Feminism & Lego Friends
Can Lego's new building sets for girls help bridge the gender gap in STEM careers? Or do they uphold toy design stereotypes that are partially responsible for the gap in the first place?
Written by Laine Bruzek
In the face of decades-old stereotypes and shockingly unwavering statistics that identify women as only 11% of all American engineers, many professionals in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) fields have begun actively combatting stereotypes, recruiting women in tech, and setting up mentorship programs for interested minority engineers. While these help remedy existing symptoms of a deep-rooted issue, some companies have decided to try positively influencing these perceptions before they become problems by reaching out to young boys and girls interested in the field. Lego is one of a handful of toymakers who are attempting to build engineering skills and confidence in young women through the design of their products.
The Dearth of women in engineering, quantitatively
Before we can analyze the implications of Lego’s new building kits for girls, it is important to understand the specifics about the lack of women in STEM fields. Currently, only 11% of all practicing engineers are women. In 1997, that number was 9% (National Science Foundation). In more than a decade, despite academic, federal, and employer interventions, the percentage of women practicing engineering has virtually stayed the same. What’s more, this stagnation is within a field that is growing exponentially every year as more resources open more doors. Figure 1 presents data from 2009, released from the U.S. Department of Commerce. It shows not only the incredible discrepancy in total men and women in STEM fields but also reveals that engineering possesses the biggest disparity in percentages as well. According to this data, men are two and a half times more likely to choose an engineering career than women are (6). Even though engineering is one of the fastest-growing STEM fields with the greatest workforce demand, the percentages of women have reached a plateau or dropped over the past decade (Rosser & Taylor). A similar trend can be seen in the number of engineering degrees given out to women. Figure 4 shows that these percentages have even decreased slightly in the last ten years. In short, the problem we had in 2002 hasn’t improved, even in a field that is desperate for workers (Forbes listed “Engineer” as the second hardest job to fill in America in 2012). Such an extended imbalance over a long period of time suggests that the gender gap is caused by more than just female disinterest in the field.
Turning Circles: an overview of the problems we need to address
In order to identify the real causes behind this gap, two things in particular must be looked at: how gender roles are established early on through toys and how that affects perceptions of men and women within certain career paths. A close examination of the designs of both toys and engineering reveals an unfortunate and vicious circle. Even in the face of some troubling statistics, we, as a society, have created and encouraged detrimental ideas about gender roles as they relate to engineering. These perspectives are upheld by the phenomena they produce, and thus operate in self-sustaining cycles. The two relevant to Lego Friends’ campaign are the ones that relate perceived cognitive abilities and social construction, both within toy design and the field of engineering. By identifying how and why these cycles operate, we can better understand why a new mentality is long overdue.
The First circle: toy design
Though there is no inherent difference between the spatial skills of boys and girls, the toys which we have designated as “female” and “male” expand different abilities, which misleads us into thinking that boys are naturally more inclined to quickly learn engineering concepts. This results in campaigns that market certain toys specifically to boys (LEGOs, blocks, and robots) and others specifically to girls (dolls, books, and tea sets), which in turn upholds the idea that boys are naturally better at tinkering and construction toys. This is the first unending cycle the we have built and spun since the days when girls in engineering was practically unthinkable. In other words, how we perceive differences in inherent cognitive functioning influences the social constructs we create, which in turn leads to actual disparities in skill sets. Because of confirmation bias, we then use this information to uphold the misconception that boys are simply better at math and science.
Though this issue has been hotly debated in the past, there is now overwhelming evidence that suggests that there is no inherent difference between the mathematical and spatial skills of girls and boys. A 2006 article in the American Psychological Association compiled a great deal of compelling evidence that argues that there is no discrepancy between the genders in mathematical skills. One study proved that infants of both sexes perform equally well on addition and subtraction tasks. In another, Dr. Janet Hyde and her colleagues synthesized data collected on more than three million participants between 1967 and 1987, concluding that there is little support for saying boys are better at math, instead revealing complex patterns in math performance that defy easy generalization (139-155). Another more recent study, conducted in 2008 on over 7 million schoolchildren from 10 different states upheld this conclusion. Hyde, who co-authored this study as well, reported that: "Contrary to the stereotypes that are held by many parents and teachers, we simply found no gender differences at any grade level in any state” (qtd in Greenfieldboyce). So if the evidence is overwhelmingly to the contrary, why do these stereotypes exist?
