can't imagine on any other network currently in existence. I don't know where else we can go. But even though they keep trying out new shows, they always seem to be too scared to move much past the trial period, rather than giving the shows time to actually gather some steam--unless that show is not actually science fiction. But in trying to rebrand itself, Syfy has completely lost all sense of identity that it once held. It has consistently alienated the people it orginally (as Sci Fi Channel) set out to cater to. There is something to be said for sticking by the people who have been there with you from the beginning, rather than shoving them out the back door as soon as the general public starts to take notice of you. But Syfy isn't listening any more. Not to us. It is not enough to be financially/business savvy. You also have to build a loyal customer base, and you can't do that without a quality product. But once you have that loyal base? You have to maintain it, folks. Acting like you don't really care about them any more is only going to make them turn away, and that will make it triply hard to get them back once you realize you still need them. Yes, you're a business, but even if all you want is our money? You have to make us feel like we matter to you, too, or we'll go spend our time and money elsewhere.

Sigh.

I totally didn't mean to turn that into a rant. I guess my nerdrage did managed to kick in after all. The whole point of writing about this was to point out that I don't think the ending of Eureka, as much as I love it, is worth a rant. I just think it's stupid. Once it's over will I miss the show? Yes, I think I will. It was fun and silly and interesting and entertaining. I do my best to watch it live. I voted with my wallet and bought it on DVD. Syfy didn't think that was good enough. It is their call to make. I just wish sometimes that I didn't keep getting the message--especially from a network that started its life catering to exactly my kind of crowd--that what I like isn't worth it, you know?