I personally will be purchasing traditional LEGO sets for my daughter. I played with them as a child and never thought of them as a boys' toy. It would be nice if they created a LEGO 'girl', but the only necessary change would be a different hairstyle. Otherwise the face and body could remain exactly the same. The new LEGO 'Friends' set is not appealing to me in any way and will not enter my home.

nay

I was so disappointed. These are not appealing to me at all. Why are the sets all about things like cafes and swimming. Girl toy "careers" always seem to be pediatrician or vet -- nurturing. Why not outer space, wildlife rescuer, pirate, explorer etc... My daughter is 4.5 and had zero interest in this when I showed it to her, and asked for a pirate set instead.

I never really thought of Legos as purely for boys. Plus the original sets are cooler and I would have always chosen knights, ninjas, adventurer, and underwater exploration sets over a kitchen set! Nothing against being in the kitchen but those are way more exciting.

I think they are so cute and colorful! If I had a girl I would be buying them. The themes are along the lines of Polly pocket when I was little. That's the thing about Legos-- if you want it to be more "liberated" -build it! Be creative.

Lego already had a "girl" toy. It was called Legos.

It's a shame. They try to convince us we need specialized toys so they can sell us twice as much product. I always played with original LEGOs as a kid, and I wasn't the least bit under the impression that they were solely for boys. Of course, considering how all the new sets are very masculine-centric, I can see how they pigeon-holed girls out of the equation recently.

Which is part of the reason why I'm disappointed with LEGO in general lately. For my son's birthday, I had to comb half the city just to find simple blocks (e.g. not a kit to make a specific car or castle). Don't they realize that those templates sets take all the creativity out of the product? Well, I finally found an "old school" set, and ironically enough, my daughter plays with it just as much as my son.

Just as a lot of people don't think of LEGO has being a "boy" toy, I don't necessarily think that the new line of products is a "girl" toy, either. It's all about choices, don't you think? There are clearly children out there (both genders, I'm sure) that love the idea of creating a more realistic home/doll house with LEGO products. How narrow minded is it to insist that this new line is only going to be played with by little girls?!

I don't much care for the figures, but I love having more brick colors. Yay for more colors!

I'm very disappointed. My daughter loves legos, and enjoys building them as much as her brothers do. Lego made Hermione Granger in the regular blocky style for the Hogwarts train set, and I think she looked lovely :). I don't know why girl legos need to be thin and stylish, super frustrating.

I agree with Lemonadefish, more colours for the win. Then just mix them in with the regular lego please, why do we need to seperate girl and boy play like this?

Grabbing My Happy- Lego already has several home type sets that are gender neutral and really great to put together. The lego friends set is clearly being marketed to a specific audience, as noted in the quote above, I believe that is the concern.

http://shop.lego.com/en-US/Apple-Tree-House-5891

http://shop.lego.com/en-US/Hillside-House-5771

Fifth Pocket- Amen.

I agree with PAINOH83. It is hard to find simple lego blocks that can be used to build anything you imagine. My daughter loves legos. But I couldn't find anything that is not a 'set' to build one thing in particular.

hear, hear Fifth Pocket!

What bothers me the most is the change in the body style. As dearly said, girls need to be thin and stylish but boys can be chunky and plain? Disappointed that Lego would cave in to that. I wouldn't have such a problem with it otherwise. I know I would have been into this when I was a kid. And it's getting the audience that otherwise playes with Polly Pockets, which only serve to educate about fashion choices. At least here girls get to have their girliness, but get all the benefits lego play offers. I wish they had a wider range of careers, the best is the inventor set, which is actually pretty cool.

I would rather see my nieces playing with these legos than Bratz or Barbies. And my nephew who is really into legos is asking for a couple of the sets for his 13th birthday, because they have some exclusive bricks. Ultimately I wish they would just integrate boy and girl stuff. Like have a boy and girl astronaut in the astronaut set, stuff like that. If I had a daughter I would allow these to be a PART of the lego collection, but never the whole thing.

Just looked briefly at the City collection, this Friends line should have just been integrated into that. They do have a few blocky girls in the city collection, but not nearly enough.

