Switch Theme:

General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in gb
Posts with Authority






Norn Iron

 Azazelx wrote:

I'm mostly done with the discussion myself


One more go, then I'm off too.

but a couple of points worth mentioning. Back before the aborted Shieldwolf KS-2 they had a poll for more armoured females vs essentially cheescake ones. The armoured ones were winning pretty nicely over the course of it, and a fair few of us were gunning for a "Lagertha" vibe. Then some douchebags decided to refresh their cookies and broke the poll by attempting to cheat badly (cookie refresh, vote again), which was easy enough to figure out since the near-nudes rocketed up within the last day or two.

SW settled on their chainmail croptops and bikinis, but many people have continued pushing for more armour, and it seems we've gotten as far as covered midriffs joining the sprues. Since we're now looking at neck to knee, I'm happy with that. My male vikings have about that much armour, after all. I guess we'll just have to wait and see if they have cleavage. I expect bare arms, since the arms are going to go with either models, but I can live with that. Still, it's nice to see a manufacturer willing to listen well enough to get us from war bikinis to significant coverage.


Well then, that's a bit different, and I withdraw my aspersions. But despite certain comments of mine in the Frostgrave gnolls topic, I still think it was a bit daft to listen to those last few bikini lobbyists. That stuff's old, man.


Well, since you ask, I saw this the other day:

Grim Skull Miniatures via Facebook wrote:
Here's the new ‪#‎wip‬ hottie from our female 3D designer.
Yes, girls know how to make those right! wink emoticon



Ha! You picked a good 'un! But I notice 'our' female 3D designer. I mean, she's doing it, but how much of this is she doing for herself, as opposed to what she's told?

And "girls know how to make those right! wink" Guuuh. Come on. If that's not skeevy then I dunno. Sounds like something from the deepest, dampest reaches of TMP.

(Make what right, anyway? Half nekkid cyborgs? Dreadful half-a-grapefruit breasts?)

I'm sooo, sooo sorry.

Plog - Random sculpts and OW Helves 9/3/23 
   
Made in au
Unstoppable Bloodthirster of Khorne





Melbourne .au

 Buzzsaw wrote:

Not to get back to the whole 'tone on the internet' thing, but were you trying to prove or disprove his point? In all honesty, other then the unhelmeted one in the front, none of those 'read' as obviously female to me. Certainly not from this angle or picture.


Vic's demale figures have a different (smaller) stature to the men, which is the main way that one can "read" them as female. Which is the actual point of her female models. There's a picture somewhere but I can't easily find it, so you'll have to take my word for it.


If you didn't know beforehand that Phasma is played by a woman, how would you know until the character started talking? I propose that you would not, and indeed almost could not; in the comparison shot below (which, to be fair, may be of the Hot Toys, but I'm not sure), what's the point of differentiation between the armors?

That wasn't a trick question, there is a point of differentiation: it's the armored cod piece. Such subtlety is, I would argue, entirely impractical at 28mm (or even higher, frankly). scale.


But again, that's the point of Phasma. That the armour is essentially the same shape as the others. I'm not so sure about the codpiece being "female" actually, either - Phasma's armour is a slightly unique take on the Stormtrooper armour, so it may be a personal differentiation rather than a gender-based one. Her helmet design is subtly different, for example. A number of the stormtroopers were female as well. At least one female stormtrooper had lines in the film, and so I'd reasonably extrapolate that she wasn't a special and unique snowflake amongst the hundreds of imperial troops in the film. We didn't get to see her crotch, though, so we can't say what her codpiece looked like.

   
Made in gb
FOW Player




HF Minis Office

 eohall wrote:
 Artemis Black wrote:


But we're not always talking about the aggrieved party, I think in most cases the aggrieved party isn't the one making the biggest stink. And that's when you get arguments blowing up int complaints of SJWs and the like. A woman into wargaming is a) probably completely used to it by now and b) has eyes, she probably is fully aware that she's not the normal situation these people encounter. It's perfectly easy to politely explain that no, it's you that's actually interested


Somehow we now find ourselves examining the hypothetical female who's quite used to "it" and doesn't make a fuss. We then imagine that anyone who might take issue with the status quo does not in fact see eye to eye with this saintly and enduring female who is content to "rise above" the prejudices of those around her. A noble vision, to be sure, but in the face of actual females stating that those prejudices do affect them and are a problem (not too terrible many posts ago) it seems perhaps mildly suspect with regards to its veracity or usefulness. I don't doubt at all that such people exist, but if one (or ten, or a hundred) black people stood up and said "I don't care to make a stink about racial prejudice", would that somehow change racial prejudice from wrong to right?


