Let’s empower little girls! Let’s stop all of this Princess bullshit!
So a woman engineer comes up with the brainchild “GoldieBlox”.
I saw it in the store one day, after hearing so much about it. It could have just blended right into the regular fray of pink princess crap with its dull pink pastel box.
Maybe it’s a great toy, but I will never buy it. And here is why.
“In this award-winning debut story, Goldie builds a spinning machine to help her dog, Nacho, chase his tail. Soon all her friends want in on the action. Help Goldie build a belt drive machine to spin everybody!”
“In this much-anticipated sequel, Goldie’s friends Ruby and Katinka compete in a princess pageant with the hopes of riding in the town parade. When Katinka loses the crown, Goldie and Ruby team up to build her a parade float as well as other fun rolling, spinning, and whirling designs. “
It’s the same dumb-downed princess bullshit as the rest of the stuff they are shoving down the throats of our daughters.
And then came the ad. I love the fact that the girls are fighting back about all their crappy pink princess toys and build this awesome contraption to deal with it all. But it is set to the tune of one of the most misogynist songs to ever be recorded, “Girls” by the Beastie Boys. Yes they have changed the lyrics for the commercial, and we all know that the tune is catchy as hell… but do you remember the actual lyrics? “Girls! To do the dishes! Girls! To clean up my room! Girls! To do the laundry! Girls! And in the bathroom!”
I don’t understand why it is being marketed this way. And why it is pink and pastel and princessed out.
It’s as bad as Lego Friends! Lego Friends sets for girls include a beauty shop, a café, and a pet salon with fun stuff to do like “Makeover the LEGO® Friends at the Butterfly Beauty Shop with makeup, hair accessories and tons of realistic details for serious salon fun!”
Whatever happened to all the brightly coloured Lego that we used to just build everything with? Houses and planes and rockets?
Why is advertising to girls like this?
When they don’t need to and could still advertise like this?
I can say without a doubt, that GoldieBlox has just been added to my list of toys I will not waste money on.
I like the idea of engineering toys for kids, and even aimed at girls, but in my opinion this is a major fail.
braintofingers 
we have friends Lego, my son and daughters play with it equally, if not my son more so, his favorite color is pink, i think the more important point is as a parent we need to ensure balance in our homes and give our kids the confidence to make their own choices outside the home 🙂
Right on, Melissa! We have some LEGO Friends sets, too. Both of my children (boy and girl) play with them. My daughter originally put the set together on her own, and they played with it like that for a while. Eventually, it became a Friends/Ninjago mash-up and now it’s just part of the collective LEGO bin. Regardless of the color or type, in my house, a toy is a toy. We don’t differentiate between boy/girl toys.
In a word: amen!
I couldn’t agree with you more! One more issue I have with the whole Goldieblox idea is that it remains a closed toy: giving girls a set plan to design rather than giving them the parts and seeing what they come up with. I had the Beastie Boys song stuck in my head all day long…and as I sang the *real* lyrics, I had the same thought you did…what were they thinking choosing *this* song??
That’s something that has occurred to me about a lot of girls’ toys, but you have articulated it perfectly – there’s only one version to build. It has so quickly moved from a suggestion of the sort of projects you can make, as you still get with Duplo, but now the picture on the box is the be-all and end-all. What a shame!
Can’t girls be encouraged to build something interesting? We built all sorts with our Mechano and that was neither pink nor advertised to girls at all. We did a pivoting crane with a carriage that moved along the arm by a pulley, and a reciprocating cable car in imitation of the cliff cars at Scarborough.
I get why you would rather it be an open ended toy with no set plans, but marketing it like this gives the kids an opportunity to learn what is possible (as all engineers must) then expand on that using their own imagination and possibly combining parts from each of the different sets as I’ve seen done with Bionicle toys.
