Because you ~entertain me~, you deserve all this money?
Because you feed my escapist fantasies, I should just blindly give you my hard-earned money so you can continue living the high-life while I get to ~live vicariously~ through you?
I’m sorry, but entertainment is a luxury. It is… at least in the sense that people lived happy and fulfilled lives long before the advent of Hollywood or sports or any of that mess. Every age had it’s big entertainment thing, but the difference is that the further we go back, the closer to ‘real life’ those entertainers were. From the gladiators in the coliseum to the stars of Vaudeville and beyond… At least there was a grounding then.
Now, everybody allows this shit to go on because, secretly, they think they can have it one day too. Cue the never-ending litany of one-hit wonders…
No, I don’t think that what entertainers do is not important or worthy of praise and payment, but I’ll definitely agree that their worth and price are much too high for what it is they actually do.
Recently, a concerned parent and blogger reported that the LEGO Club magazines that had previously been delivered to her and her daughter had been replaced by a very different kind of magazine. LEGO Club Girls is a pastel-coloured, less-interesting version of the original developed around sorely misinformed ideas of what girls like. An online sample from the LEGO website reveals that the original magazine included things like comic strips involving knights and kings, a how-to guide on building LEGO boats and a surfing themed colouring activity. The new LEGO Club Girls magazine, the blogger reports, features comic strips with the new LEGO Friends characters going to a café (yawn) and instead of a surfing themed activity, there’s an activity centred around a lost puppy (double yawn).
Most strikingly of all, there are no building instructions in this version of the magazine. Why not? It certainly wouldn’t have to do with the fact that LEGO thinks girls don’t like building things or aren’t meant to build things; maybe LEGO just couldn’t think of a girly enough thing for girls to build. What would a girl build anyway? Lipstick? A training bra? A tutu? Are there tulle and chiffon LEGO bricks in the works for the next set of girl mini-figures?
If you happened to check “girl” upon signing up for LEGO Club but don’t want to automatically be switched over to a “girlier” LEGO Club magazine, don’t worry! They want you to know that you can opt out and re-subscribe to the “regular” version. Really, LEGO? The message here is loud and clear. There’s girls stuff, like puppies and beauty shops and pink things, and there’s boy stuff, or what LEGO might call “regular” stuff; you know, stuff that forces you to use your imagination and takes you on adventures and has characters with more developed personalities than all the lady LEGO Friends combined!
I’m so torn. I’ve been a lifelong fan of Lego and I actually like what society has deemed typically feminine things, like fashion and pet care and such.
This isn’t the first time Lego has had a ‘female specific’ toy line. Anybody remember Belville?
I think this new line is cute… it reminds me of Polly Pocket. Old-school Polly Pocket, not the current iteration. But the message this sends is infuriating and it breaks my heart that stuff like that continues to happen. Like, why can’t “Lego Friends” be included in the already-existent magazine?
Why do girls continue to get treated like they’re something ‘OTHER’ than? Like girls and women are some subspecies or separate group. Females are PEOPLE. Males are people. Non-binary folk are people. Gender is mostly a social construct. It’s a personal exhibition of truth derived from our environment, what we feel about it, and how we feel about ourselves. The fact that in 2012 the ludicrous binary continues to be exploited to the detriment of people outside of perceived gender norms KILLS me.
So, I like the character designs. I like the idea of ‘cute and girly’ Lego sets just for the added diversity and the option it gives some child who may be interested in that (like the kind of kid I was). I do NOT like that girls are seen as ‘less than’ and ‘others’ and that Lego presumptuously just sends the less involved version of the magazine to girls if they identify themselves as such… and that that magazine doesn’t have the same kind of content as the ‘regular/boy’s’ version does.