I can see this from both sides. I always loved legos as a child, but then again I was a tomboy and never owned a barbie doll or anything similar. However, I would gladly buy old school legos for a girl if I had/have one. I don't find this line 'offensive' at all. Just because people are assuming that only girls are going to buy these, which is 'offensive' in and of itself, doesn't mean that they are only for girls. Half the time my son enjoys "girl" toys as much or more than traditional "boy" toys. Meaning he loves to play with dolls, dress up, etc, just as much as he likes his cars and guns.

Also, no matter how much anyone would like to deny it, there are girls out there that really just love pink, purple, Barbies, and princesses, etc. I know several girly-girls under the age of five, whose parents did not 'push' them into it. Several were actually frustrated by the obsession with the color pink, make up, and princesses. So for them, this set will be a great addition to regular legos. It seems like most people are simply assuming that parents are only going to buy these sets of legos and not any other kinds, and also that they are only going to be bought for girls. Assumptions go either way and in this case, I think it's a little ridiculous.

Wait. Wait. Wait.
You mean the old castle and train sets Lego (and - let's face it - MegaBlock) made weren't for girls?
You mean that day I spent on that Lego battleship was a lost day in my female childhood?
I call BS on this toy. The nice thing about Lego was that it didn't pigeonhole people, and encouraged imaginative play for ALL. Especially back in the days of the little 4-top people and primary-colored bricks, where I grew up.
What is this world coming to?

The tree house looks pretty freaking cool, just saying.

Personally, I hated Legos as a kid. I played with them with my brother occasionally but they were his toys. I played with my barbies, polly pockets, etc because that is what I liked and asked for. My mom had 3 boys and 2 girls and there were plenty of toy mixing and neither type of toy was pushed at either sex. I have 2 boys and 1 girl so far and same here. My daughter will play with her brother's stuff but given a choice she will choose the girly stuff. She loves babies, barbies, her kitchen, and lately she is in love with the princess figures from her princess chutes and ladders game, and the princess playmobil toys she has. She has 2 big brothers and she was always allowed to play with their stuff, it's just her choice. For those of you that don't want to buy these for your kids, don't. But I don't see why there has to be a big controversy over it! The options are there, doesn't mean you HAVE to buy the girly version for your girl.

Growing up I had the 'Paradisa' Lego sets that were targeted at girls and regular Lego sets and I loved them both. The 'Paradisa' sets included fun, normal mini-figs with details like ponytails and long eyelashes. I was happy to have Lego sets with bricks in my favorite colors at the time (pink, light green) and actually had female mini-figs that were beyond princesses. My older brother was a Lego fiend and ended up stealing the pieces his sets didn't have like ice cream carts and bicycles. http://lego.wikia.com/wiki/Paradisa

Why all the fervor over this, but nothing over Ninjago? Aren't we "forcing" boys into fighting/battle roleplaying. *rolls eyes* Something for everyone. I am simply amazed at the extensive dialog about these. I think they're just another (heavily marketed) toy and just like a lollipop, they have their place in a "balanced diet".

Talk about first world arguments...

I LOVE these. I have a super girly girl and I know she would prefer these over the reg colors. Its also ok to be girly girl. Pink is not a bad word or shameful if you choose to like pink or are drawn to it. I personaly am not a fan of the overly girly girl but my little girl really lights up at the frills and lady like decor/ toys AND ITS OK.

I think the new colors and sets are awesome for girls (or even boys for that matter). I like how most pieces are 'lego' piece that you could use with any other lego kits.
I "personaly" don't like the new characters. I'm a mom of 2 boys so maybe I just don't get what girls like.

I think they should've kept with the regular minifigurines. Have you seen the cool 'girl' minifigs Lego has already? Like Skater Girl, Intergalactic Girl, Zookeeper (I love her!) etc....

Do we need all girl toys to be wearing mini skirts and tank tops???

Why do the girl figures have to be focused on "beauty"? Why change the mini-figurines to have womanly curves with make-up? This is so bland and blah I'm highly disappointed. Why a beauty salon? Ugh. Ugh. Ugh.