I can totally see that – what I worry about (though I have no *real* experience with this toy) is that the pieces would only really allow for that one possibility. I know my kids love MagnaTiles, and the product comes with a card showing some different tile arrangements that could make different products. *That* type of product I wouldn’t mind at all. It sounds like GoldieBlox has a story pre-packaged with a task for the players, and their job is to finish the task. But I am speaking more out of ignorance, since I haven’t tried them out yet. I really do understand your point though – thanks!
Pingback: Did you know viral Goldie Blox ad is selling princess themed toy? | Reel Girl
I debated putting this on the body of the post, but I will add it here, since it seems to be a hot topic on people’s opinion of my post.
I do not think that changing the lyrics of the song is empowering. And I don’t think we are “taking it back”. If that were the case, then a whole lot of words that are used as racial, homophobic and sexual slurs would not still be offensive to the people they are said to and about.
I also wonder what all the little girls will think when they hear the real lyrics.
I stand by my opinion that it was a bad idea.
It’s not about taking it back, nor is it encouraging the original song. It’s about exactly the opposite–replacing the old views with new, better ones. It’s replacing the misogynistic lyrics in your memory with empowering lyrics that, in all honesty, will probably be the only version girls that age will ever know. And if they do grow up and look up the original song? They’ll know the Beastie Boys wrote it, and that GoldieBlox erased it.
As for its being pink…it’s marketing. First of all, blue was the “girlie color” until the 20th century, not pink. But nowadays, that’s the stereotype. Sure. You can make a blue GoldieBlox set all you want, and you know what it becomes? Unoriginal. It becomes suddenly a “boy’s toy” in the minds of parents. Is that right? No. But since parents DO buy into the stereotypes, making it pink allows girls whose parents wouldn’t buy them a “boy’s toy” to do just that–buy a toy which is functionally “manly” for a girl who might want to pursue such things.
Perhaps what you’re looking for is a complete overhaul. A day when pink isn’t associated with girls. Good luck with that. Ever hear the term “baby steps”? Be grateful there’s now a company trying to encourage male-stereotyped activities for girls rather than bash it for not being the Jesus of the toy world.
Hell no I’m not grateful. I’m annoyed. And I’ll buy my three daughters legos in primary colors. You have got to be kidding that what is still a minority (women, especially technically inclined ones) is supposed to be happy about ‘baby steps’. And thanks for explaining how the producers of this toy are trying to make the most money. Because that really wasn’t clear to us at all (you seem to believe we can only think in baby steps, too).
I don’t care what the manufacturers of GoldieBlox are doing and why but the hype around them has to stop. This toy is never going to make anyone become an engineer (at least not someone who isn’t already going to).
There are already women engineers – I’m one of them. We played with lego and now kids play with magnatiles, plain old blocks, tinker toys, other construction sets kept mainly in primary colors. No need for ‘baby steps’.
To be fair in their later days, the Beastie Boys not only apologized for this song, but also became the most gung-ho feminists. (I was so depressed when MCA passed away)
I do agree with most points you made about this toy. They say “girls are more than just princesses”, but what about the girls who are not princesses? What about the boys who are princesses? We’re still dividing, when we should be uniting. They’re just putting a pastel purple toy in the pink aisle. A pretty small step, if you ask me. I think combining a book series with an engineering toy is a stroke of genius, but it is just reenforcing a lot of stereotypes about what girls like and want.
I agree it is a poor song choice. As for the “pink” marketing, unfortunately we live in a world that inundates girls with a world of princesses and rainbows. For Goldieblox to even hope to stand a chance their products must appeal to little girls who have grown up in pink saturated world otherwise, no matter how educational it is, if they don’t play with it all that is moot. No its not ideal but the underlying lessons being taught help to break down some very real mental barriers little girls have in front of dreaming of their future as an engineer or physicist. As to the lack of free form building with this set I can also understand but learning how to build from a plan is just as important for complex reasoning skills as winging it is. Don’t judge a book by its cover. It is what’s inside that matters.