They are heavily influenced by what skills we develop in children, which is often determined by how we structure their creative play. Historically, women were confined to careers & positions that involved housekeeping and child rearing. Children were given toys that corresponded to the roles they were expected to fulfill later--girls were given dolls and kitchenettes and boys were given police hats and building blocks. This inspired a gender-confining social construction that is still evident in how children play today, which has unfortunate consequences for girls attempting to build confidence in their engineering abilities. Dr. Cynthia L. Miller conducted a study which confirmed that the skills associated with engineering are associated almost exclusively with “boy” toys. She proposed twelve different adjectives to describe toys, Manipulability, Symbolic Play, Creativity, Sociability, Competition, Constructiveness, Nurturance, Aggressiveness, Handling, Attractiveness, Male, and Female (481). The most interesting part of the study was that the results were overwhelmingly similar, both in how the adults categorized the toys and to what gender they assigned them. “Female” toys were rated higher on Manipulability, Creativity, Nurturance, and Attractiveness, while “Male” toys were rated higher on Symbolic Play, Competition, Construction, Handling, and Aggressiveness (Miller 481-483).
The consensus of the participants sheds important light on the issue of genderized toys. In magazines, girls are depicted playing house and dress up while boys are shown playing with LEGOs and Nerf guns. This is why participants can agree, because they are surrounded by advertisements that confirm their biases. This is a large barrier for those who want to encourage construction play in girls, because toy companies have shifted how they market toys in order to reflect what is popular amongst buyers. For example, at the end of 2011, only 9% of LEGOs toy sets sold in that year were for girls, because the company had been focusing their efforts on where they know they can sell units: boy specific building sets (Kim). In the same year, global sales of Barbie, which doesn’t encourage any type of construction play, rose 17% (Egan). This shows that the majority of toys being bought for girls fall under the social norms that Miller outlined.
Unfortunately for young women, this means that not only do an overwhelming majority of toys enforce gender stereotypes, but they also may be “differentiated reliably along particular qualitative dimensions that bear a theoretical relationship to cognitive/social development” (Miller 485). This means that although there is no inherent difference to begin with, specific toys can teach certain skills and build confidence in particular areas. This is why toy design is so important. Although sex-role orientation, which influences toy choice, is not related to cognitive functioning, different toys inevitably expand different skills (Mullis & Bornhoeft). Both Miller and Mullis & Bornhoeft’s findings indicate that the toys that are currently being advertised to girls are limiting them academically by teaching only the skills that are generally accepted for girls to have, like verbal aptitude and a sense of nurturance. This puts them at a great disadvantage when it comes to succeeding in engineering, because they lack the confidence and strong spatial and technical intuition that toys inspire and develop. Because girls do not expand these interests as extensively as boys, the very misconceptions about gender and engineering skills that began this cycle are further fueled, leaving us in very much the same place we were decades ago.
Though this issue has been hotly debated in the past, there is now overwhelming evidence that suggests that there is no inherent difference between the mathematical and spatial skills of girls and boys. A 2006 article in the American Psychological Association compiled a great deal of compelling evidence that argues that there is no discrepancy between the genders in mathematical skills. One study proved that infants of both sexes perform equally well on addition and subtraction tasks. In another, Dr. Janet Hyde and her colleagues synthesized data collected on more than three million participants between 1967 and 1987, concluding that there is little support for saying boys are better at math, instead revealing complex patterns in math performance that defy easy generalization (139-155). Another more recent study, conducted in 2008 on over 7 million schoolchildren from 10 different states upheld this conclusion. Hyde, who co-authored this study as well, reported that: "Contrary to the stereotypes that are held by many parents and teachers, we simply found no gender differences at any grade level in any state” (qtd in Greenfieldboyce). So if the evidence is overwhelmingly to the contrary, why do these stereotypes exist?
They are heavily influenced by what skills we develop in children, which is often determined by how we structure their creative play. Historically, women were confined to careers & positions that involved housekeeping and child rearing. Children were given toys that corresponded to the roles they were expected to fulfill later--girls were given dolls and kitchenettes and boys were given police hats and building blocks. This inspired a gender-confining social construction that is still evident in how children play today, which has unfortunate consequences for girls attempting to build confidence in their engineering abilities. Dr. Cynthia L. Miller conducted a study which confirmed that the skills associated with engineering are associated almost exclusively with “boy” toys. She proposed twelve different adjectives to describe toys, Manipulability, Symbolic Play, Creativity, Sociability, Competition, Constructiveness, Nurturance, Aggressiveness, Handling, Attractiveness, Male, and Female (481). The most interesting part of the study was that the results were overwhelmingly similar, both in how the adults categorized the toys and to what gender they assigned them. “Female” toys were rated higher on Manipulability, Creativity, Nurturance, and Attractiveness, while “Male” toys were rated higher on Symbolic Play, Competition, Construction, Handling, and Aggressiveness (Miller 481-483).
