Ashley A. encouraged us to post on the recent make-over recieved by the board game, Risk. Enjoy our post below, or read hers here.
Risk is a board game in which each player tries to dominate the world.
“Destroy your rivals! Bring your foes to their knees…”
With the make-over, Hasbro has made it quite clear that their board game is for men.
“Man up!” “Are you man enough?”
The instructions in this card suggest that other players call you “sir.”
Ashley made a nice point:
…I feel like, as a woman, new Risk doesn’t even want my business… A game like Risk is right up my alley! But apparently Hasbro (Now with more ‘bro!’) doesn’t feel that women are worth trying to market Risk to.
FIRST UPDATE! Julie C. sent us an email to tell us that, after she read our post, she went to the website and played “Risk Factor,” which she describes as “…an interactive game, where the objective is to do manly things in order to gain manliness points.”
Just to make this explicit, the online Risk game isn’t about world domination, it’s about being manly… including, as you’ll see below, doing hot chicks.
The game begins with this warning:
It reads:
WARNING:
Grab your shoes and pull up your panties, your manliness is about to be tested!
All content beyond this point is not approved by your mama, unless you’re over 18, of course…
Here’s what she discovered:
First of all, you have to choose a nickname. I tried a series of names: “Fred”, “Thomas” and “Patrick” went through fine, but if I tried “Melissa” “Jessica” or “Natasha”, the system wouldn’t accept them, and I was told to “Keep it clean, please.”
It’s true! I tried “Lisa” and that’s exactly what it said.
If you don’t choose a nickname yourself, the system will assign you one. I suppose they are meant to be humiliating names: I got “Bubbles”, “Cupcake”, “Jelly belly”, “Violet” and “Daisy”.
The game platform is a floating island, full of clickable objects. Among them: a facial hair selector, a chainsaw, a TV which exclusively plays footage of girls dancing in a club, a giant finger to pull (which emits gas), etc.
It also offers a “wife button”, presumably to be used in case your wife walks in the computer room while you are playing this game, which links to a fake online jewelry store.
(It also offers a “boss button” which links to what looks like an excel document).
There is a cell phone, on which the message reads: “Warrior spirit. Strategic genius. The pride of victory. All things you lack. You came, you played, you lost. You cried like a little girl howling for her favorite pink dress on party day. You now wear the tutu of shame, and your plastic tiara announces to all your place in the world. (…)”
Here is the text to the “Stud Challenge”:
It reads:
The night is still young and courage runs high in the club–but you have them all trumped. You just got paid today, your landlord lowered your rent, and the tests came back negative. You ROCK!
This is your night and some dude just started butchering “Stairway to Heaven” on the Karaoke machine. You’ve never looked cooler. You notice three hot babes alone at a table whispering and giggling at the rock star wannabe. The day has been too good to just sit around and you want to celebrate–but not alone. Now’s your chance, get up, get over there and work your magic on those honeys!
Um, yeah, the new Risk. There you have it.
Thanks for doing all that detective work, Julie C.!
SECOND UPDATE! In our comments, Anne-Marie tells of a letter she wrote to Hasbro and the response she got. She wrote:
I am a woman; I also like playing Risk. However, I can guarantee I will not be purchasing your new version. “ARE YOU MAN ENOUGH,” and, “demand that all of the losing players call you ’sir,’” do not apply to me. “Keep it clean, please,” should not be a response to inputting names like Lisa, Natasha, Melissa and Jessica (Fred, Thomas and Patrick, however, work fine). I do not need a wife button nor would I care so deeply that my significant other was playing a game that I would need to placated with jewelry. This whole game is just insulting.
Hasbro replied:
Thank you for contacting Hasbro regarding the new version of Risk; we appreciate the opportunity to address your concerns.
Hasbro prides itself on its excellent reputation in the toy and game industry based on years of experience in planning, designing and constructing safe, dependable toys and games. We created the Risk website as a tongue-in-cheek satire about “manliness,” in reference to the fact that Risk has typically been a male right of passage. We do know and love the fact that there are female Risk players (the site was actually created by a woman) and thought they might enjoy the site as well. It was not meant to be taken seriously and certainly not intended to leave anyone out.
Our sincere apologies if you were offended; your comments have been forwarded to our senior management and marketing team for future consideration.
29 Comments
My sister and I played Risk like CRAZY when we were kids. This sucks.
I’m sad that they’re abandoning the Napoleonic-era design, but what bugs me the most is that they’re calling the game “Black Ops.” Since I doubt the game calls for covertly selling weapons to paramilitary groups, making dissidents “disappear” to faraway secret prisons or destabilizing democratic regimes of the wrong sort, I wonder what the hell were the makers thinking.
Hasbro (Now with more ‘bro!’)