I agree. The system is already broken. GoldieBlox is using the pink, princessy packaging and storylines because of research showing what little girls are interested in. The woman who created GoldieBlox is a highly intelligent engineer who wanted a product little girls would actually enjoy playing with. GoldieBlox is a stepping stone, not the end goal.
I’m right there with lrkf. I have, also, seen and used the product with my children (a boy and a girl). Both of them thought the product was oversimplified, and it was “closed” in that there wasn’t much that could be done with it aside it’s one intended purposes. My kids tend to be very creative, and can, usually, create something from nothing (or very little). Give them an empty box and watch the magic unfold – for hours, even days, sometimes! This product didn’t leave much room for expansion – at least not in the realm of building. (Which, call me “Crazy”, I thought was the point.) They could have created a longer story line, but the way the product itself is designed they quickly lost interest. My daughter (9 years old) was appalled by the use of pink, etc. She said she thought it was supposed to be a cool building toy, and was irritated that because a toy was for girls it *had* to be pink. Both of my kids play with dolls, LEGOS, dress up, tea parties, sing, dance, act, play sports, play with trucks, build stuff….the list goes on. The point is: neither one of them thinks that they can’t or shouldn’t play with a toy based on its color (pink/blue) or the type of toy (doll/truck) it is. Despite their usual ability to make the most out of nothing, they had no desire to make *anything* out of this particular toy. Besides, it galls me that in an attempt to minimize one stereotype, the product uses that same stereotyping in it’s packaging and product. Nice try, no balloon!
As a woman who is going to school to become a physicist, I really have to agree with everything Kristin said. I still think this is a neat toy and, while they may not be getting everything perfect, this is a new company that is going to grow and learn. They need our support. Rejecting them because of a few minor things you don’t like only teaches other companies that we’re too busy judging them to actually want building toys geared toward girls.
But that’s just the thing— I *don’t* want building toys “geared toward girls.” I want building toys *neutralized* to so that they aren’t “geared toward” either sex. I want the entire color palate in use, and I want to see boys AND girls shown on the boxes and in the ads playing with all the toys. And not building separate specifically-gendered crap, but just playing and building. And it is ENTIRELY possible to not put any agenda on the toy at all. Look at Wedgits, Tegu Blocks, or GuideCraft’s Magnetos.
what lrkf said exactly.
While I agree that it is important to get girls fully away from the princess crap, it also needs to start somewhere. If many girls were going to be interested in legos, and becoming engineers, they would already be doing these things. By marketing products focusing on science and math in a manner in which girls would enjoy, I admit, with the “pink princess crap with its dull pink pastel box,” we are still able to get girls interested in concepts not otherwise marketed to them. GoldieBlox is attempting to add to a market that is otherwise non-existent, to open a door for even better opportunities. In an ideal world, girls and boys would all be able to pink up pink princess crap and G.I. Joe’s alike and have no stigma- but in reality, it’s not happening right now.
My daughter loves Legos, but when she saw Friends, she said “No way”. She had the same reaction to GoldieBlox “Eeeeuw mom, I hate princesses”.
The sets do allow kids to do free form building, the directions are just to get them started/give them one idea. They also now offer a companion building set to give them additional options.
I agree about the princess concept, but I agree with Kristin that it’s about baby steps – getting girls to try something that they might gravitate to because it’s pink/princess and not even realize that it’s engineering. Unfortunately a lot of girls even at the young age of the target demographic are already thinking that some things are just for boys. this is hopefully bridging that gap. And maybe in the future they will have sets that aren’t princess-related, once they are an established company. Rather than criticize these elements I’m choosing to support their genuine efforts to bring more girls to STEM toys and ultimately careers.
