Peggy Ornstein is a blogger and author of Cinderella Ate My Daughter: Dispatches from the Front Lines of the New Girlie-Girl Culture. She wrote a piece for the New York Times Opinion Page titled Should the World of Toys Be Gender-Free? that I’ve been mulling over recently. In the piece she addresses the new girl-focused Lego sets that come with blocks in pastel hues and svelte looking characters to replace the classic blocky figurine. Lego advises they’ve done their anthropological research and it shows that boys and girls play differently, they’re only trying to be fair to girls by offering them more “girly” sets. Ornstein points out that preschoolers are at a very impressionable age and it’s at this time they assimilate things like gender roles. She asserts that by buying these gender specific toys there may be a “negative long-term impact on kids’ potential”.

After reading this article about toys being gender neutral I’m left with a very important question: Why don’t people make a fuss about toy manufacturers making toys specifically for boys? Those bright, primary-colored Lego blocks could be considered “gender neutral”¹, but glancing over Lego.com I see mostly male-centric sets with the small exception of the new line in question, Lego Friends, shown in a small graphic below the fold. Dinosaurs, ninjas and Star Wars? Where was the hoopla when Lego unveiled these toys? There wasn’t one, because it’s okay for boys to have decidedly boy toys to play with. So why isn’t okay for girls to have girl toys? I understand Ornstein is worried about forcing gender stereotypes on young girls and their, as she puts it, “malleable” minds, but I disagree with the way she’s going about it. How does telling little girls that what boys are interested in is better than what girls are interested in promote equality?

I doubt it comes as a shock that I was a real tomboy growing up, as were my two sisters. Legos were a big part of our childhood, along with video games, sports, climbing trees and wading in creeks to catch crawdads. We enjoyed a lot activities usually expected of boys, and yet our mother still bought us Barbies and we watched Disney princess movies and wore pink clothes. We did both, and our mom stood back and let us, and when we grew up we did so with varied interests and the knowledge that our lady bits didn’t stop us from doing whatever the hell we wanted.

I understand that as parents we have this awesome responsibility of creating a future adult who will hopefully be a well adjusted, productive member of society, but sometimes I think that responsibility pushes us to micromanage things a bit. Don’t get me wrong, from what I’ve read of Ornstein she doesn’t suggest forcing your child to do anything, but I just don’t like the idea of removing a child’s choices. Some kids, girls and boys, like pastel colors and pretty Lego figurines – called “ladyfigs” – that can be played with in cafe’s and pools and invention workshops. Though I do disagree with toys that place emphasis on physical beauty and consumerism, not all girl toys will turn little girls into brain dead women obsessed with their looks, and if we’re telling our daughters this – maybe not explicitly, but with our reactions – how do you think the ones who enjoy playing with Barbies and pink Legos will feel?

In the end I believe that if we want to raise children who are happy, confident and have a healthy amount of self worth we should allow them to be themselves. Let girls, and boys, choose how they play (safely), and make sure they know no matter what their choice is not wrong or bad.

1. Ornstein says they are, citing a list called “10 characteristics for Lego” by a son of the founder, “for girls and for boys”. [↩]

Ramblings