The consensus of the participants sheds important light on the issue of genderized toys. In magazines, girls are depicted playing house and dress up while boys are shown playing with LEGOs and Nerf guns. This is why participants can agree, because they are surrounded by advertisements that confirm their biases. This is a large barrier for those who want to encourage construction play in girls, because toy companies have shifted how they market toys in order to reflect what is popular amongst buyers. For example, at the end of 2011, only 9% of LEGOs toy sets sold in that year were for girls, because the company had been focusing their efforts on where they know they can sell units: boy specific building sets (Kim). In the same year, global sales of Barbie, which doesn’t encourage any type of construction play, rose 17% (Egan). This shows that the majority of toys being bought for girls fall under the social norms that Miller outlined.
Unfortunately for young women, this means that not only do an overwhelming majority of toys enforce gender stereotypes, but they also may be “differentiated reliably along particular qualitative dimensions that bear a theoretical relationship to cognitive/social development” (Miller 485). This means that although there is no inherent difference to begin with, specific toys can teach certain skills and build confidence in particular areas. This is why toy design is so important. Although sex-role orientation, which influences toy choice, is not related to cognitive functioning, different toys inevitably expand different skills (Mullis & Bornhoeft). Both Miller and Mullis & Bornhoeft’s findings indicate that the toys that are currently being advertised to girls are limiting them academically by teaching only the skills that are generally accepted for girls to have, like verbal aptitude and a sense of nurturance. This puts them at a great disadvantage when it comes to succeeding in engineering, because they lack the confidence and strong spatial and technical intuition that toys inspire and develop. Because girls do not expand these interests as extensively as boys, the very misconceptions about gender and engineering skills that began this cycle are further fueled, leaving us in very much the same place we were decades ago.
What does lego friends do? Exploring the design of the toy
Lego Friends, however, is attempting to move us forward. Lego Friends is a line of building kits that follows five core characters, each with their own distinct storyline, through fictional, suburban Heartlake City. Girls can build karate studios, inventor labs, a high school, a summer equestrian academy, you name it. Lego, which previously was marketing 90% of their products to girls, saw a dramatic increase in sales: Lego friends doubled sales expectations in a year, and Lego sales overall tripled to girls in 2012 (Kim). By using old conventions to their advantage, Lego designed their Friends line to bridge the gap between outdated stereotypes and the future of toy design. Lego effectively synthesized the different traits of traditionally “boy” and “girl” toys, using attractive colors, taller, more humanlike figurines, and many complex storylines to convince girls to play with blocks that hone their spatial reasoning.
However, some oppose Lego Friends on the grounds that there is no need for new girl toys, that plain Legos and other building toys are sufficient as they are. Lise Eliot, a neuroscientist at the Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science in Chicago and author of Pink Brain Blue Brain, a 2009 survey of hundreds of scientific papers on gender differences in children, thinks that how we present toys are essential. “Especially on television, the advertising explicitly shows who should be playing with a toy, and kids pick up on those cues,” Eliot says. “There is no reason to think Lego is more intrinsically appealing to boys” (qtd in Wieners). Soon after, a 1981 Lego advertisement resurfaced and went viral in support of Eliot’s claim. In it, a young red-headed girl proudly displays her creation: a haphazard box constructed of traditional colored Legos. Under her work is written in bold font, “What it is is beautiful.” The girl didn’t need special colored blocks or animal figurines. She simply was allowed to build what she wanted.
|
While its true, Legos will always be good for development and we should encourage little girls to play with them, just the sets alone are not enough. This is because of the recent trends in Lego marketing that target boys specifically. One mother even references the female LEGO section as a “little pink ghetto over in one corner” (Orenstein qtd in Gray & Miller). Lego Friends aims to put themselves somewhere between the company’s “What it is is beautiful” ad volleying for total equality and typical girls toys. Lego is perhaps taking a realistic approach: recognizing, in agreement with developmental psychologist Maureen O’Brien, that “[w]e're in the transitional phase, so it makes sense that companies are still trying to capitalize on people's natural 'boy' and 'girl' inclinations to get them into it” (O’Brien qtd in Fox). Though women’s rights groups want hasty equality in marketing, Friends uses genderized means to teach the desired skill set. This certainly isn’t the idea reflected in the original Lego ad, but it is one that is more integrable in society as it is today. We’ve had decades to simply make the marketing switch to include more of the opposite sex in traditionally gendered toys, but we haven’t actually done it, due to the pressure for companies to turn the biggest profit. Though Lego Friends certainly isn’t a perfect product, they are creating a model by which companies can start to look to the future, while not being so radical that they exclude themselves from the current market.