It's not a hypothetical female, I know a few of them. But even if it was, we'e not talking about a woman wargamer having to use the back entrance to the show and paint at a different water cup. We're talking about some mildly condescending remarks or 5 seconds of a guy talking to the wrong person etc. It's 'significantly' easier to correct without getting overly animated and it will 'absolutely' lead to a better result for both parties.

 eohall wrote:
 Artemis Black wrote:

If I went to a fabrics market with my wife I don't go ranting online because everyone talks to her even though I'm the one looking for some lace or whatever. I just politely handle each situation by directly speaking to the person at hand about my request and making it obvious that it's me who's interested. If the stall holder is of a certain age it's likely I'll have to put up with a joke of some kind, just one of those things.

You can, quite easily, compartmentalise such things from the wider issue of sexism. And I believe doing so is more helpful to your cause than me starting a FB thread ranting that 'Yes I have a penis and yes I like lace, fething look at me when you're talking old woman!'.


Has it occurred to you that a possible reason for the fact that such instances of prejudice directed against you don't particularly upset you is that you are faced with proportionally fewer of them than our hypothetical female? I think it is very much to the point that you can quite easily compartmentalize such things precisely because you are far less directly impacted. In a vaccum, your instance of buying lace is indeed analogous to a female's buying minis, but the point is that these things do not happen in a vaccum.


It doesn't really need to 'occur to me' It's the obvious reason. However whether or not it's easier for me to do that doesn't change whether or not it's the better course of action. That is, to a very large degree, my point. Overreacting, imo, to small instances of something because of an overarching great swathe of it makes those small instances worse and doesn't help either one.

There's a time for marching and protests and petitions and t-shirt campaigns etc. My personal preference is that having some wargaming store owner talk to your boyfriend instead of you when you walk in is not really a time for any of those and is more a time for an eye roll and an 'I'm the one looking for a pot of Nauseous Blue'. You aren't the norm and some understanding of that is necessary.

If you see someone say 'That's pretty good fir a girl', just simply correct them. Hell if you're of a mind you could even try doing it in private.

If however you see Games Workshop stick 'pretty good for a girl' in White Dwarf, them make a stink. The reaction should always be proportional to the action, and to often it isn't. Too often I'll see some huge FB rant about a garage mechanic who spent 20 minutes talking to the husband etc. and my first thought is always, why didn't you talk to them in the first minute and thus make it clear who knew about cars and who didn't?' or even 'Why didn't you husband say 'it's her car mate'' or pretty much anything other than fume silently for 20 minutes then pollute my fb feed

 eohall wrote:
 Artemis Black wrote:

And to bring it full circle to the original post, in this case I mean that there's no need to tie the fact that there are nude minis and that minis represent society into the wider argument. The mini industry simply isn't important enough, it's not a trendsetter in any way. It will follow societal trends, more women come in to the hobby all the time, mostly due to boardgames I believe, and therefore the hobby will correct itself from the inside out to more represent the world around. The world around will likely use sex and sexuality to sell things for quite some time into the future, hopefully it's not going to use sex'ism' to sell things too much longer


A trend is an expression of many individual decisions. Saying that there is no need to examine prejudicial or sexist content in gaming because it represents a social backwater seems like a pointless inversion. It becomes a "chicken and egg" situation. Is it marginal because its prejudiced, or is it prejudiced because its marginal? Either way, saying "it will follow" as opposed to "it can lead" and using that as some sort of excuse for owning the issue doesn't give much credit to the individuals who make up the community.


Every little thing can help, but I'm never gonna fool myself that making more naked males mins or treating any female who approaches the stand in the same way as any male who does is going to do much of anything. It's the right thing to do regardless, but if I see someone else do differently I'll judge it on what they actually do, not drag in some huge societal issue. It's just too much.
   
Made in au
Unstoppable Bloodthirster of Khorne





Melbourne .au

 Buzzsaw wrote:

As an aside, we're arguing about toy soldiers, which one might be tempted to define as an argument about "childish and cheap" things no matter what.


Perhaps one of those points.
https://www.games-workshop.com/en-AU/Grimwrath-Berserker


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Buttery Commissar wrote:
 Artemis Black wrote:

Hmm. I'm kinda loathe to reply because it'll take the slight tangent of yours and veer it further off course again, but I figure this is a run-off from the other thread so probably a bit more tolerant of tangents
Aye, I accept while the topic title here is inviting a wider discourse, the content seems somewhat focused on continuation of a discussion in the Prodos thread.
I was not trying to redirect the discussion, but I thought the topic may widen slightly to encompass more areas. I'll accept that may very well be wrong, there.


