If the alternatives are Hasbro and Mattel, I'm actually quite happy with Lego being so big.
As for the pink lego, there are balancing up and downsides there. I totally hate the gendered toy segregation, and Lego now goes along with it. But Lego didn't cause it, and by doing it too, they're probably getting more Lego in the hands of girls, which I consider a good thing.
So do something bad in order to achieve something good, or refuse the bad and thereby end up reinforcing it? By not having pink Lego, they'd unintentionally make Lego a boys-only toy. By making gender specific lego, they make lego a toy for everyone again (which it was before this stupid pink rash took over the toy industry).
As for the pink lego, there are balancing up and downsides there. I totally hate the gendered toy segregation, and Lego now goes along with it. But Lego didn't cause it, and by doing it too, they're probably getting more Lego in the hands of girls, which I consider a good thing.
So do something bad in order to achieve something good, or refuse the bad and thereby end up reinforcing it? By not having pink Lego, they'd unintentionally make Lego a boys-only toy. By making gender specific lego, they make lego a toy for everyone again (which it was before this stupid pink rash took over the toy industry).