This person has a future in marketing.
Aww…but I love Risk! And I’m not a man! Booo…
Some science fiction shows have everyone called ’sir’. It makes some sense - you don’t always have time to identify the gender of somebody giving you an order in a combat situation and getting it wrong could be distracting and cause confusion. Perhaps a neutral word should have been chosen, but that road leads to the really bad fiction where the snergelficks (kids) are always humbric (indifferent) to their gargleflicks’ (parents) parcheesis (opinions) of their lexoflicks (girlfriends/boyfriends).
Of course that doesn’t change the fact that we don’t do that in the English-speaking world today. (There might be a few exceptions.)
…I’m pretty sure the “sir” part isn’t the main objection. I would have no problem being called “sir” as a woman in a military setting (better than “miss”!), but being asked if I’m “man enough” is dumb ’cause there *are* gender neutral alternatives to that, the game makers just don’t care enough to use them.
I’ve never played RISK, but I certainly wouldn’t buy it (or buy it as a gift for a male friend or relation) based on this packaging.
In response to Anonymous - I was also reminded of SF in which any military officer is called “sir”, regardless of gender (such as Elizabeth Moon’s “Serrano Legacy” books). But there are neutral alternatives. In Lois McMaster Bujold’s military SF, “sir” is only used in male-only forces; in mixed forces, officers are addressed by their rank.
This is probably an attempt to get Risk selling again to the market that is likely purchasing more console and PC games and less board games: teenage/20-something men. Now it’s more EXTREME! Of course, extreme sells. Or so marketing divisions of gaming companies tend to believe, causing much embarrassment for the public which would rather not be told to “man up” when playing a friendly game of world domination.
Risk is a pretty bad board game to begin with, although it does beat Monopoly at least. On the bright side, perhaps if this turns enough people off Hasbro, they’ll start looking at more sophisticated American and European board games.
I’m sure it’s not their attempt to alienate female customers.
this game is a slow game in some circle and they are only trying to win people over. they have to compete for the gamer world that is predominantly male. this is a way to get some guys off the playstaion. This is coming from a lot of my guy friends are playing (x box/playstatons) games right now, not board games. lol
As a female I don’t think this game is over looking me. why can’t I by a game that says man? or is a boy’s toy? I don’t care if its male or female if it’s a product I want something I will get the better one no matter if it’s for a male or female. heck I just bought the male razors because the razors were cheaper than the women. how the heck does pink make a razor more expensive?
I’m sure it’s not their attempt to alienate female customers.
this game is a slow game in some circle and they are only trying to win people over.
They don’t care about failing to market to women, they’re too busy marketing to “people”!
Has anyone played the online interactive game they have on the Risk website, “The Risk Factor”? It’s definitely worth a look…
I expect that Risk usually has been approached as more of a (big) boys game.
But that packaging and marketing reinforces those gender divisions.
I work as a game designer and the gender stereotypes really restrict what can be done in this industry. In a game you can do anything, absolutely anything - you can build a whole world with interesting things to do in it (without any violence).
Instead it is considered that what a man would like to play is to be part of a battle, a war; and it’s also considered that the market is predominantly male. On the other hand, if what I wanted to do is exactly a war game, it’s not considered that I may like to market it to female players.
Wow–this is pretty f’ed up. Not only do I love playing Risk, but I always felt like it tended to attract thoughtful, intelligent, sorta geeky players (of all genders)–not the aggro, overcompensating manly man demographic they’re going for here. I can easily imagine men who don’t fit into whatever narrow demographic they’re aiming for being pissed off by this marketing as well.
I think that it rejects any name ending in the letter A… I tried both male and female names, and there seemed to be a pattern. It accepted my name though.
email them to complain here:
http://hasbro.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/hasbro.cfg/php/enduser/ask.php?p_sid=xNTCZdkj&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPSZwX3NvcnRfYnk9JnBfZ3JpZHNvcnQ9JnBfcm93X2NudD01MDMmcF9wcm9kcz0mcF9jYXRzPSZwX3B2PSZwX2N2PSZwX3NlYXJjaF90eXBlPWFuc3dlcnMuc2VhcmNoX25sJnBfcGFnZT0x
I agree with Cedar- it never occurred to me to associate Risk with macho-warmongering style gameplay. It has always been my favorite game, and I spent many happy hours as a gradeschool and college aged kid playing it (with friends of both the male and female persuasion!). I can’t even get my boyfriend to play it with me now so it’s been a while since I was able to indulge. Good thing I still have an old style edition, for when I finally find someone to play with again.