The SEcond Circle: The Design of Engineering
However, by choosing a skewed ground that doesn't vie for total equality in play, many critics argue that Lego Friends is reinforcing troubling stereotypes because of the characters' personalities, career choices, and physical toy design. In order to examine how these role models impact young girls' play, it is important to start by recognizing the destructive stereotypes that exist within engineering today.
The stereotypes that surround engineering are much the same as they were fifty years ago, making the profession cold, manly, and inaccessible to women. This is the second cycle perpetuated by society. Because engineers are traditionally thought to be men, women that attempt to succeed in the field are discriminated against and sometimes ostracized. Without many female mentors to look up to, these women often quit engineering jobs for ones that are considered more feminine. This is detrimental because it removes potential mentors from the field who would help destroy stereotypes and provide guidance to young girls who want to pursue engineering. Thus we see again a self-sustaining and truly destructive cycle.
To remedy this, a conscious adjustment must also be made to how existing women engineers are treated in the field. Angela Bielefeld, a civil and environmental engineering professor at the University of Colorado, Boulder, identifies resurfacing gender roles as a reason why some college students find engineering to be exclusive and male dominated: “Frequently, you see women relegated to very traditional roles - I'll build the robot, and you can be secretary for the group” (Bielefeldt quoted in Marder). This ends up being a large deterrent for women because it is discrimination coming from their male peers, who see them as somehow unqualified to do the hard, technical work. In a 2002 study, 218 college students were asked about their beliefs regarding gender roles and engineering. Interestingly enough, while women believed that they were treated negatively in engineering classes, men thought that women were given unfair special treatment. The study goes on to provide direct quotes from participants:
To remedy this, a conscious adjustment must also be made to how existing women engineers are treated in the field. Angela Bielefeld, a civil and environmental engineering professor at the University of Colorado, Boulder, identifies resurfacing gender roles as a reason why some college students find engineering to be exclusive and male dominated: “Frequently, you see women relegated to very traditional roles - I'll build the robot, and you can be secretary for the group” (Bielefeldt quoted in Marder). This ends up being a large deterrent for women because it is discrimination coming from their male peers, who see them as somehow unqualified to do the hard, technical work. In a 2002 study, 218 college students were asked about their beliefs regarding gender roles and engineering. Interestingly enough, while women believed that they were treated negatively in engineering classes, men thought that women were given unfair special treatment. The study goes on to provide direct quotes from participants:
Specifically, some women made comments indicating that they were treated negatively by men, such as “[male students] tend to be condescending, others treat you like you don’t know anything” and “sometimes we are not believed, looked down upon, seen as ‘little girls.’” One female engineering student made a reference to “subtle intimidation by [male] students.” In contrast, many men made comments suggesting that they believed that women were treated better than men, such as, “since female engineers are a rarity, there are usually better opportunities for them and they can get away with more than guys,” “females are given more attention,” and “professors are generally more understanding to women. Especially crying women.” (Heyman et al, 48)
|
These statements are eye-opening and, as another student in the survey put it, “simply sad.” There’s a very evident barrier here both in how women are treated and how they are perceived to be treated. Before we can move forward, an adjustment must be made in how peers in STEM fields see each other, regardless of gender. This is because these biased beliefs can have an effect on how achievable a girl thinks success is; the same study found that over half of the female students in engineering believed that it is a “fixed” skill, compared to only a quarter of men. This means that instead of an ability that develops over time, engineering is one that students have an inherent knack for. This mindset has unfortunate consequences, the study explains: “Among female engineering students, entity beliefs about engineering aptitude were associated with a tendency to drop a class when faced with difficulty” (Heyman et al, 47). This is a significant argument that places stereotyping as one of the biggest problems that needs to be addressed moving forward.
Another insight into why this subtle discrimination is so powerful is revealed by a trend among women to consistently underestimate their own abilities. "Women tend to leave engineering with higher grade point averages than the men...but they perceive that their technical skills are sometimes different” (Bielefeldt qtd in Marder). This fosters a sense of self-doubt, which often means that criticism, discrimination, and unfair treatment deliver harder blows. Madline Heilman, a psychology professor at New York University and an expert in gender stereotypes, agrees: “The requirements for doing well in certain scientific fields don't fit with the attributes women are considered to have. And if they do get in, they're ostracized, sidelined and seen as unlikeable, and that makes it unpleasant to stay” (Heilman qtd in Marder). This sheds light on the extremely alarming statistics that show women dropping out of STEM fields faster than men, despite achieving grades and awards equal to or surpassing those of men in the same fields (Rosser & Taylor). Not only are stereotypes decreasing diversity in engineering, but they also contribute to the disappearance of some of the brightest minds from the field.