There is NOTHING wrong with being feminine and smart. Being a feminist doesn’t mean you have to be a tom boy. I think the commercial was adorable, the toy is thought provoking and fun, which means it’s doing what it aims to do: entertain and educate. Changing the lyrics of a song you find offensive to make the song more in tune with your ideals is something people have been doing FOREVER. Not only do I think it was appropriate in disputing the old fashion ideals of women in the kitchen, but also fun and catchy enough for young kids to pick up on. I have NO problem with my kids singing THAT version of “Girls”. I’m cool with you not liking it, but honestly, I can’t wait to buy these for my twins. And my 15-year-old daughter LOVES it. She loves playing with Kinects and Legos but she said she’s totally down for pink legos any time. She says “I like pink and purple, does it matter what color they are?”
YES!!!! I couldn’t agree with you more.
But being a feminist means acknowledging that not all females are feminine. And that it’s OK to be however you like. This is a toy designed for feminine girls, so it’s as limiting as it is trying not to be.
When I first saw the commercial, I thought it was adorable. But the more I dug around the site, the more I realized it’s the same old trap as other toys.
I think “it’s OK to be however you like”, applies to both genders. A male doesn’t have to be a masculine, he-man, or gravitate toward sports to be “a man”. He should be safe being himself, just like a female doesn’t need to be feminine or like “girly” things. On that same coin, if the man is the he-man type, and the female is feminine (or a mix) that’s okay, too. Oh, how, great the world would be if people could, simply, *be*! Maybe…some day.
I think we should empower the girl (and the boys) to choose their own things… Pink, blue, Lego, dolls whatever! In my experience as an early years teacher with many different resource around the place the children choose whatever they feel like that day. It’s more the parents that are making their choices for them and therefore not empowering anyone but placing their own preconceived ideas on to their own children. It’s actually worse for the Boys who want to play with dolls!
I’m in my 30’s and had never heard Girls before. Beasti Boys sounds familiar but don’t know anything about them. And while this is marketed towards girls, I would buy this for my 5 year old son. He loves pink and wants to be an engineer. Already talks about space travel, laws of physics, gravity, aerodynamics, space/time continuum, etc.
So, basically you want them to be boys.
So basically if you don’t like pink and princesses, you are a boy?
That is exactly the attitude toward our little girls that I am talking about.
I would encourage you to not feed the trolls.
That picture is of a little girl dressed like a boy. Boy clothes of history are now worn by girls too. Cool. But they started as boy clothes. Some kids sense this and don’t like it, they want to be girl-identified and search for cultural symbols (clothes, pink) that represent that identity. I look forward to the day when we all wear renewable-resource rainbow onesies, but in the meantime, we have to stop making boy stuff/style the default that we say is gender neutral.
Uh no, but what if you ARE a girl AND you like princesses? Does that mean you can’t be an engineer? Can you only be an engineer if you’re a tomboy? You definitely seem to have an implicit assumption that being “girly” is in itself inferior. There are plenty of toys out there for tomboy girls to play with, and basic legos are neutral and always have been. But, what about the girls like my daughter who like being girly? The tagline is “not ONLY a princess” – not “not a princess”. Why do we have to neutralize everyone’s gender – what’s wrong with frilly dresses?! If they like ’em, let ’em rock ’em out! Being girly does not mean you’re inferior! A girl’s opportunities should not be limited if she happens to be a girlie girl!
Thank you Amelia!
The whole idea here is to get more girls attracted to building things, especially the “pinky girly girls” (and their parents) who would otherwise not be.
I’ve already bought sets for nieces, and am planning to get some for our local Boys And Girls Club — disadvantaged kids have the most to gain here: life-long skills.
As a (retired) female engineer, I sure wish we had more toys like this.
I always buy Duplos and Legos for the little ones in the family.
I’ve boughten pink Legos too. We need them all.