I was sufficiently disturbed by this that I sent the following message to their customer service:
“”"
Subject: Apparently-misogynistic new Risk marketing
As a man who has enjoyed the Risk boardgame for a good bit of my life, I’d just like to say that I am disappointed with what seems to be gratuitous misogyny in the new branding and marketing strategy of Risk. “Are you man enough?” Really? I understand you’re trying to market the game to a young, fresh audience, but I’m not convinced that playing to these sorts of stereotypes is a reasonable way to do that.
I certainly don’t intend to avoid playing Risk, or even take a dislike to Hasbro, over this — one incident isn’t enough to reverse a lifetime of goodwill. But I see it as shortsighted and thoughtless to take what is to me one of the great modern strategy boardgames, and market it as FOR REAL MEN ONLY, grunt grunt.
Just my two cents.
Glenn Willen
“”"
I’ll let you know if I get a response. I would also encourage anyone else who thinks they have thoughtful feedback to send Hasbro a polite email. These things do make a difference.
Glenn–
I similarly sent a long, detailed, polite email to Hasbro decrying their sexist revamp of an old favorite.
My problem here is not that it’s not marketed to women (I personally am highly offended by most things that are, as they usually are pink and have to do with babies and ponies) but that it’s marketed to such a sexist stereotypical “man” audience. This trope isn’t fair to men or women, houses damaging ideals (that to be a man, you have to inflict violence, make conquests, and subjugate and/or seduce women) and that anything to do with women is somehow weak and wrong. The ‘panties’ line really made me steam. If they’re trying to reach the young, “Gears of War”-playing audience, why could they not simply pump up the ideals of conquest and strength without gendering it so heavily, and stuffing it into that tiny box of what they consider “masculinity”? Why is being womanish bad or weak?
I’m pretty sure I deal with more physical pain per month than any man I know who’s not a self mutilator, just due to my biological cycles. Also, I camp and hike as a hobby, and operate large, heavy printing presses nearly every day (intaglio and litho, not digital). But I am a woman, so still I am weak?
This is the sort of thing that made me so uncomfortable with my gender as a child. I kept being told what I could or could not like, wear, and think. By companies, by adults, by other children.
Gender policing of this variety is simply disgusting.
Agreed, moving on to foreign games more heavily and boycotting Hasbro. Barbie was bad enough…
Sounds good to me. I don’t know what you LADIES are complaining about. Man up.
I wonder if it would be equally acceptable if the ad campaign was “Are you white enough”
Just another step towards making sexism socially acceptable again….
My reply to Hasbro:
“Thoughts about the new marketing line:
1. Is it necessary to so obviously market exclusively to men? After-shave, maybe, but a boardgame??
2. This is not only alienating women (obviously not worth a thought to whoever came up with this marketing strategy), but also men who do not fully subscribe to the tough/macho-image portrayed.
3. Is this sexism and degradation of women the right message from an all-time favourite boardgame that is enjoyed by men and women of all ages (including wives and mamas)? Are you sure this marketing is not doing you more damage than good?
4. Does it make sense to market “Risk” like a first-person-shooter computer game? Whoever does not know the game will be terribly misled and disappointed with the lack of Action and “Manliness” in the actual gameplay. Risk is a classic, it does not need compete with (by definition) more action loaded computer games.
5. Yes, it IS offensive to have your own name rejected in the online game.
Just thought that might be food for thought…
Thoughts about the new marketing line:
1. Is it necessary to so obviously market exclusively to men? After-shave, maybe, but a boardgame??
2. This is not only alienating women (obviously not worth a thought to whoever came up with this marketing strategy), but also men who do not fully subscribe to the tough/macho-image portrayed.
3. Is this sexism and degradation of women the right message from an all-time favourite boardgame that is enjoyed by men and women of all ages (including wives and mamas)? Are you sure this marketing is not doing you more damage than good?
4. Does it make sense to market “Risk” like a first-person-shooter computer game? Whoever does not know the game will be terribly misled and disappointed with the lack of Action and “Manliness” in the actual gameplay. Risk is a classic, it does not need compete with (by definition) more action loaded computer games.
5. Yes, it IS offensive to have your own name rejected in the online game.
Just thought that might be food for thought…
Sincerely, A. “Keep it clean, please” W.”
wow - thanks for showing this to us! As a man, this version of “Risk” does not appeal to me.
I loved the game as a kid - played it all the time. But the sexism/misogyny and homophobia are a real turnoff.
But what all of us Real Men want to know is, if I play this game and win, will my penis get bigger?
I e-mailed them this:
I am a woman; I also like playing Risk. However, I can guarantee I will not be purchasing your new version. “ARE YOU MAN ENOUGH,” and, “demand that all of the losing players call you ’sir,’” do not apply to me. “Keep it clean, please,” should not be a response to inputting names like Lisa, Natasha, Melissa and Jessica (Fred, Thomas and Patrick, however, work fine). I do not need a wife button nor would I care so deeply that my significant other was playing a game that I would need to placated with jewelry. This whole game is just insulting.