The thread is "about" what it says in the header. It started with a discussion (or several) on the Prodos thread, but then that thread started as them showing off their new toy soldiers. Feel free to tangent off the Prodos element all you like.

Apologies if I fethed up the quotes between you and Arty.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/27 22:45:14


   
Made in au
Tough Tyrant Guard







Every time someone mentions it, I bring up that my preference is that space for the character to be female should be established, and then further gendered signifiers should not be necessary. It's not equitable to say that male models don't need gendered signifiers but female ones do.

Buttery Commissar keeps making very good and considerate posts. Thank-you, Buttery Commissar!

I think something important has been touched on, too, which is that most of what sexualises a model isn't its clothing, it's its pose. A lot of female wargaming minis fall prey to this. I don't really know why sculptors do it, but so many of these miniatures look like their pose was based on a porn magazine or something (which might also explain why they're predominantly in high heels, too?).

I'm not sure what else to say. The fact is, in our culture actual women are sexualised in an attempt to undermine us. Sexualised miniatures, especially alongside non-sexualised male miniatures, evoke the spectre of that violence. They say very clearly: "your comfort is worth less than our titillation." I think we should be careful with that maybe? But I mean, what started this thread was the Space Crusade game, right? And I don't think there's necessarily a problem with that game's models in particular, because that's the sort of product it's made to be - a weird horror softcore porn thing. If people want to seek that sort of thing out, okay! It's when it bleeds into other stuff (like Warmachine or Infinity, to name probably the two most mainstream offenders) that I think it's objectionable. (Though I hope we can all agree the most offensive part of it is their rendition of that stupid Grey Knight walker thing, which they somehow managed to make even worse than the original.)

Anyway, let's consider the cultural impact of our art so that we can make the world a better place!
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Nottinghamshire

@Azaelx: Not a worry, I'm just always very conscious when listing a negative (and personal) opinion that it's hard to see how far I've wandered off a path.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/27 23:09:28



[ Mordian 183rd ] - an ongoing Imperial Guard story with crayon drawings!
[ "I can't believe it's not Dakka!" ] - a buttery painting and crafting blog
 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Buzzsaw wrote:

I want you to understand what I am going to say in the spirit in which it is offered: I'm not trying to patronize or diminish you, but to present a different perspective, one that I think you will find helpful.

You should not be sad about these things. There is a saying in Hasidic thought, 'No one can make you angry, only you can make yourself angry'. This sentiment is sometimes expressed as 'the head is the master of the heart'. This is a philosophy that I have attempted to embrace, and it imposes a very different perspective, and one that I think you will find very valuable.

Valuable because, when you look at the examples you listed, you should be made happy, not sad. Happy because (with one exception) each of these is a situation born of ignorance, rather then malice. This is a critical point: ignorance is no sin, it is not a failing. We are all born ignorant and spend our lives attempting to rectify the situation.

At the end of your time at Salute, each of the people you mention (save the one) is made better for the interaction: the painter now knows that women can paint, and perhaps even was informed that some of the most famous miniature painters are women (Jen Haley and Anne Foerster, for example). The referee is not going to make that mistake again.

That specific example aside, you should take heart: in every one of those interactions the world is a better place. People who were ignorant are now better informed, and won't make the same mistakes born of ignorance.

Choose to be happy, not sad. You have every right to happiness, you've made the world and your community a better place. Choose also not to be bothered by what other people enjoy: after all, if we were so very concerned about what other people thought of out hobby, who would be in it?


I think Buttery Commissar already mentioned that but it's not about blaming people for their ignorance but that this ignorance in ingrained in our culture (everywhere, not just wargaming). It might sound great that all these people had an Salute interaction that made them better people in the tiniest bit (in a "Huh, women also paint and play these games?" way) but on the other side this is a constant state for women. For them it's not just one interaction now and then but just the constant background radiation of their lives. For them — if they want to participate — it's not and enlightening event or realization but just drudgery.

Somebody even linked to one of Sargon's stupid video where he just looks as the dictionary definition of words and disregards any context to create one of his little Fox News-ish outrages. A lot of our culture has sexist elements (due to our history and how male dominated it was and to some degree still is) and it needs to be pointed out. Otherwise it won't change because it's the default view of our world. Why would anyone change some bits they don't mind or care too much about? But the default reaction when something gets called out seems to be that they (meaning feminist/SJW) want to remove all the fun, take away your toys, or censor things. If nobody advocates or works for change then it won't happen. What can get better when everybody does nothing and just acceps the status quo?

