So, since I unexpectedly started some big off-topic discussion about some female Inquisitor's illustration on a Rumor topic, and I guess that's certainly not the last time we'll end up discussing some similar issues. So, I thought we ought to have a dedicated thread instead of hijacking other threads.
So, discussion started here :
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/300/560383.page#6209934 I didn't had the occasion to respond to many messages, and especially to Zweischneid, but I think what a lot of people overlooked is that the problem is not about things being logic, but about things being very very much out-of-character. That's why the fact she is holding a big chainsword matters. It is perfectly in-character for many Inquisitor to be able to use very various clothes during their investigations, as a manipulative tool, or even as straight out infiltration, posing as someone else completely. Amberley Veil does it in Ciaphias Cain's book. However, the chainsword here is clearly very strongly arguing against those quite specific situations. And going in those outfits in battle is terribly out of character. Some people have been argued that this outfit is not practical, but really, I think some even less practical clothes that REALLY felt eccentric and outlandish would have been way better, because way less out of character. This dress doesn't feel eccentric in the slightest. On the contrary, it reeks of bad cliche. Seriously, metal bra in a scy-fy universe is unusual ? Gee, even Star Wars feature some.
Some people invoked “rule of cool” as a defense to this cleavage. I say rule of cool only justifies stuff that is cool, and only rule of lame cool potentially defend it. But rule of lame is not that popular, is it ?
Oh, and I don't know where Zweischneid lives, but that's definitely much more cleavage than what I see every day. And way way more than what I'm likely to see in any battlefield .
Oh, and I don't know where Zweischneid lives, but that's definitely much more cleavage than what I see every day. And way way more than what I'm likely to see in any battlefield .
In the UK.
And as said, you're indefinitely more likely to see that much cleavage, even full-on nude ladies, on any battlefield, than Chainsaws or .. ya know... Inquisitors.
Do you want to invoke the rationalization of "what wars/battlefields would look like" for 40K or not? This sure isn't Flames of War, ya know, so better make that argument carefully.
My stance is simple, if its appropriate then sexualised poses and artwork is completely fine, for example a slaanesh cultist should be nearly naked. Otherwise I want female miniatures to be treated exactly the same as male miniatures, in other words wearing realistc armour and realistically proportioned. In the real world a man wearing armour is nearly indistinguishable from a woman wearing armour so I see no reason why this should be any different when it comes to wargaming.
The fixation that geek culture has with semi naked women cheapens us all.
Palindrome wrote: My stance is simple, if its appropriate then sexualised poses and artwork is completely fine, for example a slaanesh cultist should be nearly naked. Otherwise I want female miniatures to be treated exactly the same as male miniatures with realistc armour.
The fixation that geek culture has with semi naked women cheapens us all.
My stance is simple. There isn't a single miniature or character in 25 years of 40K history who ever had a realistic armour. Male, Female or Alien.
To demand it now seems blithely ignorant of ... well ... everything ever written, said, painted or drawn about Warhammer 40K.
And that picture is not "semi-naked". Stop exaggerating!
Zweischneid wrote: There isn't a single miniature or character in 25 years of 40K history who ever had a realistic armour. Male, Female or Alien.
Most IG sculpts have realistic armor, even powerarmour isn't particularly unrealistic. In fact the only really unrealistic armour are terminators and the like due to inconsistencies of scale.
Perhaps you would like to try and be a little more hostile? You may also want to have a look at the title of this thread.
It's just cleavage. If I went out shopping on a Saturday afternoon I'd see much the same (with slightly less grim dark and no swords, admittedly) let alone if I went out that evening for a few drinks.
People getting offended on other people's behalf is stupid, unless those people are not in a position to fight their own battles, a position the female gender is absolutely not in.
Both genders like seeing the other (or their own, whatevs) in good physical condition with not many clothes on, it is how we're designed.
All these right on, ultra liberals with their "hey man, its, like, totally not cool to view the other gender as sexual objects" are arguing against literally millions of years of evolution to the contrary.
It really is time to stop arguing what should be and accepting what is. Men like boobs, are physically stronger on average and biologically or culturally better suited to certain things. Women are not, but have their own set of strengths and weaknesses.
Equality is a myth, embrace gender differences and accept that men and women are better suited to different things and everything would be much simpler.
Also, I repeat again, all this over some bastard cleavage in a pencil sketch is neither relevant or proportional.
All these right on, ultra liberals with their "hey man, its, like, totally not cool to view the other gender as sexual objects" are arguing against literally millions of years of evolution to the contrary.