They said:
Thank you for contacting Hasbro regarding the new version of Risk; we appreciate the opportunity to address your concerns.
Hasbro prides itself on its excellent reputation in the toy and game industry based on years of experience in planning, designing and constructing safe, dependable toys and games. We created the Risk website as a tongue-in-cheek satire about “manliness,” in reference to the fact that Risk has typically been a male right of passage. We do know and love the fact that there are female Risk players (the site was actually created by a woman) and thought they might enjoy the site as well. It was not meant to be taken seriously and certainly not intended to leave anyone out.
Our sincere apologies if you were offended; your comments have been forwarded to our senior management and marketing team for future consideration.
So I have a response to the email I sent them, which was calm but touched upon many of the points discussed here, plus a few others. Here was my response from Hasbro:
“Dear Lisa,
Thank you for contacting Hasbro regarding the new version of Risk; we appreciate the opportunity to address your concerns.
Hasbro prides itself on its excellent reputation in the toy and game industry based on years of experience in planning, designing and constructing safe, dependable toys and games. We created the Risk website as a tongue-in-cheek satire about “manliness,” in reference to the fact that Risk has typically been a male right of passage. We do know and love the fact that there are female Risk players (the site was actually created by a woman) and thought they might enjoy the site as well. It was not meant to be taken seriously and certainly not intended to leave anyone out.
Our sincere apologies if you were offended; your comments have been forwarded to our senior management and marketing team for future consideration.”
My thoughts:
1. The word ’satire’ doesn’t automatically make things better. Neither does the fact that “a woman suggested it” (the latter being an excuse I hear all the time. Somehow, if a woman suggests something, promotes, etc., this makes it acceptable to all women. See the post with the “battered women” t-shirts, worn by coy-looking female models. That’s definitely not coincidental advertising.)
2. Who are these men who use Risk as a “rite of passage”, and why do they rank higher than I do, if it’s known that women play the game?
3. None of my points regarding use and subjugation of women were addressed, nor the damaging effect of pushing such stereotypes (even in a “satirical” way) upon young men.
4. I really would have liked an explanation for the jewelry site, because he has to see that this is alienating and insulting to women. The “nagging wife” and “emasculating wife” that ruins her husband’s life is still a hugely prevalent stereotype in media and advertisement. It is not an acceptable trope for a game aimed at teenagers. There is already too much media out there that suggests that women only need to be bought with jewelry in order to “function in the proper fashion” for men.
5. There is no name signed to this. I’m willing to bet this is a form letter that they have sent out many times so far. My suggestion is that people keep e-mailing them their concerns, and that one of you have the foresight that I lacked, and include links to the various angry blog articles this has spawned (including this one.)
Hasbro’s history on the subject of gender profiling is pretty bad, if you think of it. Barbie, G.I. Joe, LIFE, etc. (was ‘Mystery Date’ one of their games?). Nearly every one of their products, even today, is pretty notable gender-aimed at someone. There needs to be someone to tell them that this sort of ruthless gender policing is not ethical and not acceptable any longer.
Then the website is an utter failure of marketing, because it managed to turn a personally beloved product in something that I am not comfortable offering to my brother’s children. Not only do they not have 3-5 men in their household, but I don’t even want the male child to feel emasculated just because he loses a board game.
Maybe the actual game wasn’t designed by the same woman and doesn’t contain all of these negative messages, but I’m sure not going to spend twenty-five dollars on that chance. I’d rather my nephew and neice play Settlers of Catan or Carcassone which sell despite keeping the glory of territorial conquest at the abstract level.
Thanks Anne-Marie! I hope you don’t mind I added the exchange to the post.
Wow.
All I can say is I’m amazed how much of your time and energy you all just spent on being frustrated with a “chauvinistic” website and marketing approach for a boardgame that has ALWAYS been marketed towards males. It’s a game of world domination people. It’s a WAR game. What’s next? Are you planning on complaining about how Gi.Joe commercials only feature boys playing with the toys? Hey! Where are the boys in the My Little Pony commercials? I’ve been shut-out!
4 Trackbacks
[...] for linking to my post after I suggested that they cover Risk’s manification. Please go here to see their post regarding Risk, or go here to simply view their awesome [...]
[...] Classic game Risk has manned up. Yes, laydeez, you’re no longer welcome. Nor are you girly-boys, either. Sociological Images has the scoop. [...]
[...] (source, via) [...]
[...] Also in dumb gendered marketing: Redken for men, make up for men, Frito Lay targets the ladies, nature versus the beast, it may be pink, but it’s not girly, gendered vitamins, and RISK (for men only). [...]