Zupponn wrote:WHO WANTS TO SAY THAT THE FRIENDS LINE IS NOT AWESOME!?!?!?!?WHO?!?
Was that made entirely with Friends sets?
I had a quick look through the Friends catalog and one of the things that struck me was that the sets didn't seem as re-buildable as the boys' sets did. As in, the pieces that form most of your average MOCer's 'tool box' were in shorter supply in those sets than in the product lines marketed to boys. Of course, really good builders can get around this, but it takes years to get to that level of skill and you may just not be able to build the things you really want to.
stubby wrote: Boys get cops and robbers, or Batman, or ninjago versus skeletons; there's nothing constructive about them at all, and talk about narrowly-defined roles! Meanwhile the girls sets get a doctor running her own veterinary hospital, a girl with a robotics laboratory, another one with a design studio, another one rescuing animals in her own ATV, etc. etc. The Friends' roles are way, way more open-ended and constructive and non-gender-specific than the characters in the boys' sets, but everybody's up in arms about how sexist they are because Lego made some of the bricks pink. If anything, we should be holding the designs of the Friends sets up as the standard to raise the boys' sets to.
This seemed to me to be the exact thing Anita was complaining about -- it's not so much that the girls' sets are all about cooking and cleaning and whatever, but that LEGO used to sell the same themes to girls and boys, and now it's two different product lines marketed to different genders, with several boys' product lines and one token girls' product line. Which is another problem I have with Friends; regardless of its content, it's clearly marketed as 'for girls' instead of being a return to LEGO's more open-ended, constructive, non-violent roots. Even if the Friends sets are as good as the stuff marketed to boys, they're still fundamentally separate-but-equal.