<p>Has anyone seen this video for GoldiBlox? This is the toy I wish had been available for my girls. Neither ended up in engineering, but what an amazing toy that teaches young girls about engineering concepts. </p>
<p>[Move</a> Over, Barbie ? You?re Obsolete](<a href=“http://www.upworthy.com/move-over-barbie-8212-youre-obsolete]Move”>http://www.upworthy.com/move-over-barbie-8212-youre-obsolete)</p>
<p>Just bought two for Christmas for my 6 and 8 year old nieces. Thx for the link!</p>
<p>Well, as someone whose dad bought me an erector set at a very young age, GoldiBlox is just okay. I like K’nex better. Marble Raceway is fun too.</p>
<p>I really am prejudiced against boy/ girl themed toys.
If it is well designed, it can be played with by either sex.</p>
<p>As young ‘uns, my girls’ favorite toys were clearly girl-themed. Then in middle school, we got them tool belts (they were going on an away trip to repair homes.) Marked a real shift in their minds opening to not just what can be done with tools, but all the associated tasks about building, repair, planning and calculations, usefulness, etc. Pretty good tales, too. Would not have worked when younger, when they might have destroyed things in the house.</p>
<p>Gouf78, you were lucky! I like the link between the story and the building. My D would have loved that. Maybe even more than her American Girl doll and books.</p>
<p>I’m with EK. Girls’ toys shouldn’t have to be girl-themed to get their interest. Maybe because we both had D’s in the early 80s, before the pink-aisle ethos really took hold. My D played with construction sets. they didn’t come in girl or boy.</p>
<p>My D is 27 mos younger than oldest S. there was no shortage of building sets, tools, and trucks, but until Mc Donald’s put a bright purple hot wheels race car in her happy meal by mistake, she never paid much attention to the clearly intended for boys toys. The color grabbed her…actually made brother mad when she called it her pretty car! Lol. I guess I see nothing wrong with hooking the girls ( and parents) in by making building sets cute and pretty.</p>
<p>We let our girls picked out toys they liked and most of them were girl themed. When D1 was little, I was into the kick of not necessary dressing her like a girl all the time, but as she got older she just preferred prettier/girlier clothes. They liked legos, but they enjoyed polly pockets more. I wouldn’t have been opposed if they have liked GI Joe dolls, but I never pushed boy-themed toys on them. </p>
<p>My girls weren’t less accomplished in school because they were girlie girls. They didn’t shy away from math/science or male dominated professions because they preferred girl-themed toys/clothes. I think what’s more important is to make them feel secure/comfortable of who they are. I tell them that they can be feminine and smart at the same time.</p>
<p>I like that Goldiblox has a story. The girls that came to play dates with DS didn’t just want to play Lego out of the the plain box-they wanted a reason for building, a fantasy world to create. If this gets a girl to try building that would not have otherwise then I am all for it.</p>
<p>We have a huge workshop in the basement, one reason why we bought this house.
Weve only added to it in the three decades we’ve lived here. From the time they were tiny, they’ve had wood scraps to paint and glue and as soon as they were able, their own toolboxes& collection of hammers, saws & nails.</p>
<p>H made a childsize workbench before he made the child size kitchen.
We also had a huge assortment of items for dressup, but building your own forts and chariots is a wonderful way to express creativity.</p>
<p>We never did Montessori per se, but I didn’t ever find a need to buy toys that came with a prewritten story.( outsideofbooks & computer dvds) My kids had their own stories to tell.</p>
<p>^ yes. That.</p>
<p>Yep. Just googled it. Wikipedia says pink bricks introduced in 94. Before then, girls just played with Legos. after then, they became stuff to make dollhouses with. A step backward, I think.</p>
<p>I think it’s probably hard for those with younger D’s to imagine that in the 70s and 80s, the “pink aisle” really didn’t exist. I remember seeing it evolve (or devolve) and being sort of shocked.</p>
<p>A toy that really disrupted it, wouldn’t still assume that girls need a girls ghetto.</p>
<p>I think that the book tie-in is brilliant. I also like that the books come with problems to solve which can certainly stimulate thinking. </p>
<p>That’s also what I loved about the American Girl dolls - each one had a story line (with lots of history lessons included) and each doll had problems to solve.</p>
<p>My D loved reading…and did lots of her own story telling/writing. I think some of her creativity was sparked by what she read. Most of the time her stories were very girly, but at times she stepped out of the girl zone and wrote about more stereotypically masculine subjects. Encouraged it all. She still loved to play house, but had zero clue what the toy iron was. Tried to pour tea out of it and her pre k teacher about died laughing. So, I guess the pink toys and girly-girl gadgets didn’t totally “take”. LOL. Now she plays one of the most brutal sports and is entering a male dominated field…heaven help those poor men ;-)</p>
<p>Looks interesting. Our daughter had Legos, K’Nex (I liked these 
), an Erector Set which didn’t get a lot of use for some reason?, Marbleworks, Gearopolis, and a fun pink and lavender house or castle building set? with sort of waffle shaped pieces which, as it turns out, we passed on to a family with boys when she got older.</p>
<p>I bought toys in the 70s and 80s for myself, so I remember the Barbie aisle that was next to the doll aisle. I also had a hot pink race car and a girl version of the wind-up Evil Knievel. I also had a pink tool set (dad was a carpenter). I will admit to trading all building sets with the local boys for cash and candy.
I would like to see the demographic data on Lego showing how many more girls bought Lego sets after they started creating the pink ones.</p>
<p>When I was a kid, waaayy back, Legos were just legos. And blocks were blocks. They weren’t labeled girl or boy, so there was no reason girls needed them to be color-coded to entice them. For tht matter, they weren’t pre-designed kits back then. They were just stuff to make stuff out of. At the point they got masculinized, I do imagine some girls wouldn’t have been interested. But instead of emphasizing the binary split, it would be nice if we could go back to just toys for everyone.</p>
<p>Not that I think that can/will happen now.</p>
<p>Yep, my favorite toys back about 1965…Blocks, tinkertoys, Lincoln logs. Building was an expected part of play and growth. And there wasn’t a back story or a need for parent interaction, we were on our own. The toy being invented up thread, while clever, seems to need a parent and far too complex…just give them blocks .</p>
<p>My sister who is one of the most traditional women I know, & who went as far as to convert to the LDS church as a teen, bought buckets full of k- nex and legos for her kids. ( the regular ones) The girls ( who were the oldest) had the same opportunities and toys as the boys.</p>
<p>Ive never really thought about it in quite that way before, and while I was confused by her choice to lead a life that I see as dominated by masculine preferences, I see now that in her own way, she broke ground for her girls & by example, for her boys.</p>
<p>( perhaps it is relevant, but i have always disliked pink & both my sister & I were too old for the emphasis on pink & purple " as girl colors".
Pink used to be a " boy color" anyway.)</p>