All this male prostrating just for your ‘bros’ and in the often vain attempt to get ‘hos’ is just ridiculous.

Plus, in the age of Colbert, the line between satire and seriousness is hugely blurred… especially when it comes to the culture of Men. Perhaps this was ‘meant’ as satire, but in a blurry world, how can anyone tell?

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.

“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.

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.

I loved the game as a kid – played it all the time. But the sexism/misogyny and homophobia are a real turnoff.

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.”