I have mixed feelings. The sets actually remind me a lot of Lego duplo which has a lot of preformed pieces and both my kids love. A much easier build for small kids (4,2). The people look a lot more like the restyled duplo figures. And I have to pay a FORTUNE on ebay to get some lousy pink duplo blocks, not the grossly inferior megablocks. And I've never liked the lego minifigs. Much prefer Playmobil people.

But beauty salon? Seriously? I had that can't of gendered nonsense. And the packaging is wretched.

Oh geez if you don't like it don't buy it!!! No ones forcing you to spend your money. I personally think they are great I have two girls 7 and 4 and they both play with the traditional set at their grandmas house and love it but have been asking for more girl figures and flowers and such. Why does everything have to turn into an issue of stereotyping a girl into domesticity. There are still plenty of little girls out there who play with dolls, dress up and play kitchen. It's what they see from their mothers and they idolize their mommys. Why does society have such an issue when it comes to the differences between boys and girls?? They are different!!! We were created that way. My girls play with cars, lincoln logs, and with my sons tool bench. My son plays barbies and dress up with the girls. But at the core a girl is a girl and a boy is a boy and they have different tendencies. Maybe those of you who are so worried about girls playing with feminine toys need to reevaluate why it's such an issue.

I think it's silly that anyone is making an issue of this. When I was a kid, Lego came out, VERY unsuccessfully with a more "girl themed" line of sets. I had one that built a pink tropical hotel with a pool and flowers and things- but it was still the same lego shapes and characters that came in the more boy sets, just of girls and girl colors. Did I care then or now? Heck no. Legos, for MOST kids, have always always been something they play with like mad as small kids (boy and girl) then when they hit a bigger age, it becomes more geared to boys. So what? I played around with my brothers legos, but I had more than enough girly toys to keep me happy.

If I take issue with anything, its that the figures aren't shaped like lego men. It doesn't look like lego. Thats about it.

I'm so sick of toys being assigned a gender! I had the hardest time finding a toy vacuum for my 18 month old that wasn't PINK. I had to search 4 stores. Ridiculous. I have 2 boys, and those boys have both a toy kitchen, AND a toy tool bench. My nieces come over, and play happily with both too. Please, stop the madness. Let our children create without boxing them into gender stereotypes.

Nay. my daughter isn't into Legos anyway (she is 4) even though we went to LegoLand & bought her this great starter kit with pink Legos. I loved playing with my Lego sets when I was growing up and never once thought there should be pink blocks or more "girl" sets. Your kid is going to like whatever they want regardless of what you give them. Disney Princesses has somehow entered into our household 2 years ago and it hasn't stopped. If it makes her happy then why take it away.

What is objectionable to me is that it is being marketed as a Toy for girls.
Not that it exists.

The truth is people (all people) have their own likes and dislikes. The play pattern that Lego is introducing with Friends is tried and true - it is make believe/imaginative play, some kids(actually lots of kids), boys and girls will play with this and have fun with it and explore there imaginations with it.

It is a shame that we have to be aware of the marketing machines that drive behavior. Bottom line is when I am looking for a toy or any product I make my own decisions and ask if it will be appreciated, loved and played with by the recipient. That is what should count.

your children play with disney princess toys and barbies because you let those into your household. you are the parent, and you can make the decision about what sort of stereotypes are healthy or not for your children. this whole 'well my daughter just likes pink and makeup and is girly and there's nothing i can do about it!' is so naive and stupid.

these new legos are awful.

To me Legos will always be a toy for everyone. Check out this old ad featuring a girl. http://maxcdn.fooyoh.com/files/attach/images/591/189/605/003/vintage-lego-ad.jpg

Why do we have to do something about a girl being girly?? When did that become such a crime? And why doesn't society get all up in arms about boys playing superheros or ninjas?? My girls play both, and love it. And when I buy these new legos my son will play with them right along with his sisters!!!