>>”No one is campaigning for boys to be able to play with dolls, or to have pink things”
You must know that a lot of people advocate for their pink-loving boys to be accepted and for them to have the freedom to play and dress in “girl” clothes. A LOT. More parents are aware that children identify at a young age with gender codes that don’t necessarily fall in line with their biological sex. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/magazine/whats-so-bad-about-a-boy-who-wants-to-wear-a-dress.html?_r=0
>>”Don’t force girls to act like guys, to be into the things guys like.”
Whose talking about force? Making engineering toys appealing to girls isn’t force. Why are we talking about “guys”. Boys and girls are the topic of this conversation. Young children, not guys. I think your word choice reveals prejudice.
>>”Let them be girls.”
Let them be girls who learn from a young age that building, creating, designing are part of being female…male…human.
I deleted a comment on this thread.
Not for differing opinion, but for the fact that I will not have people calling anyone names on here.
If you want to have an intelligent discussion, it will be welcomed.
Maybe the song choice was to take something that was previously “bad” and make it into something positive. Just like they are trying to make the point that engineering has been targeted at boys, but now they are telling girls they can be engineers too. I personally feel like those two ideas go together.
And the point about the toys being pink…well, maybe they are making the statement that you can be a girl AND be an engineer. You do not have to sacrifice what you like to live in a man’s world. If they want other colors, those toys already exist. That would be like complaining about an Easy Bake Oven that is blue and red and marketed toward boys. Would you expect a “boys” Easy Bake Oven to be sold in pink and purple? Hardly.
Personally, I do not see the point in hating on something that is meant to be a great thing.
Are you perhaps judging a book by it’s cover? if you do a little bit of reading on how Goldiblox was created, you’ll discover that the founder, Debbie Stirling, did a lot of practical research on what girls like to play with. She found that they simply don’t like the same things (or colors) boys do and naturally gravitate reading, stories, characters – and yes – pastel colors. no shock there. Goldiblox cleverly combines the elements that young girls naturally want to play with, while also getting them interested in building and engineering. This is a positive move for the toy industry. In my opinion, a girl doesn’t have to hate pink, deny her feminine side, and be a tom boy in order to be an engineer or pursue a career in STEM. Goldiblox tells her that she can have the best of both worlds! personally I think this toy is a huge step in the right direction. And as for the song – I think changing the lyrics is a positive statement. it sheds light on the fact that the original song is misogynistic and tells girls that if you don’t like something – go out an change it! I would have loved a toy like this growing up (alongside my legos, microscope, and circuit kit!)
“She found that they simply don’t like the same things (or colors) boys do and naturally gravitate reading, stories, characters – and yes – pastel colors.”
Seriously? *facepalm* So it didn’t occur to her that the children she was studying had already absorbed a lot of cultural messages about gender and what boys and girls are supposed to like? She didn’t realise that any traditionally feminine characteristics shown by girls are generally rewarded and encouraged by parents, meaning those traits tend to develop more? And that boys displaying the same characteristics are often reprimanded or discouraged, leading to the opposite effect?
If she thinks that girls come out of the womb with a genetic predisposition for liking pastel pink (!) she might be very surprised to learn that 100 years ago, pink was the preferred colour for little boys, whereas blue was considered to be more feminine.
The main ‘natural’ instinct for any child is to learn social rules and seek parental and peer approval. Toy manufacturers who ignore this are doing so because of the opportunities for marketing. Sounds like she’s part of the problem, not the solution.
Pingback: “You like to buy us pink toys and everything else is for boys” | Murder of Goths
thanks. your blog on this subject sums up how I felt when i saw the hubbub about goldieblox. While I think it’s great that a young woman has brought her idea to fruition, it panders to the same stereotypes as all the other Barbie Dream House pink and purple ‘girl’ toys. How about if we just have toys? why do they have to be gender specific? it’s not like we’re buying toys that children use their genitals to play with.
As a woman who grew up a “tom boy” and disliking pinky stuff (even though I never had any) I think the pink and purple WILL attract more girls and THAT is the point.
I never even knew what engineering was . . . but now I’m a retired engineer.
