Tattoo Who

I have no tattoos, and no plans to get any.  Yet, tattoos have become so common in our culture that I've asked myself what would I get.  I mean, what could there possibly be in the universe that is important enough to me that I would want to make a permanent commitment to it. (Why yes, I am single.)

I'm thinking about this because I saw something about a Walmart employee who got the Walmart logo tattooed on his arm.  You might laugh at him for that, but at least he's made a commitment to something that's important to him, which is more thought than usually goes into tattoos.  I'm not sure Walmart has as much commitment to him, but that could be part of his plan: it would be terrible publicity to lay-off the guy who got a company tattoo, so his job is safe.

Rarely have I ever felt that kind of unreserved belonging in a group.  And as I'm sure this blog has shown, I frequently end up disappointed in people and things.  I've never loved, say, a TV show enough to want to put it on my body.  Sports teams are out; I may allow them to play with my emotions, but I remind myself that they have no dedication to me.  Essentially, I treat them like cats.  I don't even feel a close enough affinity to a particular idea, as these people do with math. I had thought that the only thing I feel a complete love for is Lego, and now I see that they screwed over Ai Weiwei.

(Having said that, here are some Lego tattoos I just found.)

So that's it.  Unless I decide to just get a big question mark, I don't think I'll ever get a tattoo.  Or I'll just tell people that I got a tattoo of the blank space that represents my ultimate disappointment with modern society.

Lego My Intellectual Property

Here in Canada, we take pride in anyone who makes it big.  (Except Justin Bieber.)  All Canadians can rhyme off the names of Canadian celebrities.  Canadian business success stories are a bit harder to come by, but we do make a big deal if a Nortel or a Blackberry gets to the big time, and politely look the other way when they fall back down.

So from time to time, I've seen stories about the success of MegaBloks, the popular Lego alternative from Montreal.  But it's hard to feel good about a company that copied someone else's invention after the patents expired, then figured out how to make it slightly more cheaply.  They're the generic drug manufacturers of the toy world. It doesn't help that they're selling Call Of Duty sets, despite those games being recommended for ages 17 and up.

But now I find that MegaBloks isn't even the only Canadian Lego rip-off.  There's also Brictek.  How did that happen?  In addition to resource companies and short-lived technology giants, our other Canadian business cliché is plastic blocks.  But surely if you can build plastic blocks cheaply, you can build other small plastic things easily?

This is just so damn Canadian, being a distant anonymous second to the folks who got things started.  Okay, it's refreshing that we're copying the Danes, rather than the Americans.  But this year MegaBloks was bought by America's Mattel, completing this microcosm of stereotypical Canadian business.  You could at least get together with a chocolate maker and go after Kinder Eggs.

Girls' Friends

There's been some controversy over a new line of toys from Lego.  "Lego Friends," which is aimed at girls.  And they aren't the only ones: Even TinkerToy, which is even more abstract than Lego, has introduced a new line for girls.

This has a lot of people angry that they're reinforcing stereotypes.  Lego has always been a very gender-neutral toy, so the idea of femming-it-up seems gratuitous.  Personally, I don't like the idea. As a mild-mannered liberal male, I always liked Lego's abstract, androgynous, oh-so-Scandinavian style.

But, the people complaining about the new toys are off target.  Yes, there was a time when a mostly-male business might waste money on products that make little financial sense but reinforce their image of gender roles.  But in today's business climate where no belief is too sacred to be sacrificed for profit, I have no doubt they'd rather sell one product line to both genders.  Introducing a new line of toys is expensive. Aside from the cost of manufacturing new parts, there's the huge cost marketing a whole new brand.

If they are going to all that expense, it could only be because they know that's the only way to get at that market.  So don't get angry at the company; get angry at the parents who won't buy toys for their girls unless they're pink, flowery, and in the same aisle as Barbie.