However, the consequences of women dropping out of the workforce or moving to other areas have implications far beyond just them leaving the field. According to Jenni Marder, in her PBS NewsHour article “Why the Science, Engineering Gender Gap Persists,” women cite a lack of female mentorship as one of the main reasons why they stop studying or working in STEM fields. A Wisconsin University pamphlet on women in engineer expands on this point: “[Women have] fewer examples of successful women like them to rely upon than do men. Thus, underrepresentation of women in science and engineering can make it more difficult for women to believe that they can succeed as leaders in their fields” (8). This is a widely accepted view, both among experts and young women. Being one of the only women in the class or on the team can produce a sense of isolation, and also a great pressure. Young women often feel as though they represent women as a whole, putting a large deal of undue pressure upon them. Without female mentors to turn to for advice and support, many simply choose a different line of study or work. This perpetuates the very cycle it is trying to destroy, and leaves the next generation of female engineers again without older, successful women to look up to.
However, the consequences of women dropping out of the workforce or moving to other areas have implications far beyond just them leaving the field. According to Jenni Marder, in her PBS NewsHour article “Why the Science, Engineering Gender Gap Persists,” women cite a lack of female mentorship as one of the main reasons why they stop studying or working in STEM fields. A Wisconsin University pamphlet on women in engineer expands on this point: “[Women have] fewer examples of successful women like them to rely upon than do men. Thus, underrepresentation of women in science and engineering can make it more difficult for women to believe that they can succeed as leaders in their fields” (8). This is a widely accepted view, both among experts and young women. Being one of the only women in the class or on the team can produce a sense of isolation, and also a great pressure. Young women often feel as though they represent women as a whole, putting a large deal of undue pressure upon them. Without female mentors to turn to for advice and support, many simply choose a different line of study or work. This perpetuates the very cycle it is trying to destroy, and leaves the next generation of female engineers again without older, successful women to look up to.
How does Friends FAil?
Unfortunately, many argue that Lego Friends creates role models that enforce some of these stereotypes instead of breaking them down. The mini figurines (affectionately called “minifigs” by Lego enthusiasts) changed from the traditional boxy mix and match bodies to ones that were taller, curvier, and more lifelike. Critics argue that the dolls are sexualized and limiting, noting that the legs don’t separate and the wrists can’t be turned. In addition, the dolls overwhelmingly enjoy non-academic activities like horseback riding, cooking, shopping, and singing. Even Olivia, the one of the five original Friends who has her own inventor workshop and wants to be an engineer, spends most of her time decorating her house, taking care of her horse, and meeting up with her friends. These changes, both physical and character-based, seem a far cry from the instantly recognizable yellow minifig that made Lego famous. We need an engineering toy that takes into account not just the building set itself, but also the characters it's proposing to young girls. What message does it send if the only Friend interested in science and engineering doesn't actually spend that much time in her inventors lab? On lego.com, she admits, somewhat halfheartedly, "I guess you could call me smart." This is a reflection (instead of a refutation) of how women systematically underestimate their own skills. Instead of being proud of her abilities as an engineer and using them to benefit her community in some way, she seems to be just another Barbie-esque character with some half-baked skills thrown into her character bio.
Contrast this with new engineering toy for girls "Goldiblox", which introduces the protagonist of the toy's storyline as a spunky, determined, and smart young girl out to change the world. The press kit describes her as not a "nerd or a genius. She's just a creative kid who likes to invent." This sets up a perfect role model, and implies that engineering is an inclusive, welcoming, and dynamic field. It doesn’t require “nerds” or “geniuses.” This sentence directly addresses the idea that only certain types of people are equipped to be engineers, as well as negates the stigma behind being an engineer. As Melanie Wood, the first female student to make the prestigious U.S. International Mathematics Olympiad Team, points out: “nerdiness in our society isn't gender neutral. It's much easier for boys to find a way to be a nerd than it is for girls” (Wood qtd in Greenfieldboyce). This is one of the stereotypes that GoldieBlox is working hard to overcome, and founder Debbie Sterling designs Goldie to in direct response to this stigma: “The most important [thing] is that she is an engineer role model,” emphasizes Sterling, “With the other girly toys, they have beauticians, nurses and stuff. Those are all the typical role model characters that everybody’s already seen. Goldie’s an engineer, a tinkerer — you know she’s a maker and she’s cool” (qtd in Wilson). In this way, Sterling also meets the problem of a lack of role models. Unlike Lego Friends, she gives young girls a solid and devoted character to look up to, which can often be just as effective as a real person.
