LEGO has been around longer than Kim Kardashian but critics are suggesting the company is doing more damage to little girls’ minds than the nuptially-challenged, sex-tape-making reality star.
Seriously? Is that even possible?

IF THIS OFFENDS YOU.. GOOD! IT SHOULD! OUR DAUGHTERS LOOK UP TO THIS HOSEBAG!
Here’s the problem in a nutshell..
- 1932: Ole Kirk Christiansen, a toy maker from Billund, Denmark sets out to entertain children everywhere – and to avoid starvation.
- 1934: his company comes to be called “LEGO”, from the Danish phrase leg godt, which means “play-well”.
- 1947: The company expanded to producing plastic toys
- 1949: Lego began producing the now famous interlocking bricks, calling them “Automatic Binding Bricks”. These bricks were based largely on the patent of Kiddicraft Self-Locking Bricks, which were released in the United Kingdom in 1947. No wonder I’ve never heard of Kiddicraft. Beware of imitators kids; if they can up the ante on you, you’re dead!
Fast forward to the here and now – I’m skipping A LOT I know, but we have to get to the point sometime – and the world has changed. As a company LEGO is a powerhouse; largely due to their Star Wars playsets. But they’ve always been missing a MAJOR segment of the market.
Namely, those with two “X” chromosomes.

A petition on the website Change.org, started by Bailey Shoemaker Richards and Stephanie Cole of the SPARK Movement, a girl-fueled activist movement to demand an end to the sexualization of women and girls in media, condemned the sets and claimed that LEGO was “selling out to girls.” So far more than 36,000 people have signed the petition.
Selling out? How does a company sellout? They’re in business to make money, people!
I understand the concerns being voiced here
-
LEGO Friends features five revamped Lego figurines – complete with budding bosoms and online personalities.
-
The playsets include an inventor’s workshop and a design school alongside a bakery and a pool, something critics suggest give in to gender stereotypes and aren’t as construction focused.
-
Half the fun of LEGO is the construction phase, which kids fully control – you can build ANYTHING your mind can conceive – but the new sets feature pre-assembled components.
This entire situation may indeed be a non-issue; how much harm can these toys do compared to “role models” like Kardashian and her brain-damaged family? Then again, I’m hardly qualified to assess the long-term effects, if any, of these toys.
Approaching this issue as a male, I can only offer views based on my own experiences; I spent hours playing with LEGO but that’s because I had to actually build my creations! Kids – regardless of gender – need constant mental stimulation and LEGO can provide that.
Old school LEGO, that is.

Related articles
- Hey Anti-Lego Feminists, Lego For Girls Actually Kicks Ass (gizmodo.com.au)
- Are the New LEGO Friends for Girls Sexist? (inhabitat.com)
- Lego Marvel makes minifigs of The Avengers movie (pocket-lint.com)














#171: The Devolution of the Sex Symbol.
We should all be ashamed of ourselves.
We need to expect more from the people we lust after and adore.
Once upon a time, being a sex symbol meant something; it was a true acknowledgment of one’s attractiveness to the world at-large. If you found yourself to be so blessed as to be elevated to this pinnacle of humanity, you had to conduct yourself accordingly.
Not these days. Just look at where we used to be and where we’ve wound up…
RITA HAYWORTH. Go hit Wikipedia, kids!
A “Classy” Megan Fox pose…
But that’s not what we’re used to, is it? How about this one instead…
I LOVE THE INTERNET…
Can you imagine Rita Hayworth selling Converse Chuck Taylor All Star Canvas High Top White Sneakers – had they existed in the 1940s, that is – in such a “reserved” (Gotta love sarcasm, right?) manner? What about a little something closer to the here and now; Farrah Fawcett‘s classic poster…
And Christina Applegate‘s entry to the annals of poster history, circa her Married With Children days…
To her credit, Applegate has always managed to keep her image clean, something most teenage boys could never say of their copies of this poster! There have always been sex symbols willing to display a harder edge. Just look at Jane Russell - she got your Grandpa’s motor racin’ in the 1940s and 1950s, kids – and her “bad girl” look…
I HAVE TO ADMIT, SHE SCARES ME A LITTLE…
And finally, the person most responsible for the devolution of the term “sex symbol” in our modern-age…
KIM KARDASHIAN’S LATE FATHER HAS TO HAVE SPUN HIMSELF OUT OF HIS GRAVE BY NOW!
One could argue the modern media is to blame for our current climate of low standards of public image for female personalities, although the paparazzi existed in the Golden Age of Hollywood and you still didn’t see the same level of promiscuity in ads and posters, etc.
No, we’ve become hungry for lewd images and incredibly lax standards for advertisers. Our willingness to sit idly by – and in some cases, encourage this behavior by buying the resulting products – has resulted in a modern-day sex symbol who is both mainstream and fringe all at once. Kim Kardashian and her douchebag predecessor Paris Hilton have both used sex tapes as marketing tools, successfully so.
I just wish we had kept softcore porn and the mainstream world separated, just as they used to be. There have always been other avenues open to those souls hungry to satisfy their lustful urges. In my day, it was the Sports illustrated Swimsuit Edition, your Mom’s Cosmo or the Sears catalogue. Nowadays kids can surf the web from the comfort of their room (Of course, the door doesn’t lock, but you can’t have everything, right?) and cut right to the chase.
And that’s my point – finally – sex symbols used to leave you wanting more. Now? I can see Kim Kardashian engaged in full-blown – pun intended – porno mode.
In closing, I’d like to publicly say that I’m more than a little afraid of what the future is going to hold for sex symbols everywhere. The days of seduction and class are loooong gone.
I don’t know what tomorrow holds, but it’s a safe bet it’ll be x-rated.
→ 29 Comments
Posted in Editorial, Entertainment, Humor, Life, Postaweek2012, Reality TV, Social Commentary, Television, Terrible Things, Uncategorized
Tagged Christina Applegate, Farrah Fawcett, Hollywood, Jane Russell, Kim Kardashian, Megan Fox, Rita Hayworth, Sex symbol, Sexuality