In the current hyper progressive climate, it seems that making a product to tackle a social issue head on seems like a great business choice, right?
Sure, in theory. But not if you’re Hasbro, and especially not if that choice is Ms. Monopoly. In addition to their massive collection of film and television themed Monopoly releases, now feminism can be the backdrop to everyone’s favorite capital-collecting game! Released in September of this year, this updated version of the classic game attempts to address the gender pay gap by giving female players an advantage over males. “The first game where women make more than men!” reads the box.
Ms. Monopoly changes the game, literally, by giving female players the advantage. When passing “Go” (an action that, in the base game, gives all players a bonus of $200), girls receive an additional $40 dollars, as well as a larger sum at the start of the game. Here, they are making a bold (note the sarcasm) commentary on the gender pay gap by… suggesting giving women more money, seperate from their careers? Which will do absolutely nothing to combat the root problem of businesses not compensating their female employees properly.
If this simple rule change wasn’t enough to put potential buyers on edge, the alterations of the game’s content might be. Rather than buying and selling real-estate, Ms. Monopoly tries to resonate with what they perceive as a modern woman. All locations on the board are replaced by much smaller products designed by women (with the intent of highlighting female innovation), streets and real estate are replaced with dog leashes, chocolate chip cookies, or acupressure tools.
Even if this shows the impact women have made on business, it also highlights that women’s role in innovating at all has been confined to a domestic setting. The game tokens themselves, staples of the game, are even altered to fit a “businesswoman”. The hat, ship, iron and cat become a watch, “Ms. Monopoly Hat”, wine glass, and a journal among other things. These all further the idea that women, even so-called business-savvy ones, are less serious than their male counterparts. They get wine or diaries, fun accessories, to represent themselves, rather than the more serious objects of ordinary Monopoly.
The message, unintended but looming, of the product seems to be the following: female players can’t surpass the males without hand-outs, and they are limited to products that are small and less “intense” than what the normal--in this context, a non-woman--player might sell.
The addressing of this issue is potentially very meaningful, but it falls woefully short by failing to say anything. Ms. Monopoly uses a real problem to sell their game and its gimmick, but offers little else. In their attempt to capitalize on a feminist market, they gravely misunderstand key tenets of the movement. It’s not about boosting women baselessly by giving them money and doing nothing else (that’s a very clear band-aid solution, anyways), it’s about making sure that all sexes have equal chances to amass success. It’s about dismantling the biases in society that have led to women being given less in the first place.
Sure, in theory. But not if you’re Hasbro, and especially not if that choice is Ms. Monopoly. In addition to their massive collection of film and television themed Monopoly releases, now feminism can be the backdrop to everyone’s favorite capital-collecting game! Released in September of this year, this updated version of the classic game attempts to address the gender pay gap by giving female players an advantage over males. “The first game where women make more than men!” reads the box.
Ms. Monopoly changes the game, literally, by giving female players the advantage. When passing “Go” (an action that, in the base game, gives all players a bonus of $200), girls receive an additional $40 dollars, as well as a larger sum at the start of the game. Here, they are making a bold (note the sarcasm) commentary on the gender pay gap by… suggesting giving women more money, seperate from their careers? Which will do absolutely nothing to combat the root problem of businesses not compensating their female employees properly.
If this simple rule change wasn’t enough to put potential buyers on edge, the alterations of the game’s content might be. Rather than buying and selling real-estate, Ms. Monopoly tries to resonate with what they perceive as a modern woman. All locations on the board are replaced by much smaller products designed by women (with the intent of highlighting female innovation), streets and real estate are replaced with dog leashes, chocolate chip cookies, or acupressure tools.
Even if this shows the impact women have made on business, it also highlights that women’s role in innovating at all has been confined to a domestic setting. The game tokens themselves, staples of the game, are even altered to fit a “businesswoman”. The hat, ship, iron and cat become a watch, “Ms. Monopoly Hat”, wine glass, and a journal among other things. These all further the idea that women, even so-called business-savvy ones, are less serious than their male counterparts. They get wine or diaries, fun accessories, to represent themselves, rather than the more serious objects of ordinary Monopoly.
The message, unintended but looming, of the product seems to be the following: female players can’t surpass the males without hand-outs, and they are limited to products that are small and less “intense” than what the normal--in this context, a non-woman--player might sell.
The addressing of this issue is potentially very meaningful, but it falls woefully short by failing to say anything. Ms. Monopoly uses a real problem to sell their game and its gimmick, but offers little else. In their attempt to capitalize on a feminist market, they gravely misunderstand key tenets of the movement. It’s not about boosting women baselessly by giving them money and doing nothing else (that’s a very clear band-aid solution, anyways), it’s about making sure that all sexes have equal chances to amass success. It’s about dismantling the biases in society that have led to women being given less in the first place.