The rest of Goldie’s character is just as important as her “cool” factor: she’s determined, fun, and working towards making the world a better place. These are all extremely important traits to connect to engineering because girls are more likely to pick up the material if they think it has real world impact. By including a storyline with Goldie, Sterling helps build the foundations of excellent engineers. The children have a specific and personal reason as to why they are building a spinning machine for Goldie's pets. “As soon as the narrative was introduced, the girls were totally engaged and really wanted to build the machines...Not to build the machines, but to spin the friends” (Sterling qtd in Wilson). Though Lego Friends also has a narrative, the stories of the girls don't drive them towards being engineers--the spatial skills they develop while building a beauty parlor or music stage aren't the focus of the toy. For most of these stories, while a few Friends are involved in animal rescue and other philanthropic ends, they don't related back to bigger picture achievements. However, real women engineers are very concerned with building things to directly benefit other people. Notices Professor Angela Bielefeldt: “That big picture aspect is important to many women...I often see female students who say, 'I want to be in engineering to help people, to have positive impacts on society and the environment’” (Bielefeldt qtd in Marder). Sterling and Goldiblox use this trend to their advantage. By setting up a situation in which Goldie must make something to help her friends, she is crafting engineering as a very personal and empathetic tool for the girls who play with it. Through the story, they can see the “why” behind engineering, which encourages them to keep building in response to problems they are passionate about, even outside the toy world later in life. This is a major aspect that Lego Friends lacks, and therefore doesn't effectively respond to the stereotypes surrounding the field of engineering. It is a huge miss for the company and a critical change that needs to happen quickly in the Lego Friends line.
Contrast this with new engineering toy for girls "Goldiblox", which introduces the protagonist of the toy's storyline as a spunky, determined, and smart young girl out to change the world. The press kit describes her as not a "nerd or a genius. She's just a creative kid who likes to invent." This sets up a perfect role model, and implies that engineering is an inclusive, welcoming, and dynamic field. It doesn’t require “nerds” or “geniuses.” This sentence directly addresses the idea that only certain types of people are equipped to be engineers, as well as negates the stigma behind being an engineer. As Melanie Wood, the first female student to make the prestigious U.S. International Mathematics Olympiad Team, points out: “nerdiness in our society isn't gender neutral. It's much easier for boys to find a way to be a nerd than it is for girls” (Wood qtd in Greenfieldboyce). This is one of the stereotypes that GoldieBlox is working hard to overcome, and founder Debbie Sterling designs Goldie to in direct response to this stigma: “The most important [thing] is that she is an engineer role model,” emphasizes Sterling, “With the other girly toys, they have beauticians, nurses and stuff. Those are all the typical role model characters that everybody’s already seen. Goldie’s an engineer, a tinkerer — you know she’s a maker and she’s cool” (qtd in Wilson). In this way, Sterling also meets the problem of a lack of role models. Unlike Lego Friends, she gives young girls a solid and devoted character to look up to, which can often be just as effective as a real person.
The rest of Goldie’s character is just as important as her “cool” factor: she’s determined, fun, and working towards making the world a better place. These are all extremely important traits to connect to engineering because girls are more likely to pick up the material if they think it has real world impact. By including a storyline with Goldie, Sterling helps build the foundations of excellent engineers. The children have a specific and personal reason as to why they are building a spinning machine for Goldie's pets. “As soon as the narrative was introduced, the girls were totally engaged and really wanted to build the machines...Not to build the machines, but to spin the friends” (Sterling qtd in Wilson). Though Lego Friends also has a narrative, the stories of the girls don't drive them towards being engineers--the spatial skills they develop while building a beauty parlor or music stage aren't the focus of the toy. For most of these stories, while a few Friends are involved in animal rescue and other philanthropic ends, they don't related back to bigger picture achievements. However, real women engineers are very concerned with building things to directly benefit other people. Notices Professor Angela Bielefeldt: “That big picture aspect is important to many women...I often see female students who say, 'I want to be in engineering to help people, to have positive impacts on society and the environment’” (Bielefeldt qtd in Marder). Sterling and Goldiblox use this trend to their advantage. By setting up a situation in which Goldie must make something to help her friends, she is crafting engineering as a very personal and empathetic tool for the girls who play with it. Through the story, they can see the “why” behind engineering, which encourages them to keep building in response to problems they are passionate about, even outside the toy world later in life. This is a major aspect that Lego Friends lacks, and therefore doesn't effectively respond to the stereotypes surrounding the field of engineering. It is a huge miss for the company and a critical change that needs to happen quickly in the Lego Friends line.