One word: LAME.

because we don't exist in a vacuum. it is damaging to tell little girls that they should focus on being pretty and girly and their toys should center around cooking or doing their hair. these are the messages that are marketed to both girls and women 24/7 already, why do their toys need to shape who they are going to be? when toys are marketed towards little boys to be a superhero, they are really being told to have an imagination, to make up story lines, to save the world, etc. when we give small girls toys that only relate to being 'girly' we are effectively telling them who they should be instead of letting them find out who they want to be.

nay!

But its ok for boys to play with such toys? It all seems very one sided to me. My girls play make believe and use their imagination just fine. Both with fairy wings and super heros. By not letting little girls explore those types of toys aren't we just forcing them into a box that tells them its not ok to be girly and domestic?? Why not allow them both toys and truly let them decide for themselves??

I just saw these last week for the first time, out looking for Duplo sets that had girl figurines because all we have are boy ones, and my four year old wants a 'mama'. I assume Lego is making these because...this is what people buy for their girls (meaning Polly Pocket, Strawberry Shortcake, etc)!

Just like I assume Baby Gap cuts their girl jeans much smaller and tighter than the boy ones because...that is what people buy for their girls!

If you don't like it, don't buy it. I will not be buying these (or too-snug jeans, either), but I admit that most of the mothers I know probably will. But I DO wish I could buy some girl Duplo figurines. Anybody have a tip on that one?

@ Fifthproduct Well said!
By making a "girls" product, it insinuates that regular legos are for boys.

They had "girl lego" sets when I was a kid. I don't remember much about them except that they involved horses and a house, and I thought they were boring and awful.

These at least look like a step up from that, but only barely. I do think the traditionally shaped lego man could easily appeal to more girls if they just added more variety. At the lego store they had a display for making your own minifigs, and the little girls were just as happy to swarm over it and make characters up to their hearts' content. The only problem was that there were only two girl hair-do's and one dress, sooo. Not as much variety.

Give a girl a "girl lego" set that has traditionally shaped characters but a huge variety of hair, faces, shirts, pants/skirts/mermaid legs and accessories for them to mix and match, and you'll probably find that she'll be excited to play with it even if the whole thing isn't made entirely of pink glitter.

Not that lego would probably ever do this, since for some strange reason they've decided their people should be the most expensive bricks. I can't imagine what they'd charge for a lego set made entirely of interesting people parts.

This is the single most inane convo I've ever read here.

The [vast majority of] commentators here are guilty of
the very thing of which they accuse LEGO.

So, whosthatdog, the only valid way to be a girl is to be like a boy or to be neutral. You can't save the world and while caring about how you look? You can't use your imagination while you cook? You can't be strong while wearing pink? So, those girls (and boys for that matter) that DO like girly things are left out in the cold with no options for LEGOs that speak to their likes and their playing style?

This idea that girly/pink is worthless, silly, stupid, pathetic or whatever words I've heard bandied about in relation to this line or other girly things is deeply, deeply problematic. Even more problematic than the way toys are marketed.

I'm sorry, but if LEGO is providing more *options* then that is a good thing. Are they particularly going about it the right way? That's certainly debatable. But I like that they are including more colors. More colors = More options. More options = More awesomeness.

I had a chance to look at the new LEGO sets when I was at Target the other day. They are really cool. The inventors lab, the tree fort, and the house are fantastic toys and I would snatch them up in a heartbeat for my daughter (or son) so that they can incorporate them with my old school bricks that I kept from my childhood.

Just because something is girly doesn't make it bad, okay? Can we please stop with this nonsense?

Oh sheesh, is this really a big deal? So what if they're marketed towards girls. Clearly LEGO saw an opportunity and took it and you know what, a whole lot of little girls are going to be excited about building and lots of those little girls probably weren't before. I let my girls decide what they like and if that's princesses or dinosaurs or purses or dirt, so be it. Why can't girls like things that are supposedly "girly"? Seriously, when did we get so bent out of shape over such trivial things. My girls don't think they have to be a princess and have a man rescue them when they get older just because they play with princess stuff and they certainly don't think they need to look like Barbie, and neither did I or my 3 sisters.