That's not what annoys me, its the sheer childishness of women almost always being portrayed as little more than sexual objects.
azreal13 wrote: It's just cleavage. If I went out shopping on a Saturday afternoon I'd see much the same (with slightly less grim dark and no swords, admittedly) let alone if I went out that evening for a few drinks.
People getting offended on other people's behalf is stupid, unless those people are not in a position to fight their own battles, a position the female gender is absolutely not in.
Both genders like seeing the other (or their own, whatevs) in good physical condition with not many clothes on, it is how we're designed.
All these right on, ultra liberals with their "hey man, its, like, totally not cool to view the other gender as sexual objects" are arguing against literally millions of years of evolution to the contrary.
It really is time to stop arguing what should be and accepting what is. Men like boobs, are physically stronger on average and biologically or culturally better suited to certain things. Women are not, but have their own set of strengths and weaknesses.
Equality is a myth, embrace gender differences and accept that men and women are better suited to different things and everything would be much simpler.
Also, I repeat again, all this over some bastard cleavage in a pencil sketch is neither relevant or proportional.
I'm no expert on the subject but if people voice a negative response to an image, given that the individual's response to a piece of media is BY DEFINITION subjective, the least mature possible response is probably to tell that person that they are wrong for reacting that way and should stop, stop posting, grow up, get over themselves, not bring that talk where it isn't wanted, etc.
The reaction *to* the reaction was the problematic part of that thread.
All these right on, ultra liberals with their "hey man, its, like, totally not cool to view the other gender as sexual objects" are arguing against literally millions of years of evolution to the contrary.
That's not what annoys me, its the sheer childishness of women almost always being portrayed as little more than sexual objects.
But (heterosexual) men, by their very nature, are biologically and culturally predisposed to think of women in that way. The only time this is ever genuinely an issue is when prejudice and exploitation enter the equation.
As the producers and consumers are overwhelmingly male in this sector, that women are highly sexualised shouldn't be a surprise, neither should the fact it isn't going to change soon. If you can, try and deploy your annoyance elsewhere, as this issue is going to be a long term source of frustration for you!
Bull0 wrote: I'm no expert on the subject but if people voice a negative response to an image, given that the individual's response to a piece of media is BY DEFINITION subjective, the least mature possible response is probably to tell that person that they are wrong for reacting that way and should stop, stop posting, grow up, get over themselves, not bring that talk where it isn't wanted, etc.
The reaction *to* the reaction was the problematic part of that thread.
I think that this is a good point. I saw a few accusations like "prude" and "wannabe feminist" in that thread, which really wasn't necessary, or justified. I certainly didn't try to accuse anybody of being a perv or anything.
But (heterosexual) men, by their very nature, are biologically and culturally predisposed to think of women in that way.
This is certainly not universal, in fact I would like to think that only a minority of men think in such a fashion.
I'd really like to see you support that assertion with some evidence?
Men find women physically attractive and want to have sex with them. I always held that truth to be universal? It's one of nature's little tricks to ensure we make more humans.
All these right on, ultra liberals with their "hey man, its, like, totally not cool to view the other gender as sexual objects" are arguing against literally millions of years of evolution to the contrary.
Not quite what's being said. Those people aren't objecting to viewing women in sexual terms altogether, rather viewing them in such a way excessively or even totally.
All these right on, ultra liberals with their "hey man, its, like, totally not cool to view the other gender as sexual objects" are arguing against literally millions of years of evolution to the contrary.
Not quite what's being said. Those people aren't objecting to viewing women in sexual terms altogether, rather viewing them in such a way excessively or even totally.
But in reaction to a pencil sketch of a woman in a bustier. Not exactly proportional is it?
EDIT
Let us also not forget that the woman in the picture, while showing a bit of cleavage, is also apparently one of the highest authorities in the Imperium. So, as far as equality goes, perhaps we can call that image a wash?
I'd really like to see you support that assertion with some evidence?
Only if you provide evidence to support your assertion.
Of course sex, and all that it entails, is an important component of human behaviour and psychology but its far from the only part. Women are far more than sexual objects for me, I find it quite depressing that I have to actually say that.
I would suggest that the desire to have half naked toy soldiers indicates a lack of sexual maturity.
But (heterosexual) men, by their very nature, are biologically and culturally predisposed to think of women in that way.
This is certainly not universal, in fact I would like to think that only a minority of men think in such a fashion.