For girls/boys and their parents who like the other colors we can all continue to buy those too.
There were a few bright spots in the old days—check out the lower right corner in this image of the classic “Woolly Willie” game.
http://tinyurl.com/mj2fd2r
The fact that it isn’t open-ended is my only concern. I’ve never heard the song in question, but we probably agree about that, too. However, the rest of your post angers me. It puts girls into YET ANOTHER BOX. The “don’t be too traditionally girly, because that’s bad” box. In your worldview, my older daughter would be acceptable because she prefers sports to princesses, and got Beyblades for Christmas. But, my younger daughter genuinely likes all that “princess bullshit.” She also loves “Lego Friends,” mainly because they help her combine two of her loves: Legos and storytelling. The old Lego figures are ugly and uninspiring to her. Bottomline: The only thing that applies to ALL girls, is that ALL girls should be encouraged to explore, create, and *be themselves* – even if it (heaven forbid) involves “princess bullshit.” Let’s not force girls to step from the “traditional girly” box to the “gender neutral” box and call it progress. It’s not progress, because *it’s still a box.* THAT is what’s bullshit.
I disagree that it’s not open-ended. There’s a booklet that you can follow along with designs and a storyline, but then after that, you can use the toy to design whatever you’d like… just like there are lego kits with instructions to design a particular this or that – but when it comes down to it, you can do whatever you want with them. And the booklet says that specifically, with spaces allowed for the kids to draw in whatever design they want (if they want to draw it out).
I’ve had discussions with friends and acquaintances regarding the very topic you bring up: trading boxes. I agree, a box, no matter what you call it or how it’s dressed up is *still* a box. Frankly, I see no problem with princesses and tea parties. It’s when a parent (society?) pushes those things as the only acceptable thing for girls to aspire to that I take issue. I, equally, dislike when those things are said to be “only for girls”. The same is true for things that are often seen as “for boys”. They are that way, and continue to be, in my opinion because parents/society keeps pushing children in specific directions. It’s a subtle, invasive type of fear mongering. If Susie plays with toys geared toward boys she will become an old maid, or a lesbian or pick your “fear” of choice. If Bobby likes to dance and sing, he will become weak, gay, or insert fear hear. All are creating boxes, and stereotypes, and pushing fears onto our children. I posted similar thoughts on my FB page, re: girls and boys playing with toys geared toward the opposite gender. A FB “friend” responded that if I let my son sing and dance that I should be prepared to protect him from bullies. Way to perpetuate the exact stereotyping, narrow-mindedness that my post was intended to move *away* from. Sometimes, you can’t even lead a horse to water.
The more a parent (or parents) take the time to be actively involved in their child’s learning and development the less control society will have over their impressionable minds. Kind of like what Zan (another commenter here) said. WE are the ones shaping the how these products are marketed and what ideas and beliefs our children develop as a result. If we show our children we are driven by ads, they will follow suit when it’s their turn to be the consumer. Quit blaming commercials or toy makers or society. If you don’t want someone else doing your job as a parent or screwing up your kids, teach your children to think for themselves and instill a solid foundation of what is truly valuable in life by living it out yourself.
Agree! Still Pink, Still “Girly”. I Saw The Ad Yesterday. But The Song, “Girls”, I Was Wondering If The Beasties Repurposed It For A Reason.Since Becoming Beastie Men, They Regret That Song, And Had Stopped Playing It At Shows For The Last 15 Or So Years.
As a child I was the the quintessential tom boy, much like the girl in the picture. Over the years I have endured much flack for enjoying skateboarding and other male dominated activities. Flash forward 30 years and my daughter is the Pinkalicious, princess loving, lip gloss queen. She came out that way. It’s ironic that her choices are taunted as much as mine were, although they are polar opposites. I wish we could just accept our girls for who they are, whether they want to be an engineer or a fairy princess. Who are we to decide for them?