Saying "Choose to be happy, not sad." is easy if you are not confronted with that stuff. Why not choose to not be offended by criticism and accusations of sexism of one's hobby and be rational and proactive about it instead of deflecting and ignoring it, if that's so easy? Why put the burden on making things better on one side only. "The referee is not going to make that mistake again" but that mistake wouldn't even have happened if they had just treated the other person like everybody else (and the assumption being that the referee even remembers next time this happens).
   
Made in au
Incorporating Wet-Blending






Australia

 eohall wrote:
 AlexHolker wrote:
The Space Crusade models are not objectifying, they are objects. They are tiny little sculptures of imaginary people from an imaginary place in an imaginary army. As long as you respect the barrier between fiction and reality, you might as well be declaring anyone who buys Space Marines endorses eugenics and murderous theocratic dictatorships.

Are the eugenics and theocracy depicted in the minis? Not in an associational sense, accessible only to someone with in-universe knowledge, but visually? Arguing that visually recognizable depictions of females are somehow devoid of meaning or association because of the fact that they're inert is incredibly disingenuous. Is child pornography inert as an unliving image?

Possession of child pornography is like possession of stolen goods: it is the proceeds of a crime committed against a real person who actually exists. Nine hundred and ninety-nine times out of a thousand, there is no victim when somebody sculpts a naked woman.

It's only in that one time out of a thousand - when Brother Vinnie based a slave girl miniature on the likeness of a Ukranian political prisoner - that you'd have a point. That I think was bad form.

"When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up."
-C.S. Lewis 
   
Made in au
Unstoppable Bloodthirster of Khorne





Melbourne .au

 Vermis wrote:
 Azazelx wrote:

Well, since you ask, I saw this the other day:

Grim Skull Miniatures via Facebook wrote:
Here's the new ‪#‎wip‬ hottie from our female 3D designer.
Yes, girls know how to make those right! wink emoticon



Ha! You picked a good 'un! But I notice 'our' female 3D designer. I mean, she's doing it, but how much of this is she doing for herself, as opposed to what she's told?

And "girls know how to make those right! wink" Guuuh. Come on. If that's not skeevy then I dunno. Sounds like something from the deepest, dampest reaches of TMP.

(Make what right, anyway? Half nekkid cyborgs? Dreadful half-a-grapefruit breasts?)


Hey I didn't say it was classy - I was just answering the question directly. I saw that while I was looking to see if there was any chance that they'd redo/modify their other female AdMech models with more robes covering the exposed butts, breasts and labia. I mean, I get it that the AdMech wouldn't care, but I do. And I agree that the commentary is more than a little sleazy and the render isn't especially endearing or proportional.

Though... and I've just thought of this now - perhaps the WE, Prodos and even the Vinni figures are more representative of the state of the cultures and attitudes in Eastern Europe than those of us in (predominantly) the English-speaking world? Just as Raging Heroes' pigeon-toed and knock-kneed designs that look ridiculous to many of us is part of the particular French pop art aesthetic (see: Remy's Ogres for Mantic)



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 AlexHolker wrote:

It's only in that one time out of a thousand - when Brother Vinnie based a slave girl miniature on the likeness of a Ukranian political prisoner - that you'd have a point. That I think was bad form.


For a few years I've been tempted to buy that model and then use the head on an Imperial Officer or an Inquisitor (or both). Of course, I'd have to buy it first in order to subvert it.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/28 02:57:10


   
Made in se
Glorious Lord of Chaos






The burning pits of Hades, also known as Sweden in summer

Would this be hard to make in 28mm without adding exaggerated boobplate or removing much of the armour?

Spoiler:


If yes, why?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/28 03:33:44


I should think of a new signature... In the meantime, have a  
   
Made in gb
FOW Player




HF Minis Office

 Ashiraya wrote:
Would this be hard to make in 28mm without adding exaggerated boobplate or removing much of the armour?

Spoiler:


If yes, why?


Would it be hard to make? No. It would be somewhat harder to make it obviously female, which I assume is what you mean? The long hair and slight stature would help enough hopefully, as long as you got a sculptor who could also make fine, soft features for the face.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/28 04:11:27


 
   
Made in us
Ambitious Acothyst With Agonizer




Boston, MA

 Artemis Black wrote:

It's not a hypothetical female, I know a few of them. But even if it was, we'e not talking about a woman wargamer having to use the back entrance to the show and paint at a different water cup. We're talking about some mildly condescending remarks or 5 seconds of a guy talking to the wrong person etc. It's 'significantly' easier to correct without getting overly animated and it will 'absolutely' lead to a better result for both parties.