True. Though it is important to note that there is an extremism as dangerous, if not more so, on the other end of the spectrum of objecting to even the slightest hint of erotica, and of condemning even small and harmless displays of skin and a bit of bosom as "overtly sexual", which is as despicable and even more so an instrument of masculine subjugation of women in society and of individual women (and a symptom of sexual immaturity without equal).
Spoiler:
A liberal society must be tolerant of many things, including a bit of "sexy art" (which this particular picture isn't).
I'd really like to see you support that assertion with some evidence?
Only if you provide evidence to support your assertion.
Of course sex, and all that it entails, is an important component of human behaviour and psychology but its far from the only part. Women are far more than sexual objects for me, I find it quite depressing that I have to actually say that.
I would suggest that the desire to have half naked toy soldiers indicates a lack of sexual maturity.
I need to provide evidence to support my argument that most men are sexually attracted to women? Really? Come on, you're better than that.
I have many female friends, in fact, my best friend is female, so trying to imply I'm some sort of misogynist (which it reads like you're trying to) who views women as warm meat is going to put you on a hiding to nothing I'm afraid.
In terms of lacking sexual maturity? Ha! Nice one, but my sex is quite mature enough thanks.
I'd say the somewhat strong negative reactions to a mild image of some barely partial nudity is an even better indicator of lack of maturity, as people tend to react negatively to things that make them feel awkward or uncomfortable.
i'm actually in favour of a little nudity, as long as it's contextually appropriate. It's one thing for a servo-warrior to have a nice big cleavage, quite another thing entirely if it's a 200 year old inquisitor lord.
I think it's honestly down to personal taste. Some people like a bit of boob, some don't.
xruslanx wrote: i'm actually in favour of a little nudity, as long as it's contextually appropriate. It's one thing for a servo-warrior to have a nice big cleavage, quite another thing entirely if it's a 200 year old inquisitor lord.
I think it's honestly down to personal taste. Some people like a bit of boob, some don't.
Christ, if I'm (broadly) in agreement with you, something's fethed up.
xruslanx wrote: i'm actually in favour of a little nudity, as long as it's contextually appropriate. It's one thing for a servo-warrior to have a nice big cleavage, quite another thing entirely if it's a 200 year old inquisitor lord.
I think it's honestly down to personal taste. Some people like a bit of boob, some don't.
Christ, if I'm (broadly) in agreement with you, something's fethed up.
Yes, people who get offended by cleavage in art are.
I need to provide evidence to support my argument that most men are sexually attracted to women? Really? Come on, you're better than that.
I have many female friends, in fact, my best friend is female, so trying to imply I'm some sort of misogynist (which it reads like you're trying to) who views women as warm meat is going to put you on a hiding to nothing I'm afraid.
In terms of lacking sexual maturity? Ha! Nice one, but my sex is quite mature enough thanks.
I'd say the somewhat strong negative reactions to a mild image of some barely partial nudity is an even better indicator of lack of maturity, as people tend to react negatively to things that make them feel awkward or uncomfortable.
No, you need to provide evidence that hetrosexual men are predisposed to treat women as sexual objects. Frankly You are doing more than enough to portray yourself as a mysogist without my help.
This thread is not about a single drawing but female miniatures throughout wargaming. In that context a drawing showing too much skin is not much to speak about.
As I have already stated I don't mind a bit of skin provided that it is in context and is the exception rather than the rule. As it is for ever 'realistic' female miniature there are 10 that are aimed squarely at the teenage libido.
azreal13 wrote: But in reaction to a pencil sketch of a woman in a bustier. Not exactly proportional is it?
We're just debating on a web forum, though. Not a lot of effort required to do that I don't think that anybody is going out and protesting, or trying to get legislation changed. It's just an interesting issue that we can debate on the internet.
azreal13 wrote: So, as far as equality goes, perhaps we can call that image a wash?
Hmm, but my issue was that her status itself should well have gotten her good battlefield protection.
True. Though it is important to note that there is an extremism as dangerous, if not more so, on the other end of the spectrum of objecting to even the slightest hint of erotica, and of condemning even small and harmless displays of skin and a bit of bosom as "overtly sexual", which is as despicable and even more so an instrument of masculine subjugation of women in society and of individual women (and a symptom of sexual immaturity without equal).
I don't think that this was necessary. Nobody is advocating an unreasonable extreme like that. As far as I understand, most took issue with the context of the picture, rather than the sole fact that it was a woman with exposed skin.
Zweischneid wrote: A liberal society must be tolerant of many things, including a bit of "sexy art" (which this particular picture isn't).