I personally helped to fund GoldieBlox, and feel very proud of how far the “idea” has come. No toy is perfect for every child, but the little girl ,that I gifted my GoldieBlox to, tore into the toy and once I showed her how it worked, made all kinds of designs of her own. She is a newly turned 6 year old. I think parents and grandparents will purchase this toy for Christmas. I hope so. I like that it encourages any child boy or girl to interact with the cute characters and use their imagination to entertain themselves. Don’t hate because it is beautiful.
I don’t hate it. I dislike using one stereotype to subvert another, or trading one box for another. I think the concept is good, but the execution is, greatly, flawed.
Agree with you on the pink princess stuff, but I gotta say…I didn’t know anyone took “Girls” seriously, the Beastie Boys most of all. I think their tongues were firmly planted in their cheeks on that one — it’s sending up male fantasy. (“Two at a time/I want GIRLS”). I agree, a bad choice for an ad, though!
“one of the most misogynist songs to ever be recorded, “Girls” by the Beastie Boys” !? okay tracy…so you don’t like the product but apparently you know nothing about the song or the beastie boys…it’s is NOT misogynist…bash the blocks all you want but leave the beastie boys alone because they are awesome and in no way what you think they are. look it up before you make assumptions next time. thanks!
http://www.thenation.com/blog/167768/mcas-feminist-legacy
here ya go! now you don’t even have to look it up. rock on beastie boys! RIP adam!
Great post! I loved the video, but the website text’s implication that girls (a priori) preferred stories and social interaction is at least as sexist as the original problem (“By tapping into girls’ strong verbal skills …” on the Website, “Boys like buildng – girls like reading” in the launch video)
While I understand your point, I bought this toy for my daughter a year ago (before the viral commercial). I would consider myself a feminist and I am not a fan of pink. But the bottom line is my daughter loves pink and princesses. And she likes building stuff and playing outside. She likes both. We have to be careful not to reject that which has been socialized as feminine in order to take back our ability to be who we want to be. Our daughters should understand that both are acceptable.
I disagree entirely with braintofingers. Parenting determines the success of every child and their future. Boys toys, girlie toys, pink and blue toys. As a parent your views, actions, behaviours, opinions, demeanour, etiquette, habits and virtues are mirrored by your children. Why are we so set on stunting childhood and the wonderful dreams that come with it. Let kids be kids, girls be girls, boys be boy, girls be boys and boys be girls. We as parent are responsible for tactfully guiding our children through their dreams and decisions. We are the spectacles they see the world through. Why are we trying to turn our future ladies into men! Can you imaging the cock up if we never had the strength, compassion, patience and multi tasking skills of a woman. Women steady this testosterone powered ship we sail on into our future.
Girls tend to like playing things that involve visual appeal and relational dramatic play. If a little girl doesn’t care for pink stuff, great, but many of them do. It isn’t a weakness, it’s a personality trait. Little boys tend to play things that are conquest-oriented or related to tests of physical strength, but we feel no need to treat this as a negative thing; girls need to be afforded the same respect. She doesn’t have to mimic the behavior of her male peers in order to be strong.
As a feminist, I LOVE the GoldieBlox and Lego Friends toys for just that reason- they give girls a way to practice building and planning skills in a way that relates to them. In the argument that girl toys should not encourage shallow or sycophantic image-obsession, it is a mistake to insinuate that girl tendencies are somehow inferior to boy tendencies.
I was going to reply, but it appears that @kirinjirafa types faster than I do and says it far better than I would. So, what she said.
Instead of trying to comment back to over 50 comments, I wrote another blog addressing some of your comments.
Pingback: GoldieBlox: Revoluitonary Idea Gold, or Marketing Gimmick Gold? | Alys B. Cohen
Pingback: GoldieBlox: Revolutionary Idea Pyrite, or Marketing Gimmick Gold? | Alys B. Cohen