Legos, spaceships, breasts.

I don't understand what we should be 'pissed' at.<p>From a previous article when 'girl Lego' was announced: <i>"The company embedded researchers with families around the world, to shadow girls and boys and watch how they play. Based on this research, it came up with Lego Friends, a line that features five characters with back stories similar to those of the wildly popular American Girl dolls.</i>"[1]<p>Lego did some actual <i>research</i> and is making something that fits the market as it is today. Who should we be pissed at and why?<p>[1] <a href="http://www.npr.org/2011/12/15/143724644/ith-new-toys-lego-hopes-to-build-girls-market" rel="nofollow">http://www.npr.org/2011/12/15/143724644/ith-new-toys-lego-ho...</a>

There is a bigger picture problem here. With the move to cross licensing movie tie in Lego sets, many kids only experience of Lego is building Pirates of the Caribean pirate ships, instead of the more engineering focused experiences. What I'm saying is, even Lego isn't Lego anymore (to a large degree).

Here is a question I don't quite understand. We are supposed to "get pissed" because some children are allowed/encouraged to play with a simpler lego toy that emphasizes fashion and beauty.<p>Is it wrong to allow/encourage a child to develop an interest in fashion and beauty?<p>I wish the authors of articles like this would state exactly what moral principle they believe is violated.

There's nothing keeping parents from buying the more elaborate LEGO set for their daughters.

Unfortunately i lost her at Legos. It is LEGO or Lego or lego. There is no plural form of LEGO.