Of course, I think that we can all agree with this. But we can also say "oh, this person probably shouldn't be dressed like that based on their profession and situation" without it being an objection to sexual images full stop.
I like how we've just quietly established that if you don't like the illustration of a female inquisitor with exposed cleavage and leg, it's because you're offended by it or find it "uncomfortable".
How much easier to demonize those people it is when you ascribe outrage to them in place of their actual position!
Find me one person in that thread who actually called it offensive and I'll concede the point.
I need to provide evidence to support my argument that most men are sexually attracted to women? Really? Come on, you're better than that.
I have many female friends, in fact, my best friend is female, so trying to imply I'm some sort of misogynist (which it reads like you're trying to) who views women as warm meat is going to put you on a hiding to nothing I'm afraid.
In terms of lacking sexual maturity? Ha! Nice one, but my sex is quite mature enough thanks.
I'd say the somewhat strong negative reactions to a mild image of some barely partial nudity is an even better indicator of lack of maturity, as people tend to react negatively to things that make them feel awkward or uncomfortable.
No, you need to provide evidence that hetrosexual men are predisposed to treat women as sexual objects. Frankly You are doing more than enough to portray yourself as a mysogist without my help.
This thread is not about a single drawing but female miniatures throughout wargaming. In that context a drawing showing too much skin is not much to speak about.
Yet it has generated so many pages of OT conversation that it spawned its own thread!
Exactly may point, waay disproportionate a reaction to a very mild image.
Now, to address your other point, how, exactly, does my being frank about the primary function of the majority of mixed gender relationships being to breed make me a misogynist?
You can dress it up any way you like, but that is still our primary function as a species. Trying to make out that isn't the case is just disingenuous, I certainly haven't embarked on relationships with women I wasn't attracted to because they're "good people" any more than I would with a supermodel that I thought was a gakker.
Please stop trying to make out I'm some sort of bad guy for admitting that one of my priorities when looking for a girlfriend is that I find them attractive. It isn't the sole aspect, but it is very near the top of the list.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bull0 wrote: I like how we've just quietly established that if you don't like the illustration of a female inquisitor with exposed cleavage and leg, it's because you're offended by it or find it "uncomfortable".
How much easier to demonize those people it is when you ascribe outrage to them in place of their actual position!
Find me one person in that thread who actually called it offensive and I'll concede the point.
Why else would people have an issue with it other than to be offended by it on some level?
I certainly haven't seen anyone criticising the artist's technique or composition.
Troike wrote: Of course, I think that we can all agree with this. But we can also say "oh, this person probably shouldn't be dressed like that based on their profession and situation" without it being an objection to sexual images full stop.
Sure. But than we should also be allowed to object that this specific context and situation happens to be Warhammer 40K - a fictional franchise defined by over-the-top camp and ridiculous "rule-of-cool-above-all" - and so is very much an appropriate context for bit of young-teenage-boy-escapist pandering even if the picture in question were just that (which, arguably, this pic even isn't IMO... Banelords this is not).
So unless you object to exposed skin on principle, there shouldn't be an issue in the first place, because the context fits it to a T.
The same piece of art in a rulebook for Bolt Action? Perhaps less so.
Now, to address your other point, how, exactly, does my being frank about the primary function of the majority of mixed gender relationships being to breed make me a misogynist?
Because you explicitly said that heterosexual men are predisposed to look upon women as sexual objects?
Additionally this whole discussion isn't about sexual attraction (although you rarely see a half naked ugly miniature) but the simple fact that the majority of female miniatures are obviously sexualised, which is what I find childish.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion about the picture. While it will offend a minority, the majority wouldn't even have thought twice about it. Heck, when I first looked at it, I didn't even look at the artwork, I was busy reading the warlord traits.. because that was what I was after.
I wouldn't even have thought about the picture twice; although it was cool art, if it weren't for this having been brought up. You see I've seen it so much that by this point I'm just numb to it. But that's society I suppose.
Because you explicitly said that heterosexual men are predisposed to look upon women as sexual objects?
Um. Because men are predisposed to do that. . If you're going to claim that one of the first thoughts through your head, even subconsciously, upon seeing a new woman is whether or not you'd feth her, you're either lying or you're not attracted to women in the first place. It's how we're wired.
Additionally this whole discussion isn't about sexual attraction (although you rarely see a half naked ugly miniature) but the simple fact that the majority of female miniatures are obviously sexualised, which is what I find childish.