Critics might argue that this is overly-simplistic: that simply encouraging an novel way of viewing engineers and engineering is not going to bring about the drastic change we need. However, a study done in Malaysia proves that in engineering (in their case computer science), image is everything. The results of the study concluded that because young women in Malaysia have access to female mentors (three out of four department heads are women) and have no difference in perception than males do about computer science, they are more certain than their male counterparts about pursuing engineering (Othman & Latih 114). The numbers reflect this self confidence: the table in Figure 4 displays the percentages of men and women working towards CS/IT degrees. The number of female students often exceeds the number of male students, and when it does not the difference is always less than 10% (111-112). The students at the University of Malaya are an excellent case study because it proves that correction of the perception of engineering, as well as the addition of female mentors have drastic (and wonderful) effects on the amount of women who choose to pursue the field.
Conclusion
Without a strong role model figure, Lego Friends can't be considered a sure success. It certainly does uphold some negative stereotypes about women in engineering and fails to provide girls with an avatar that is fully invested in the field. However, I do believe that change comes slowly in big industries and Lego Friends is a necessary start. It's fueled important conversations about toy design and inspired many parents to take their girls into the Lego aisle when they might not have otherwise. “If it takes color-coding or ponies and hairdressers to get girls playing with Lego, I’ll put up with it, at least for now, because it’s just so good for little girls’ brains,” says Lise Eliot, a neuroscientist at the Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science in Chicago (qtd in Wieners). I am inclined to agree. Though someday we hope to encourage equal engineering play in boys and girls, Lego Friends is taking steps in the right direction.
Works Cited
Beede, David, Tiffany Julian, David Langdon, George McKittrick, Beethika Khan, and Mark Doms. Women in STEM: A Gender Gap to Innovation. Issue brief no. 04-11. U.S. Department of Commerce, Aug. 2011. Web. 17 Mar. 2013.
Egan, Matt. "Mattel's 3Q Matches Street's View; Barbie Sales Soar 17%." Fox Business. Fox, 14 Oct. 2011. Web. 17 Mar. 2013.
Employed Scientists and Engineers, by Occupation, Race/ethnicity, Highest Degree Level, and Sex: 2008. Rep. National Science Foundation, 2008. Web. 17 Mar. 2013.
Fox, Emily Jane. "Barbie, Nerf Redefine 'girl' vs 'boy' Toys." CNNMoney. Cable News Network, 13 Feb. 2013. Web. 21 Feb. 2013.
GoldieBlox. GoldieBlox Press Kit. N.p., 2012. Web.
Gray, Emma, and Farah Miller. "LEGO Friends Petition: Parents, Women And Girls Ask Toy Companies To Stop Gender-Based Marketing." The Huffington Post. N.p., 15 Jan. 2012. Web. 14 Feb. 2013.
Greenfieldboyce, Nell. "Girls' Math Skills Equal To Boys', Study Finds." NPR. NPR, 24 July 2008. Web. 17 Mar. 2013.
Heyman, Gail D., Bryn Martyna, and Sangeeta Bhatia. "Gender and Achievement-Related Beliefs Among Engineering Students." Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering 8 (2002): 41-52. Print.
Kim, Susanna. "Lego Friends Triples Sales Despite Feminist Critique." ABC News. ABC News Network, 3 Sept. 2012. Web. 17 Mar. 2013.
LEGO. Advertisement. Decorating and Craft Idea 1981: n. pag. Print.
Marder, Jenny. "Why Engineering, Science Gender Gap Persists." PBS. PBS, 25 Apr. 2012. Web. 09 Feb. 2013.
Miller, Cynthia L. "Qualitative Differences among Gender-stereotyped Toys: Implications for Cognitive and Social Development in Girls and Boys." Sex Roles 16.9-10 (1987): 473-87. Print.
Mullis, Ronald L., and Doris M. Bornhoeft. "Sex-Role Orientation and Cognitive Functioning in Young Children." The Journal of Psychology 113.1 (1983): 17-23. Print.
Othman, Mazliza, and Rodziah Latih. "Women in Computer Science: No Shortage Here!" Communications of the ACM 49.3 (2006): 111-14. Print.