********

It doesn't really need to 'occur to me' It's the obvious reason. However whether or not it's easier for me to do that doesn't change whether or not it's the better course of action. That is, to a very large degree, my point. Overreacting, imo, to small instances of something because of an overarching great swathe of it makes those small instances worse and doesn't help either one.

There's a time for marching and protests and petitions and t-shirt campaigns etc. My personal preference is that having some wargaming store owner talk to your boyfriend instead of you when you walk in is not really a time for any of those and is more a time for an eye roll and an 'I'm the one looking for a pot of Nauseous Blue'. You aren't the norm and some understanding of that is necessary.


If we were otherwise in agreement, I don't think the sticking point here needs to be the proportionality of the response. As far as I know no one has launched a march or made t-shirts in response to this discussion on this message board. If you want to extrapolate responses in this discussion that you don't agree with onto some larger tapestry of PC-overreaction that's fine, but it hardly addresses the issue. You acknowledge that the reason none of this seems like that big of a deal to you is because you don't have to deal with any of this to the extent a female would, but then say that doesn't affect the best course of action (to paraphrase), which, conveniently, you happen to have decided in this instance. I just don't follow, and that may be a personal failing.
 Artemis Black wrote:


If however you see Games Workshop stick 'pretty good for a girl' in White Dwarf, them make a stink. The reaction should always be proportional to the action, and to often it isn't. Too often I'll see some huge FB rant about a garage mechanic who spent 20 minutes talking to the husband etc. and my first thought is always, why didn't you talk to them in the first minute and thus make it clear who knew about cars and who didn't?' or even 'Why didn't you husband say 'it's her car mate'' or pretty much anything other than fume silently for 20 minutes then pollute my fb feed


Again, if you have a larger axe to grind, it makes this whole thing a bit pointless. Is it possible that someone feeling annoyed with the content of their FB feed is not proportional with someone being pre-judged and treated differently in real life?

 Artemis Black wrote:

Every little thing can help, but I'm never gonna fool myself that making more naked males mins or treating any female who approaches the stand in the same way as any male who does is going to do much of anything. It's the right thing to do regardless, but if I see someone else do differently I'll judge it on what they actually do, not drag in some huge societal issue. It's just too much.


Do you need assurance of outcome to do the right thing? If you see something do differently than the right thing, it follows that they are doing the wrong thing, no? out of ignorance or otherwise? What they actually do would at that point be already in one of two easily judged categories. Huge societal issues are necessarily made up of multitudes of smaller interactional instances.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/28 05:08:33


Kabal of the Slit Throat ~2000pts
Elect of the Plaguefather 4500pts

 
   
Made in gb
FOW Player




HF Minis Office

 eohall wrote:
 Artemis Black wrote:
It's not a hypothetical female, I know a few of them. But even if it was, we'e not talking about a woman wargamer having to use the back entrance to the show and paint at a different water cup. We're talking about some mildly condescending remarks or 5 seconds of a guy talking to the wrong person etc. It's 'significantly' easier to correct without getting overly animated and it will 'absolutely' lead to a better result for both parties.

********

It doesn't really need to 'occur to me' It's the obvious reason. However whether or not it's easier for me to do that doesn't change whether or not it's the better course of action. That is, to a very large degree, my point. Overreacting, imo, to small instances of something because of an overarching great swathe of it makes those small instances worse and doesn't help either one.

There's a time for marching and protests and petitions and t-shirt campaigns etc. My personal preference is that having some wargaming store owner talk to your boyfriend instead of you when you walk in is not really a time for any of those and is more a time for an eye roll and an 'I'm the one looking for a pot of Nauseous Blue'. You aren't the norm and some understanding of that is necessary.


If we were otherwise in agreement, I don't think the sticking point here needs to be the proportionality of the response. As far as I know no one has launched a march or made t-shirts in response to this discussion on this message board. If you want to extrapolate responses in this discussion that you don't agree with onto some larger tapestry of PC-overreaction that's fine, but it hardly addresses the issue. You acknowledge that the reason none of this seems like that big of a deal to you is because you don't have to deal with any of this to the extent a female would, but then say that doesn't affect the best course of action (to paraphrase), which, conveniently, you happen to have decided in this instance. I just don't follow, and that may be a personal failing.


I was going to mention it in the last reply, but you do have a very weird habit of constantly replying to something slightly different to what I clearly said. Hopefully it's not on purpose and possibly it's why you don't follow.