There's nothing childish about it. It's about salesmanship, marketing, and knowing your demographic. In short, it's smart business.
Now, to address your other point, how, exactly, does my being frank about the primary function of the majority of mixed gender relationships being to breed make me a misogynist?
Because you explicitly said that heterosexual men are predisposed to look upon women as sexual objects?
Which is perfectly true, where you're coming unstuck is assuming that my argument is that all men see women solely as sexual objects, which is patently untrue.
Additionally this whole discussion isn't about sexual attraction (although you rarely see a half naked ugly miniature) but the simple fact that the majority of female miniatures are obviously sexualised, which is what I find childish.
As I've mentioned in the previous thread, when working at this scale (and, I guess, with associated artworks to maintain a visual coherency across media) you must exaggerate, otherwise everything looks indistinguishable from more than a foot or two away.
Now, to address your other point, how, exactly, does my being frank about the primary function of the majority of mixed gender relationships being to breed make me a misogynist?
Because you explicitly said that heterosexual men are predisposed to look upon women as sexual objects?
Additionally this whole discussion isn't about sexual attraction (although you rarely see a half naked ugly miniature) but the simple fact that the majority of female miniatures are obviously sexualised, which is what I find childish.
there's nothing childish about it. it doesn't change unless you're too old to care anymore, or gay, or brainwashed by your mother or something.
and besides. dont even call anything childish when youre playing with toy soldiers. sheesh.
Given the context of the picture, flashing a little boob does not really demean her. She is an inquisitor which usually means intelligent and politically powerful. She's wielding a weapon indicating martial prowess. These are all traits that indicate a "strong woman." Showing top boob does not necessarily demean these but could indicate that she is in charge of her sexuality which only further propagates the "strong woman" image. Saying that she should cover up could be construed as "slut shaming" or trying to assert control over her sexuality. In the end, we're talking about a picture that shows very little and we all can bring our own assumptions into play as to what is going on and justify it as we please. There are more serious breaches of representation of women, that are more clear cut as to their intentions, in wargaming and I would suggest starting there than getting riled up on a little top boob.
Not to mention Inquisitors are haughty at the core, many feel that what they do is something they can do within. Many fall to chaos because they have that arrogant belief that 'Chaos can beat Chaos because =I= hold it'
If one of the groups that would be expected to come into battle like this because they are arrogant enough to believe nothing could happen to them because of their political power, their almighty funding for powerful weapons and archeotech that most could never dream of even knowing of, It would be Inquisitors coming in with such flashy gear.
Not to mention you have those who don't even come to battle in actual armor in SC's, like Lord Karamazov and his judges robe.
Am I the only person who finds it a bit silly that we're arguing about fake cleavage?
Seriously though, Warhammer is far from reality, and saying that the armor designs are realistic makes no-sense. Look at the Catachans, their armor is literally a t-shirt and their muscles. Some don't even wear shirts, yet we complain about the fact that some armor for females shows cleavage.
The Masked One wrote: Am I the only person who finds it a bit silly that we're arguing about fake cleavage?
Seriously though, Warhammer is far from reality, and saying that the armor designs are realistic makes no-sense. Look at the Catachans, their armor is literally a t-shirt and their muscles. Some don't even wear shirts, yet we complain about the fact that some armor for females shows cleavage.
To be entirely fair, plenty of people complain about the Catachans. But I get your point
I don't think that specific picture is bad, but it's not realy a good representation eather. But withing 40k I guess it's good see more representation at all.
Unless we get more female minis to offer more varied representation GW will remain fairly meh at its representation of women.. As for miniture games I think a lot of games try and represent women well and some do it very well.
If GW release a model of that inquisitor I would be happy enough, if they did a female inquisitor charecter in full power armor or ful, terminator armor without sexy just cos I would be jumping for joy.
Or just a female Farseer at this point.
Huh. So this is why a lot of people in the OT forum have such high post counts. Welp, if nothing else, this thread shall expediate my ascension from being a Missionary on a Mission, I guess.
azreal13 wrote: Yet it has generated so many pages of OT conversation that it spawned its own thread!
Exactly may point, waay disproportionate a reaction to a very mild image.
Ah, but aren't you also being quite dedicated in replying to the opposing point of view? You debated it a lot in the original thread, and came here entirely of your own free will to debate it some more. I don't think that any of us can accuse the others of being "too talkative".
Zweischneid wrote: and so is very much an appropriate context for bit of young-teenage-boy-escapist pandering
Perhaps, but that doesn't necessarily make it right or good.
