"Boys need toys, not a Lego range for girls" I beg to differ...

Okay, so during the weekend I stayed in London with my boyfriend James and he bought a Sunday paper called The People (basically the new News of the World) and it had this article in it by a columnist called Charlie Catchpole. The article is about how the Lego company are bringing out a range of Lego toys for girls, the link is here.


I personally don't see a problem with this in a feminist way: I don't think it's teaching gender stereotypes, it just means that there are male and female pieces of Lego. When I was younger I played with Lego regardless of the fact that there weren't that many female figures in it - I think I had about two or three different variations, rather than the hundreds that my brothers could make. 


The people this article mentions that criticize the company for “a betrayal of a beautifully genderless toy”, in my opinion Lego wasn't made for both boys and girls: it was made mostly with boys in mind. And they're now adding female figures and places: great! Because there are already many Lego sets out there that would interest mainly boys (although I'm not saying that girls are not interested by then - like I said, I played with Lego when I was younger and I remember making Fighter Jets and cars and I thought it was fun).


What I do not, under any circumstances, approve of is the way this man belittles and degrades my gender. Let's look at a quote, shall we?


"Action favourites such as Star Wars, Indiana Jones and Pirates of the Caribbean are now joined by a beauty parlour and a cafe, where five tiny figures called Olivia, Emma, Andrea, Mia and Stephanie sit nattering about boyfriends before they go shopping, I imagine."


First of all: I don't have to be a boy to like Star Wars, Indiana Jones and Pirates of the Caribbean Lego regardless of the fact that they are essentially a boys toy. 


Second of all: a beauty parlour and a café? Seriously? They are the only places you can see women going? We go to a lot of places actually; university, the gym, to work, to school...actually, anywhere you go. Don't put women in little boxes: just because in your little brain all women do is go get their nails done and grab a coffee doesn't mean that's how air-headed and moronic all the women of the world are.


Thirdly: how misogynistic is it to assume that, if girls played with Lego, they would be sitting around "nattering" about boyfriends before they go shopping? I'm sorry, but there's just so much wrong with this sentence. That isn't all there is to women; he's trying to make out like there's nothing else in our heads, that the only things we care about are boys and shoes. For Gods sake, are you still in the fifties? How a man is able to make such sly digs about females and have a serious prominent job in the media industry is beyond me. 


And, of course, then he has a go at the parents who brought their child up genderless, saying that they must doubtless be pleased at the new Lego range whilst subsequently bashing them for exercising their right as parents to bring their child up the way they see fit. Because, you know, it's totally fair of you to voice your stupid opinion on bringing up a child that isn't even yours. Just sayin'. 


When I read this article I had to have a rant about it. Because I honestly couldn't believe this man's polluting, backwards, sexist views were allowed to print. If new newspapers like The People actually want to be respected as pieces of journalism, I suggest losing people like him and bringing people who treat both genders equally, and not look down on women or little boys who want to dress up as girls or play with "girl" toys.