I did not acknowledge that it was less of a big deal, i said it's easier for me to handle, because I have to do it less often. Anything is easier if you have to do it less. How big a deal I think the general problem is isn't altered by how often I personally have to handle it.

 eohall wrote:
 Artemis Black wrote:


If however you see Games Workshop stick 'pretty good for a girl' in White Dwarf, them make a stink. The reaction should always be proportional to the action, and to often it isn't. Too often I'll see some huge FB rant about a garage mechanic who spent 20 minutes talking to the husband etc. and my first thought is always, why didn't you talk to them in the first minute and thus make it clear who knew about cars and who didn't?' or even 'Why didn't you husband say 'it's her car mate'' or pretty much anything other than fume silently for 20 minutes then pollute my fb feed


Again, if you have a larger axe to grind, it makes this whole thing a bit pointless. Is it possible that someone feeling annoyed with the content of their FB feed is not proportional with someone being pre-judged and treated differently in real life?


I have no response to this, I couldn't work out it's relevance to anything I said.

 eohall wrote:
 Artemis Black wrote:

Every little thing can help, but I'm never gonna fool myself that making more naked males mins or treating any female who approaches the stand in the same way as any male who does is going to do much of anything. It's the right thing to do regardless, but if I see someone else do differently I'll judge it on what they actually do, not drag in some huge societal issue. It's just too much.


Do you need assurance of outcome to do the right thing? If you see something do differently than the right thing, it follows that they are doing the wrong thing, no? out of ignorance or otherwise? What they actually do would at that point be already in one of two easily judged categories. Huge societal issues are necessarily made up of multitudes of smaller interactional instances.


'The right thing' isn't an absolute. What I deem to be the right thing is just that, which is why I would judge someone else on their action, I would hope their action is something 'they' think is the right thing too. The guy talking to the man in a couple thinks he's doing the right thing, hopefully, and not boring the woman with talk of little metal men. Of course he could be a raging misogynist, but the best way to find out is the same course of action, politely make it clear he's talking to the wrong person.

And if the last sentence is true then it follows that lots of small responses add up to one big one. Still kind of my point.
   
Made in us
Mutating Changebringer





Pennsylvania

 Azazelx wrote:
 Buzzsaw wrote:

Not to get back to the whole 'tone on the internet' thing, but were you trying to prove or disprove his point? In all honesty, other then the unhelmeted one in the front, none of those 'read' as obviously female to me. Certainly not from this angle or picture.


Vic's demale figures have a different (smaller) stature to the men, which is the main way that one can "read" them as female. Which is the actual point of her female models. There's a picture somewhere but I can't easily find it, so you'll have to take my word for it.


If you didn't know beforehand that Phasma is played by a woman, how would you know until the character started talking? I propose that you would not, and indeed almost could not; in the comparison shot below (which, to be fair, may be of the Hot Toys, but I'm not sure), what's the point of differentiation between the armors?

That wasn't a trick question, there is a point of differentiation: it's the armored cod piece. Such subtlety is, I would argue, entirely impractical at 28mm (or even higher, frankly). scale.


But again, that's the point of Phasma. That the armour is essentially the same shape as the others. I'm not so sure about the codpiece being "female" actually, either - Phasma's armour is a slightly unique take on the Stormtrooper armour, so it may be a personal differentiation rather than a gender-based one. Her helmet design is subtly different, for example. A number of the stormtroopers were female as well. At least one female stormtrooper had lines in the film, and so I'd reasonably extrapolate that she wasn't a special and unique snowflake amongst the hundreds of imperial troops in the film. We didn't get to see her crotch, though, so we can't say what her codpiece looked like.


Perhaps I am misunderstanding your response, as it seems... perpendicular, if you will, to my points. On the first, I am aware of Victoria and her miniature line. I support the effort in the interest of diversity, but I can't say that I am a particular fan, mostly because of 1) a general dislike of 28mm heroic scale, and 2) I... don't find that they read 'female' enough for me.

Don't get me wrong, I can see the difference. But for my collecting, and I do collect female miniatures, I prefer the somewhat more exaggerated femininity of Infinity, with some favor to Raging Heroes and Dreamforge. Some Privateer Press stuff can be good, but their overall sculpting level is so variable I take them case by case.

On the second point, about Captain Phasma, I must point out that my bringing her up was specifically related to the idea that her armor represents an "ideal" for female characters. Certainly with regards to miniatures I would strenuously object, as she doesn't 'read' as female in any but the most absolutely obscure of ways.

To further refine that, for the Movie her armor is perfect. It completely appropriate that a Stormtrooper captain would wear dehumanizing armor that would obscure personal characteristics and even sex. But those same characteristics make her armor completely inappropriate as a model for distinguishable female armor.

   
Made in au
Unstoppable Bloodthirster of Khorne





Melbourne .au

 Buzzsaw wrote:

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your response, as it seems... perpendicular, if you will, to my points.