That's debatable. I'm opposed to the idea of a supposedly generic Inquisitor being depicted as going into a hostle situation wearing such skimpy clothes. You might see it as "rule of cool", but I see it as an odd depiction of somebody going into combat, especially when they can get their hands on stuff as good as power armour.
Apple fox wrote: Unless we get more female minis to offer more varied representation GW will remain fairly meh at its representation of women.
To be fair, this was Fantasy Flight that made the picture. Though GW included it in their codex, they didn't make the thing.
Also, check the Australian GW site. There's some, in my opinion, good depictions of female Inquisitiors in there, last I checked. The SoB are also pretty good representations of women, IMO. Fully armoured (Repentia aside, but as I said before they have a good reason for it), no-nonsense soldiers.
Troike wrote: Huh. So this is why a lot of people in the OT forum have such high post counts. Welp, if nothing else, this thread shall expediate my ascension from being a Missionary on a Mission, I guess.
azreal13 wrote: Yet it has generated so many pages of OT conversation that it spawned its own thread!
Exactly may point, waay disproportionate a reaction to a very mild image.
Ah, but aren't you also being quite dedicated in replying to the opposing point of view? You debated it a lot in the original thread, and came here entirely of your own free will to debate it some more. I don't think that any of us can accuse the others of being "too talkative". .
Sorry to piss on your chips buddy, but I made precisely one comment on this issue in that thread (I just checked, as what you said didn't ring true to me)
Every other post is either about the codex or intimating other people should stop posting off topic.
Oh, and this might not be what you mean, but this isn't the OT forum, that's all the way "down there" near the bottom. This is for discussion that at least makes a nod at being relevant to wargaming.
That's debatable. I'm opposed to the idea of a supposedly generic Inquisitor being depicted as going into a hostle situation wearing such skimpy clothes. You might see it as "rule of cool", but I see it as an odd depiction of somebody going into combat, especially when they can get their hands on stuff as good as power armour.
if they wanted to have a picture of somebody in Power Armour, they'd used artwork of a Space Marine (who are iconic for wearing Power Armour).
Also, nobody would reasonably wear a suit of armour like that in a modern (much less future) military setting. It's "knight's armour in spaceeeeeeee!" The idea of Power Armour is as much, if not more so, a product of the "rule of cool" than even the most sexist chainmail-bikini ever designed.
[edit]
Also, according to classic Rogue Trader 40K fluff, she (being an Inquisitor) may have skin-tight power armour!!!: Space Marine-levels of protections and (!) good looks? No reason to not have both!!
The thing is, I would argue that men are sexualised/portrayed unrealistically just as much as women.
When was the last time you saw a soldier in 40k with smaller muscles than Wolverine?
Funny how nobody objected to the white-haired Inquisitor being so obviously ill-dressed for battle.
- All that hair seems really inconvenient, hampering peripheral vision, etc..
- That cloak doesn't seem to offer much if a stray Lascannon should hit him.
- Clutters of paper everywhere that could singe and even burn, causing extra damage.
- He doesn't even have a totally unwieldy, loud and impractical weapon.
Somebody clearly didn't do their military research when they drew that guy!
-Shrike- wrote: The thing is, I would argue that men are sexualised/portrayed unrealistically just as much as women.
When was the last time you saw a soldier in 40k with smaller muscles than Wolverine?
It is a very difernt thing..
But what I mean is sometimes something not to bad can just bring up some thaghts on the issues as a whole. In this case the comment wasn't even that much.
I myself have been jumped on for thaghts similar on this forum. It's very much a issue in the hobby.
-Shrike- wrote: The thing is, I would argue that men are sexualised/portrayed unrealistically just as much as women.
When was the last time you saw a soldier in 40k with smaller muscles than Wolverine?
It is a very difernt thing..
But what I mean is sometimes something not to bad can just bring up some thaghts on the issues as a whole. In this case the comment wasn't even that much.
I myself have been jumped on for thaghts similar on this forum. It's very much a issue in the hobby.
What you have just said technically is classed as sexist also. If its not alright for a women to show a hint of chest why is it ok for men to show the whole thing? i mean i dont really care about this but that comment to me screams hypocrasy. its a trend i noticed in feminists haha.
But at the end of the day its the same thing, besides gender whats the difference between the catachans and the female inquisitor? none really.
