Critique of Lego Is for Girls

Bradley Wiener’s article, “Lego is for Girls” (2011) contests the suitability of Lego as a gender-generic brand. Though subtle, Wiener does not believe that Lego Friends, aimed at attracting little girls, will be able to change the image of Lego as a male-oriented brand. His argument is formed on the basis that at the end of the day, Lego has not pushed for a change in the company’s stance to become more gender-generic. Throughout the article, Wiener firmly establishes the distinction between what toys are suitable for boys and what toys are suitable for girls. Despite presenting a logical flow of argument, Wieners is generally unconvincing as his sources are limited in scope, and instances of his own personal gender bias weaken his thesis.

The quote from Eliot that “There is no reason… more intrinsically suited for boys” (Wieners, 2011, para.11) and the title of the article, “Lego is for Girls”, contradicts his thesis. Furthermore, Wieners reveals his own gender bias in the article. His clear distinction between “tiaras” and “pink chiffons” (2011, para.2) as toys that girls play with in comparison to Lego, which is played by boys is a subtle indication of his gender stereotyping. His view that Lego is “not for everybody” (2011, para.1) emphasises his firm belief on gender boundaries, with the use of the absolute term ‘not’. The word “missing out” suggests the author’s stand that Lego is meant for boys and despite its educational and nurturing benefits, it is not suitable as a toy for girls.

Moreover, his sources are limited. His citing of a view of one mother, Orenstein, who bemoans the lack of diversity in Lego’s product line is not representative of the entire parental community. However, it highlights an important point. In Orenstein’s lament about the mere “little pink ghetto” (Wieners, 2011, para.2), she emphasises the stereotype that is in line with that of the author’s. This