Seriously, a Colby professor is upset about Legos?

Why doesn’t she get upset about Bratz dolls, which really do promote parties and clubbing with everything from seductive clothing to changing their face.

Can we look at the fact that Lego has introduced a product that shows that girls can go into construction? Craftsman came up with pink tools, where was the professor then?

The clothing industry dresses our little girls in seductive clothing, how about going after that industry? When is it ever appropriate for a young girl to wear a low-cut top? Isn’t that selling the thought that her body is only good for attracting attention and getting into clubs?

Any toy company that is willing to challenge the stereotypical “girl toys” is OK in my book.

We want to promote self-image, yet we allow photos of models to be airbrushed. These altered photos make it appear that if our daughters use a certain makeup they will look like these models when, in fact, unless they have a personal airbrush artist, they will never look like that.

There are so many places we could go with what companies do to promote the image that girls are good only for clubbing.

I looked at these girl Lego kits and was pleased that they were not Barbie doll-shaped and that they did look like girls. They did not look like the seductive dolls that were being sold next to them.

Girls look different from boys; that is just the way it is, and I for one am grateful for that.

Crystal Witham, Pittsfield

Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or to participate in the conversation. Here’s why.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.