The Catachan do have a good fluff reason to go with their attire, though. They're jungle fighters. They'd probably feel that flak armour like the Cadians wear would impede them in this role. With their forgoing of such armour, their are lighter, faster and better suited to operating in a jungle enviroment. The Inquisitor, meanwhile, has no such justification to go with her picture. She is, as far as we're shown, just a "generic" Inquisitor.
azreal13 wrote: Sorry to piss on your chips buddy, but I made precisely one comment on this issue in that thread (I just checked, as what you said didn't ring true to me)
Whilst you did indeed make only one post on the matter, it was still quite lengthly, and quite strongly worded. And again, you're here, aren't you? Debating the issue further? I don't see how you can accuse just the people who find fault with the image of reacting too much when you're so willing to discuss the matter yourself.
azreal13 wrote: Oh, and this might not be what you mean, but this isn't the OT forum, that's all the way "down there" near the bottom. This is for discussion that at least makes a nod at being relevant to wargaming.
I know we're not in the OT forum. What I meant is that rather controversial issues are often lengthily debated in there, as is happening here.
Zweischneid wrote: Perhaps, but neither does it make it wrong, inappropriate or objectionable.
Well, this is it, isn't it? That's a pretty subjective thing. As I've said elsewhere, not everybody agrees on where exactly the line is on these things.
Zweischneid wrote: if they wanted to have a picture of somebody in Power Armour, they'd used artwork of a Space Marine (who are iconic for wearing Power Armour).
Right, they were after an iconic Inquisitor. Which I don't think such skimpy armour is a good representation of.
Zweischneid wrote: Also, nobody would reasonably wear a suit of armour like that in a modern (much less future) military setting. It's "knight's armour in spaceeeeeeee!" The idea of Power Armour is as much, if not more so, a product of the "rule of cool" than even the most sexist chainmail-bikini ever designed.
But power armour has sphess science behind it. Exposed flesh on a combatent who can access some of the best protection around is as odd as it usually is.
Zweischneid wrote: Also, according to classic Rogue Trader 40K fluff, she (being an Inquisitor) may have skin-tight power armour!!!: Space Marine-levels of protections and (!) good looks? No reason to not have both!!
Spoiler:
Eh, I'd be hesitant to use Rogue Trader as a reference, though. To use a TV Tropes term, there's a lot of Early Edition Weirdness in there. Look, it even has its own section in the tabletop games page.
Amusing aside, that section also featured a mission where the players have hunt down a person who was essentially Doctor Who. It was a very different time indeed.
Uneven depiction of genders in games is a big problem, though I don't really find that particular picture that problematic. She seems to be wearing some sort of a dress/robe type of a thing, and not a real armour, and that cleavage is not outrageous on a dress. And no, I don't really mind her going into a fight wearing a dress.
Of course we once again have a wizened old man and a young beautiful woman. This is not of course a problem in a single picture, but it is a trend. Women have to be hot, men can be ugly or old. There is nothing wrong with sexy pictures, necessarily not even in gaming material; however, you should really be even handed with it; it is not okay if the man always is the grizzled veteran and woman is the eye-candy for the boys. And no, Catachans are not sexualised, that's just pure male power-fantasy pic.
-Shrike- wrote: The thing is, I would argue that men are sexualised/portrayed unrealistically just as much as women.
When was the last time you saw a soldier in 40k with smaller muscles than Wolverine?
It is a very difernt thing..
But what I mean is sometimes something not to bad can just bring up some thaghts on the issues as a whole. In this case the comment wasn't even that much.
I myself have been jumped on for thaghts similar on this forum. It's very much a issue in the hobby.
What you have just said technically is classed as sexist also. If its not alright for a women to show a hint of chest why is it ok for men to show the whole thing? i mean i dont really care about this but that comment to me screams hypocrasy. its a trend i noticed in feminists haha.
But at the end of the day its the same thing, besides gender whats the difference between the catachans and the female inquisitor? none really.
Actuly I don't have anything against the picture, but this is exactly what I mean with my response..
If you don't know the difference between what the issue is with that, I would worry at this point.
The fact you point to feminist in such a way shows just the color of you, and your entire post has little to do with the issues that this is apart off.
azreal13 wrote: Sorry to piss on your chips buddy, but I made precisely one comment on this issue in that thread (I just checked, as what you said didn't ring true to me)
Whilst you did indeed make only one post on the matter, it was still quite lengthly, and quite strongly worded. And again, you're here, aren't you? Debating the issue further? I don't see how you can accuse just the people who find fault with the image of reacting too much when you're so willing to discuss the matter yourself.