Sometimes (with me at least) it's not always arguing. Sometimes it's just talking or discussing.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut







I can't help but find this relevant at the moment:
Spoiler:


   
Made in us
Mutating Changebringer





Pennsylvania

 solkan wrote:
I can't help but find this relevant at the moment:
Spoiler:




Heh, the great irony is that, in real life at least, modern armor designed for women actually does look different (and certainly fits differently!) then armor for men.

Edit: For those not familiar with LEO gear

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/28 07:40:14


   
Made in us
Aspirant Tech-Adept





 Artemis Black wrote:
 Ashiraya wrote:
Would this be hard to make in 28mm without adding exaggerated boobplate or removing much of the armour?

Spoiler:


If yes, why?


Would it be hard to make? No. It would be somewhat harder to make it obviously female, which I assume is what you mean? The long hair and slight stature would help enough hopefully, as long as you got a sculptor who could also make fine, soft features for the face.


The recent Kingdom Death Female Black Knight Squire might serve as a good example of this.



(Spoilers for size.)
Spoiler:



She's wearing chain and a tabard. The model is quite nice but I wouldn't say she's obviously female. If I had no context for it, I might come to that conclusion on the assumption that she's got long hair and is wearing some kind of bizarre heels. However, the male squire has the same footwear and if I saw the pair of models together I'd probably have to observe and think longer on it.

Spoiler:


There's also Percival. The model alone might be enough to identify it as female - I'd probably come to that conclusion. She's wearing an armored skirt/dress and has a somewhat narrow waist and long hair.

Spoiler:


But it's not something obvious at a glance. Though as Artemis said, it's definitely doable.
   
Made in gb
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle





Unfortunately those two just show alternative sexualised body parts to the normal big boob armour. In the first the legs and stupid heals, in the second the extreme hip to waist ratio. IMO neither are better or worse than boob armour, just different. The only real difference is the rather puritanical view US culture has on brests, but the rest of the world would view all those things as the same exaggeration of secondary sexual characteristics, and both have the same issue of exaggerating those charicteristics at the expense of reality, the same criticism people have of boob armour.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/28 10:33:52


 insaniak wrote:
Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...
 
   
Made in gr
Thermo-Optical Spekter





Greece

 Ashiraya wrote:
Would this be hard to make in 28mm without adding exaggerated boobplate or removing much of the armour?

Spoiler:


If yes, why?


The easiest practical example is printing said artwork at 30mm height and placing it a meter away on the table, does it look like a female wearing an armour? it can be even worse since elfs are slimmer anyway in peoples minds.

As artemis black said external sexualised features as stance and hair might reinforce the idea of the model been female because the model itself will be incapable of doing so.

The pose, shortness and slimness of the model along with some other features such as hair and anatomy are exaggerated in order to give the impression of that the model is supposed to be, by default the "warrior" is a male (for cultural reasons) and a female warrior has to be pointed out because they are not the norm, "boobplates" ectr just help in doing that.

Lets get Victoria miniatures as an example and please do not even for a moment think this is a bashing for her or her attempts to make less sexualised female warrior models.
Spoiler:


Waist is too thin, shirt has a bulge that realistically would not exist, haircut are not illogical but are quite stereotypical, why? because the models must look like females and some exaggeration is needed to reinforce this idea/ impression/ feel.

When viewed together the exaggeration is even more prominent.
Spoiler:

This is not a bad thing, it just gives the obvious visual clues the mind needs to identify each gender for what it is.

Admittedly some clues are social some are biological and the degree of exaggeration needed is debatable as well as how sexualised the exaggeration is needed to be but at both extremes you have either something that is gender neutral (or male) or something that is nude or a caricature, in most cases people go for the wide middle ground, usually siding either a bit on one side either on the other side of the extremes but not deviating much from the middle.
   
Made in gb
Keeper of the Holy Orb of Antioch





avoiding the lorax on Crion

You could just do regular armour, adjusted slightly.

That leo vest is different but not boob plate.

Lighter stature, slight height decrease like m. Or 2 mm only.
You can do long hair, and more shaping, does not have to be insanely complex. Female body shap, modern military armour.

Helmet casn even be modeled on the hip too show hair but have as helmet for realism.

Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.

"May the odds be ever in your favour"

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.

FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.  
   
Made in au
Grizzled Space Wolves Great Wolf





In general I think far too much of a fuss is made over sex in miniatures.

If people aren't making the models you like, guess what, it means not enough artists want to make what you like. Complaining about artists in general or even picking on a specific studio like Prodos I think is an exercise in stupidity. I don't like the idea of trying to force change by complaining about the current content generators, they are just creating what they like, what they are capable of producing and what they think might make them money. Nothing wrong with any of that IMO.