Rosser, Sue V., and Mark Zachary Taylor. "Why Are We Still Worried about Women in Science?" American Association of University Professors. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Mar. 2013.
Smith, Jacquelyn. "The 10 Hardest Jobs to Fill in America." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 29 May 2012. Web. 17 Mar. 2013.
"Think Again: Men and Women Share Cognitive Skills." APA.org. American Psychological Association, 18 Jan. 2006. Web. 17 Mar. 2013.
University of Wisconsin-Madison. Fostering Success for Women in Science and Engineering. N.p.: University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2010. Women in Science & Engineering Leadership Institute. Web. 17 Mar. 2013.
Wieners, Brad. "Lego Is for Girls." Bloomberg Businessweek. N.p., 14 Dec. 2012. Web. 13 Feb. 2013.
Wilson, Lauren. "GoldieBlox: A Construction Toy With a Story Line Builds Girls’ Interest in Engineering." AllThingsD. N.p., 19 Dec. 2012. Web. 17 Mar. 2013.
Yoder, Brian L. Engineering by the Numbers. Rep. American Society for Engineering Education, 2011. Web. 17 Mar. 2013.
Egan, Matt. "Mattel's 3Q Matches Street's View; Barbie Sales Soar 17%." Fox Business. Fox, 14 Oct. 2011. Web. 17 Mar. 2013.
Employed Scientists and Engineers, by Occupation, Race/ethnicity, Highest Degree Level, and Sex: 2008. Rep. National Science Foundation, 2008. Web. 17 Mar. 2013.
Fox, Emily Jane. "Barbie, Nerf Redefine 'girl' vs 'boy' Toys." CNNMoney. Cable News Network, 13 Feb. 2013. Web. 21 Feb. 2013.
GoldieBlox. GoldieBlox Press Kit. N.p., 2012. Web.
Gray, Emma, and Farah Miller. "LEGO Friends Petition: Parents, Women And Girls Ask Toy Companies To Stop Gender-Based Marketing." The Huffington Post. N.p., 15 Jan. 2012. Web. 14 Feb. 2013.
Greenfieldboyce, Nell. "Girls' Math Skills Equal To Boys', Study Finds." NPR. NPR, 24 July 2008. Web. 17 Mar. 2013.
Heyman, Gail D., Bryn Martyna, and Sangeeta Bhatia. "Gender and Achievement-Related Beliefs Among Engineering Students." Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering 8 (2002): 41-52. Print.
Kim, Susanna. "Lego Friends Triples Sales Despite Feminist Critique." ABC News. ABC News Network, 3 Sept. 2012. Web. 17 Mar. 2013.
LEGO. Advertisement. Decorating and Craft Idea 1981: n. pag. Print.
Marder, Jenny. "Why Engineering, Science Gender Gap Persists." PBS. PBS, 25 Apr. 2012. Web. 09 Feb. 2013.
Miller, Cynthia L. "Qualitative Differences among Gender-stereotyped Toys: Implications for Cognitive and Social Development in Girls and Boys." Sex Roles 16.9-10 (1987): 473-87. Print.
Mullis, Ronald L., and Doris M. Bornhoeft. "Sex-Role Orientation and Cognitive Functioning in Young Children." The Journal of Psychology 113.1 (1983): 17-23. Print.
Othman, Mazliza, and Rodziah Latih. "Women in Computer Science: No Shortage Here!" Communications of the ACM 49.3 (2006): 111-14. Print.
Rosser, Sue V., and Mark Zachary Taylor. "Why Are We Still Worried about Women in Science?" American Association of University Professors. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Mar. 2013.
Smith, Jacquelyn. "The 10 Hardest Jobs to Fill in America." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 29 May 2012. Web. 17 Mar. 2013.
"Think Again: Men and Women Share Cognitive Skills." APA.org. American Psychological Association, 18 Jan. 2006. Web. 17 Mar. 2013.
University of Wisconsin-Madison. Fostering Success for Women in Science and Engineering. N.p.: University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2010. Women in Science & Engineering Leadership Institute. Web. 17 Mar. 2013.
Wieners, Brad. "Lego Is for Girls." Bloomberg Businessweek. N.p., 14 Dec. 2012. Web. 13 Feb. 2013.
Wilson, Lauren. "GoldieBlox: A Construction Toy With a Story Line Builds Girls’ Interest in Engineering." AllThingsD. N.p., 19 Dec. 2012. Web. 17 Mar. 2013.
Yoder, Brian L. Engineering by the Numbers. Rep. American Society for Engineering Education, 2011. Web. 17 Mar. 2013.