Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

History of Feminism

Showing Original Post only (View all)

Tuesday Afternoon

(56,912 posts)
Wed Feb 12, 2014, 01:39 PM Feb 2014

The Little Girl from the 1981 LEGO Ad is All Grown Up, and She’s Got Something to Say [View all]



By Lori Day –

In mid-January, this article on The Huffington Post hit my Facebook newsfeed like a Justin Bieber deportation petition—it was everywhere. In it, HuffPost Family News Editor Jessica Samakow writes:

Pay attention, 2014 Mad Men: This little girl is holding a LEGO set. The LEGOs are not pink or “made for girls.” She isn’t even wearing pink. The copy is about “younger children” who “build for fun.” Not just “girls” who build. ALL KIDS. In an age when little girls and boys are treated as though they are two entirely different species by toy marketers, this 1981 ad for LEGO — one of our favorite images ever — issues an important reminder.

Something about this piece with the iconic 1981 ad tapped the zeitgeist and it became one of HuffPo’s more viral articles in recent memory, receiving over 60,000 shares. And along the way, the small world of Facebook led to a comment thread on my wall where someone, upon seeing the little red-haired girl holding her LEGOs, wrote, “Hey, I know her!” And now I do too, because that’s the serendipity of social media. Her name is Rachel Giordano, she is 37 years old, and she’s a practicing naturopathic doctor in Seattle, Washington. Giordano agreed to talk to me about her childhood and the ad, and to pose for a new Then & Now photo meme, which you see above in the lead image.

As I was planning my interview with Rachel Giordano, I saw this blog post by Achilles Effect, and knew immediately what Giordano should be holding in the new version of the photo. Enter the Heartlake City rolling beauty salon TV news van, one of the latest additions to the LEGO Friends line. Advertising copy lets us know what being a news anchor involves for minifig Emma:

“Break the big story of the world’s best cake with the Heartlake News Van! Find the cake and film it with the camera and then climb into the editing suite and get it ready for broadcast. Get Emma ready at the makeup table so she looks her best for the camera. Sit her at the news desk as Andrew films her talking about the cake story and then present the weather to the viewers.”

more at link:
http://www.womenyoushouldknow.net/little-girl-1981-lego-ad-grown-shes-got-something-say/

34 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Awesome! shenmue Feb 2014 #1
I refuse to buy 'girl' Legos for my granddaughter. Just the regular ones. sinkingfeeling Feb 2014 #2
Same for us. Our daughter all about Cars and Jake the Pirate Duplo blocks. kysrsoze Feb 2014 #9
best thing my parents did, and they were good, they raised us as people, not gender. seabeyond Feb 2014 #20
I can't even FIND "regular ones" any more! Xithras Feb 2014 #13
We are lucky here in Chicago mikeysnot Feb 2014 #16
Fabulous! And I do believe she's right. Kids haven't changed... Triana Feb 2014 #3
Different? reusrename Feb 2014 #4
? Bernardo de La Paz Feb 2014 #7
Sorry, it's from the ad. reusrename Feb 2014 #14
? Bernardo de La Paz Feb 2014 #17
That's it, the objectification in the new Lego campaign. reusrename Feb 2014 #23
Thanks. I agree with you about the objectificatiion in the new Lego object. Bernardo de La Paz Feb 2014 #24
Both the author and the subject seem very accomplished. reusrename Feb 2014 #25
Actually LEGO had been using gender specific marketing before this as well. progressoid Feb 2014 #5
they are not color coordinated though, ya, get your point. why would we become MORE seabeyond Feb 2014 #21
Agreed. It's much more extreme. progressoid Feb 2014 #27
In The Fifties "engineering" for kids was a non color issue grilled onions Feb 2014 #6
Amen. Hope it goes back to that. kysrsoze Feb 2014 #10
i was so excited to find the old lincoln logs and got for 4 yr old nephew. seabeyond Feb 2014 #22
hate to crash the party, but i can't read this site from my college campus alp227 Feb 2014 #8
Thanks for the warning. I am scanning my computer right now. JDPriestly Feb 2014 #12
scanned that URL, no problems. alp227 Feb 2014 #19
I scanned too and it was fine. JDPriestly Feb 2014 #26
What is this with all these pink toys for girls? JDPriestly Feb 2014 #11
Not only is the "girl's Lego" demeaning in color and horrific glowing Feb 2014 #15
made it to here, full stop seabeyond Feb 2014 #18
The same holds true for boys BrotherIvan Feb 2014 #28
i can't stand it when people tell a boy "that's for girls" JI7 Feb 2014 #29
My 23 year old son still enjoys pedis and sparkly pink toenails. JTFrog Feb 2014 #30
Nice! ismnotwasm Feb 2014 #32
I totally agree BrotherIvan Feb 2014 #33
Legos ismnotwasm Feb 2014 #31
As a parent, I find this gendering of toys as disturbing as well Nikia Feb 2014 #34
Latest Discussions»Alliance Forums»History of Feminism»The Little Girl from the ...»Reply #0