Not to mention there's the whole "if you remove the feature, how will they ever learn about it" factor .. just plain sexist, imho.
A better, more "pro-girl" approach would be to include the feature and let girls figure out for themselves, if they like it. Also, the boys who might play with these same toys.
It probably had nothing to do with sexism per se; rather it probably was a business call made by people who suspected that while some percentage of girls would like that feature, a certain percentage of parents wouldn't find that feature appropriate or scary or simply not something they would consider as suitable for a toy. These people are paid to know their target demographic and to make choices that maximize profit for any given product.
Their assumptions might be rooted in sexism, but I suspect that most of their frame of reference consists of simply knowing how parents and relatives view these products, their sexist attitudes included. That is to say, if these people suspect that a significant percentage parents want to stimulate exact thinking and problem solving skills in their girls, they will translate that to market decisions (which is slowly happening now).
Maximising profit is not a neutral decision even if it has neutral intentions.
Complaining that for profit companies maximize profit makes about as much sense as complaining great white sharks eat meat. Both do what they were evolved for, both die rather quickly if they don't.
Perhaps we shouldn't put great white sharks in petting zoos. Perhaps we shouldn't put our children's well being into the hands of for profit companies.
You might want to look up "social market economy"[1] and what social democracies in Europe think about the social responsibilities of companies (i.e. that they have those in the first place). I know these are foreign concepts in the US but it's what powers the famous German Mittelstand and our economic stability (though at the cost of missing out on some of the rapid growth possible in the US).
There was no lego for girls, most sets were clearly for boys (via colors and such) and then they made it and it suddenly drove sales big time. It is fair guess that same sets would sell even sooner.
> a certain percentage of parents wouldn't find that feature appropriate or scary or simply not something they would consider as suitable for a toy.
This is true. Large percentage of toy buyers actually, most toys are bought by more distant relatives and friends who prefer to follow all social expectations and wont buy what is not appropriate for gender. Not because they would be evil, but because basically just want to be done with selection quickly and simply and then go their way.
It is quite common to hear about sexism in the tech industry (especially here), but sexism in the toy industry is where it all starts.
Growing up in the 80's there was a lot of ads for e.g. chemistry sets that at least allowed for some proper experiments advertised even in comics books targeting relatively small children (I grew up in Norway; I remember ads like that even from comics like Donald Duck & Co which mostly targeted pre-teens), but I instead got handed my dads set from when he was growing up in the 60's, with full set of suitable glass ware, and the books he had, which outlined full sets of experiments "for young boys" that included making gunpowder and assorted proper fireworks, and stuff that included (genuine) warnings of what to avoid to prevent the experiment from exploding.
Nothing outrageously dangerous, but some of them were the kind of things you might expect the teacher to demonstrate in a high-school science class with appropriate care and safety equipment, rather than the kind of stuff you'd even in the 80's expect a hobby chemistry set to actively encourage the way the 60's books did.
And indeed, my main limiting factor in carrying out many of the experiments was that in the intervening years it had become a lot harder to buy a lot of the chemicals listed without being 18 or buying via a business. Though there were still other fun things to do with them. For example, I did find it very amusing when I managed to add a layer of lead to one of my moms silver spoons via electrolysis (the books did have appropriate warnings, so I did know that continuing to use said spoon afterwards would not have been a particularly good idea; but not sufficient warnings to make me consider that perhaps I shouldn't have used the silverware) - my mom was less amused.
Move forward to today, and the 80's children's chemistry sets looks fantastic compared to most of the stuff on sale.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_U-238_Atomic_Energy_La...
--"Not until you break the cipher!"
I think the question is whether it was seemed to "cross over" into "spy gear" - while secret diaries are very much a "girly" toy category, spy gear is very much focused at boys.
Nowadays, adding a not-so-secret feature could be used to generate buzz.
My daughter just turned 1, and I'm super duper excited to see this as well. And if we can't find the kind of toy we want, we'll make it.
Back in elementary, my friends and I had an entire word replacement bank to talk about crushes, teachers, etc. in code. Later on, we would constantly make new pigpen ciphers. Isn't it a stereotype that girls love secrets?
Toys aimed toward girls have been steadily improving. I have noticed a great rise particularly in STEM-focused toys and I am excited (and jealous) to see with what the next generation will grow up.