I just asked my daughter what she thought of these and she said she loved them and could I get them for her for her birthday. She said they were way better than regular LEGOS, so there you go. Am I to tell her she's wrong?

I understand LEGO wanting to create a more realistic looking figure-- my kids LOVE lego men, but also love more realistic looking toys..... but my question is, why the &*^% are they only WOMEN? why didn't they make more realistic men to go along with them? horrible! they have made cute lego women in the past, though not as many as they should..... i find their blocky Hello Kitty playset to be really cute and girl-centric, though not exclusively for girls..... i also understand coming out with a "domestic" line, i think the kitchen is really cute, but y'know, men live in houses also. c'mon lego, you can do better than this.......

As a girl I played with legos all the time with my brother and I never thought of them as a boys only toy. It's true I often built little houses & stuck the little plastic flowers next to the picket fence, but maybe that's why I went to college for construction management and have a strong appreciation for architecture? I do remember wanting to have a "girl" lego man. And actually I recall us having one or two little plastic "wigs" that instantly changed a boy pirate into a girl pirate and that was enough for me. My biggest problem with these new pastel legos is that it will reduce the amount of co-ed play between boys and girls. I always have felt that Legos are a toy that boys and girls can successfully interaction with TOGETHER. But most boys will segregate themselves from any pastel pink toys. Sad.

@Discerning: I was thinking the exact same thing.

"So, those girls (and boys for that matter) that DO like girly things are left out in the cold with no options for LEGOs that speak to their likes and their playing style?" - Rayo

If regular Lego doesn't speak to their likes and their playing style, maybe they are a bit too girly already. Ever since Lego exists, there have been female characters, so I don't see why the product should be even more feminine, unless it's to cater to the princess crowd, which in my opinion goes overboard. It is these same little princesses that wear nail polish and somewhat high heeled, glittery shoes by the time they are four, and don't you try to ever convince them of wearing pants on the playground or of not wearing at least one item that is pink!

I had Legos of all kinds when I was a little girl. I had houses (they had grey or blue walls and blue or red roofs - with such colours, would you say they were girly houses or boy houses?). All my houses had a kitchen and when I felt like playing mommy, I could do that even though the little fridge and dining table weren't pink or Granny Smith green. I could also, if I felt like it, play firefighter, truck driver or cop, and I played these in both female and male genders, because none of these jobs is gender-exclusive. I was the one to decide.

With pink blocks, you can only build girly buildings, and with this new figure design, you can only play hairdresser, manicurist or beauty queen. Now, those are gender exclusive.

Some people here say that this new product line exists because that is what parents would like to buy for their daughters. I think it is rather the kids asking for them, and the parents just accept it, not realizing that they are the ones teaching their kids that gender makes all the difference and that girls are expected to be girly. If parents didn't shove the girly stereotype down their children's throats, kids wouldn't be asking for everything in pink (my niece won't eat the cupcake if it isn't pink) and girls might grow up thinking they can be anything, just like boys, instead of merely idolizing beauty and everything feminine.

Forgot to mention: the mini skirts and knee-high boots on the figures pictured disgust me. I don't think many of you would like to see your girl dressed this way, but do you realize that by giving them this to play with, that is exactly what you encourage them to do? Don't you have enough of Barbies and Bratz to serve that purpose?

I'm not against it. It's much more true to LEGO than the Belville sets were. Those were barely LEGO. If you don't remember those then go look them up. These are better. Other than the minifigures and colors, it's LEGO in every other way. It promotes building, creativity, play, and fun, in a way that appeals to girls like other LEGO sets might not.

I like them, I'm also getting quite board with the extensive "debate" over them, it's very repetitive.

Saying Lego isn't already gendered is completely BS, while sure, some sets & the basic bricks are totally non-gendered (and I not see why ths would detract rom tat) this is no more endeared than ninjinjo.

She me a girl who *wants* to play with a skull helicopter.... Anyone??

I do think these kinda pander to gender stereotypes, but as many others have said, my bigger issue is how nearly all Legos offered now box kids into less imaginative play with their push for "play-sets" instead of the open-ended blocks.
 