Personally, I don't particularly care about the lack of female models. Females are harder to make look good IMO and as a journeyman modeller I'd rather have "acceptable" looking male models in my army than crap looking female ones.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/28 11:21:46


 
   
Made in us
Major




In a van down by the river

 Buzzsaw wrote:
 solkan wrote:
I can't help but find this relevant at the moment:
Spoiler:




Heh, the great irony is that, in real life at least, modern armor designed for women actually does look different (and certainly fits differently!) then armor for men.

Edit: For those not familiar with LEO gear


In fairness, the more correct statement that it was a woman in armor which serves as her uniform would likely be a distinction lost on the general public.
   
Made in gb
Leaping Khawarij




The Boneyard

I have publicly made my opinions on this kinda thing quite open.

And all for stuff like the Vic models and the Corvus Belli cool armored stuff, in fact the Female Gholam miniature is what got me in infinity.

I agree that some figures are over the top, Not going to argue. the Podros stuff is awful. I do not know why it went that route and after AVP they do not interest me. the bikes ( not the models on top but only the bikes) are the only redeeming thing in that box.


Now I like cheesecake I do, defending it I've been insulted, slandered on this very forum by people who want to defend their narrative that is fine we cant all like the same thing. But the feeling the anti side is given more of a pass on the language they use is unfair.

Mods tend to turn a blind eye or at least it appears that way.

I do not care if you think that models need to be less sexualized as there is space for both let me have my occasional cheesecake Caladonian that is all that is requested. But why should we need permission to like or enjoy something?.

If female Armour looked real I probably wouldn't buy it. I'm looking for fantasy and if liking skimpy dressed stuff is wrong and dies out it is a shame but if its not bought you cant argue for it can you?

Oh I own that Alice in Wonderland Comic that person was scared of. Honestly covering exposed Armour with cloth why? I do understand that you might not like to look at it , n fine okay. But what if you do?

It is like the DOAXBV 3 thing again its bad because the people who wouldn't buy it might see it on the shelf of a store, Just let me enjoy what I enjoy its all that I can ask for and if not do not expect me to approve of this.
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Nottinghamshire

 Buzzsaw wrote:
 solkan wrote:
I can't help but find this relevant at the moment:
Spoiler:




Heh, the great irony is that, in real life at least, modern armor designed for women actually does look different (and certainly fits differently!) then armor for men.

Edit: For those not familiar with LEO gear
If I may offer some thought on boobs vs boobs... Phasma comes from a culture where sex characteristics in women are second (if not third or forth) to their ability to lead and fight. Having flattened or bound chests to fit into armor is practical in her culture. I doubt that she will ever be called upon to raise her own children, nor will she care if the average trooper finds her attractive, as she's conditioned to fight.
Flattening the chest like that is practical. Long term binding or compression of breasts does not harm the individual, but it does change the tissue beneath. It becomes less dense, and well, defined. It can lead to issues in childcare. But for fighting, it makes sense.

The modern day woman in the second example is wearing something designed to protect her and preserve her body parts exactly as they are. It would be entirely unfair by our standards to expect anyone in our culture to sacrifice a body part (and potentials for child raising) to perform their duty.

Only a theory there, mind.


[ Mordian 183rd ] - an ongoing Imperial Guard story with crayon drawings!
[ "I can't believe it's not Dakka!" ] - a buttery painting and crafting blog
 
   
Made in se
Glorious Lord of Chaos






The burning pits of Hades, also known as Sweden in summer

Dingdingding, BC is on to something.

I should think of a new signature... In the meantime, have a  
   
Made in us
Aspirant Tech-Adept





Make female miniatures indistinguishable from male miniatures?
   
Made in gb
Leaping Khawarij




The Boneyard

 Dentry wrote:
Make female miniatures indistinguishable from male miniatures?



I think that's one solution however in a fantasy game it would be quite bland no?
   
Made in us
Aspirant Tech-Adept





Yes, I think so. It's not something I'd be in favor of. At that point one could simply use the default armored solider model (like the stormtrooper) and just call them ladies.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/28 20:41:51


 
   
Made in gb
Battlefortress Driver with Krusha Wheel





Brum

 Dentry wrote:
At that point one could simply use the default armored solider model (like the stormtrooper) and just call them ladies.


Except that it does, at least to a degree. For models with fully enclosing armour then they are essentially asexual but for miniatures with partial armour I can usually tell at a glance what sex they are supposed to be.

My PLog

Curently: DZC

Set phasers to malkie! 
   
 
Forum Index » Dakka Discussions
Go to: