Minifigs, mini-dolls and my stubborn nostalgia

I was flipping through the new LEGO catalogue the other day (because what I really need is more LEGOs!) and I was thinking back to this post, where one commenter wrote, “the City line, at least, is moving nicely towards gender equality – at least one of every set of firefighters will have a traditionally feminine head with lipstick, for example.” I have also found this to be true in other lines of the LEGO products. For instance, I have a lady astronaut minifig (who apparently wears make up in space). Out of curiosity, I counted the minifigs included in the four new LEGO City sets featured in the current catalogue. Out of 17 minifigs included in these four sets only 4 are female. Not the equality I was looking for. This is obviously not a scientific experiment, just my impressions of what I’m seeing in the catalog. One of the new sets, Artic Helicrane, includes both a male and a female in a traditionally male occupation similar to the above commenter’s reference to firefighters. So, that is happening. I suppose we are plodding along toward gender equality in LEGO. 

Along the lines of LEGO featuring females in traditionally male jobs, the new LEGO Friends lines are suddenly doing a pretty good job of putting women in traditionally male roles. I have briefly mentioned the LEGO Friends Jungle Rescue Base in the past. I like the Jungle Rescue Base set better than many of the other LEGO Friends sets, although this set is also a little weird: it somewhat inexplicably includes a water park twisty slide to help the mini-dolls rescue the animals. (I really, really hate the whole mini-doll concept, but more on that later). The First Aid Jungle Bike set features a motorbike with a detachable side care, driven by Emma. The Jungle Bridge Rescue features a helicopter, piloted by Mia.

And, then there was Matthew.

Matthew, included in the Jungle Bridge Rescue set, stumped me. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for seeing gender equality in the Friends sets, too, but I had just never noticed a male mini-doll before. (I’ll admit I must not have been paying attention, because Matthew is not new.) Granted, I don’t love the LEGO Friends sets in general, and I in particular hate the concept of the mini-doll but, if mini-dolls are going to exist, then I would like to see gender equality in the pink aisle, as well. According to this site, the LEGO mini-doll line up consists of 21 mini-doll characters, with 3 of them male. So, the ratio here is a little worse than my random (and not at all scientific) sampling of the City sets.

But, still Matthew bothered me. It took me a while before I could get at why he was bothering me. I think for me it comes down to a sense that these mini-dolls create a bigger divide between the more traditional City sets and the Friends sets than I had previously thought. That is, you can take a set from each line and dump them together. The bricks are interchangeable and only the colors vary. But, the mini-dolls don’t fit the spirit of interchangeability. I mean, sure you can mix them together and have the mini-dolls go play in the City, but they are different. Maybe it’s just my own stubborn nostalgia, but the mini-dolls make the set feel somewhat less LEGO.

This super cute blog demonstrates the frustration with having separate minifigs and mini-dolls. (Many of the comments in the blog describe the mini-dolls as creepy, so I guess I’m not the only one who feels this way.) The site even offers printable decals so you can recreate the mini-dolls as minifigs. Cute idea; I just wish they had simply stuck with minifigs.

After analyzing this month’s LEGO catalogue, I feel we have taken two steps forward only to take one step back. I see a slow, slow creep into gender equality, but it needs to happen with both lines.

(At least I didn’t buy any new LEGO sets this time.)