The standard, unbranded, generic sets can still be found tho, and that's just what my son got for his birthday and Christmas last year! I refuse to buy him a set that's only geared for a single purpose.

For all the people who are saying "get over it" - I'll get over it when Lego comes out with sets for boys that contain shirtless male figures with large pecks, "a situation" for abs, and a full head of perfectly coiffed blonde hair. They can have the body builder set, the lifeguard set...not that there's anything wrong with those jobs, but you get what I'm saying. I have to say I'm so glad I have boys.

this whole arguement is pretty lame. it's sort of like that feminist idea where a woman can be ANYTHING she wants to be, but heaven forbid she want to stay at home at raise her kids and run her household. i have 2 boys and 2 girls. we have dolls, legos, capes, play kitchens, crowns, tutus, army helmets, hot wheels...and ALL get played with by everyone.

Nay! Legos were just fine previously. I worked in Child Care for a decade, and little girls loved them as they were.

Legos are perfectly unisex, it's one of the things I LOVE about them! This is just silly. (as are the pink duplo sets) Keep it simple Lego, primary colored squares are all we really want.

Rob O., that's what I was thinking! I don't see the value in buying a play set that can only be built one way, full of specialized pieces that are only for use with that particular play set.

I am going to buy my daughter a big ol' box of multicolored bricks. She loves role-play, so I'll get her some minifigs, both the old ones and the new ones.

My parents were always very careful about picking toys for us growing up that didn't send the wrong gender or sexist messages. I wasn't allowed to play with Barbie because my parents thought it taught us girls to want to be tall, blonde, and only want to shop. They didn't allow toy guns or swords because they thought it taught the boys violence. In the end I played with Barbie at my friend's houses (and got those "gender" messages from TV, magazines, school, etc) and the boys grabbed sticks from the yard and "shot" each other with those.
I think children are naturally drawn to certain toys and there is nothing wrong with that. My brothers loved playing with Lego because they made guns and ships and other "boy" things with them. Occasionally I would play with them and make doll houses, but I had better doll houses, so I gave up on Lego. I don't think this new line is sexist or wrong, I think it will appeal to a lot of girls and is opening up a toy that encourages creativity to a market that has been ignored for a long time. I would get my daughter this set if she wanted it, but I would also get her a microscope and dinosaur books. I don't think you can keep children from being interested in certain toys, even if they are very gender specific. They should be encouraged to explore whatever interests them. If my son wants to be a nurse or a school teacher; great. If he wants to be a engineer or lawyer; great. If my daughter wants to be a SAHM; great. If she wants to be a professor or dentist; wonderful. I made my choices, now my children get to make theirs.

I had a HUGE set of Lego's as a kid (including a couple girl faces ((had red lips and eyelashes)) and long hairstyles) and loved creating adventures and wild stories. I certainly wouldn't have my 'characters' sit at a salon or poolside (Blech. How boring), I had my Polly Pockets for that. Now there would be no distinction.

I don't think this set is necessarily pushing girls into playing with them, but if they do, it's severely limiting and stereotyped! I'm also afraid that with this set on the market, 'regular' Lego's will be aimed even further towards boys and really get away from being gender neutral. Such a shame.

I just bought my neice a set of these Legos. It's a farm theme with a dog and a four wheeler.Maybe they've added it this year given the complaints they apparently have gotten, but I think they are cute and I don't get too wrapped up in what they look like. My neice is a little tom-boyish and this was perfect for her.

I agree with you! Sure, Lego's plain everyone likes, but there is NOTHING wrong wit these, they are so cute, and I love the storyline!!

I love LegoFriends! It doesn't matter if ou're tomboy or not, these have a nice storyline that you can change as you build. This isn't stereotyped, this is AMAZING!

LEGO needed to design sets that were geared towards girls. They were really lacking in that category! Most of the there sets and series are for boys! But I wish they didn't have to create a different minifigures for the Friends theme. They should have stuck with the traditional LEGO minifigures. Girls already have a hard enough time dealing with being skinny, etc. So why encourage by changing minifigures to be these tall skinny girls?! I think that is a big mistake.