But I'm not reacting to the image, I'm reacting to other people's apparent overreaction to that image. I'm then further interacting with those people who respond to me. It's how a debate/discussion/argument/conversation works.
I still don't see the relevance my quantity of reaction is in any way relevant to anyone's severity of reaction though?
Troike wrote: The Catachan do have a good fluff reason to go with their attire, though. They're jungle fighters. They'd probably feel that flak armour like the Cadians wear would impede them in this role. With their forgoing of such armour, their are lighter, faster and better suited to operating in a jungle enviroment. The Inquisitor, meanwhile, has no such justification to go with her picture. She is, as far as we're shown, just a "generic" Inquisitor.
Than make one up!!!
Most "real" jungle-fighters don't seem to wear notably less armour than non-jungle fighters. I know I've done some jungle trecking, and I've certainly covered ever piece of open skin against leeches, mosquitos, etc..
What came first? Showing buff Rambo knock-offs (miniatures of Rambo knock-offs) with bulging muscles, and than throwing in a flimsy "Jungle-fighter"-excuse, or the need to have Jungle-fighters in Spaaaceeee, which logic dictates should be skimpily clad no matter where they go in Spaaacee?
Frankly, the "excuse" as you call it came after the fact, just as the "excuse" for Space Marines wearing Power Armour, spitting acid, etc.. all came after the fact. First was always the "cool", later some justification was added for the people who needed some justification to play with Space-Knight-Vampire-Vikings and Buff Toy-Men in Space.. God knows why.
The very reason there is such a thing as Rogue-trader early edition weirdness is (!) the fact that they had all those silly concepts they wanted in there, but were fidgeting and changing the fluff around for quite some time.
If you really need just such an "excuse" for that cleavage, several have been provided in the discussions on this picture already.
azreal13 wrote: But I'm not reacting to the image, I'm reacting to other people's apparent overreaction to that image. I'm then further interacting with those people who respond to me. It's how a debate/discussion/argument/conversation works.
Right, and you care enough to participate in this debate, just as much as I do. You feel that your opinion on the image is more correct than mine, so you argue in favour of it. In light of this, it seems odd for you to criticise others for replying or reacting too much.
And, in fairness, I think just the fact that two parties had differing opinions and weren't willing to back down from them is what's generating so many replies. If that pic had been posted and people made their criticisms of it, and everybody else had not reacted, it would have gone no further. But since we have two opposing viewpoints being vocal about their views, lots of replies are made on the issue.
azreal13 wrote: I still don't see the relevance my quantity of reaction is in any way relevant to anyone's severity of reaction though?
It demonstrates that you cared about it, enough to make a fairly long post laying out your thoughts on the issue.
Rayvon wrote: You cannot tell, just from one picture, that it is indeed out of character or not.
I would argue that it is, for a "genetic" Inquisitor. If that pic had accompanying fluff saying that this Inquisitor's dress preference was a quirk or preference of hers, I'd be pretty much fine with it. But we don't have any context, so we're left to assume that this is an "average" Inquisitor, who decides to go into combat in skimpy clothing. When looked at it from that angle, it seems odd, to me.
Zweischneid wrote: If you really need just such an "excuse" for that cleavage, several have been provided in the discussions on this picture already.
Eh, but they were basically just "because she wants to", IIRC, which I don't really find satisfying.
Zweischneid wrote: Funny how nobody objected to the white-haired Inquisitor being so obviously ill-dressed for battle.
- All that hair seems really inconvenient, hampering peripheral vision, etc..
- That cloak doesn't seem to offer much if a stray Lascannon should hit him.
- Clutters of paper everywhere that could singe and even burn, causing extra damage.
- He doesn't even have a totally unwieldy, loud and impractical weapon.
Somebody clearly didn't do their military research when they drew that guy!
Because the guy's outfit is not sexualized at all (not intentionally at least, it might apply for some hobo fetish). And that's the topic here, isn't it?
Why are the women often sexualized and the men power fantasies directed at men too? Wouldn't it be a good idea to create a product that is possibly aimed at 100% of the possible target market and not just roughly 50%, especially when the pool of possible buyer is already small enough in a certain niche (in addition GW seems to sell fewer boxes every year).
Who would rather sell a relatively profitable product to less people? That just sounds shortsighted in my opinion.
azreal13 wrote: But I'm not reacting to the image, I'm reacting to other people's apparent overreaction to that image. I'm then further interacting with those people who respond to me. It's how a debate/discussion/argument/conversation works.
Right, and you care enough to participate in this debate, just as much as I do. You feel that your opinion on the image is more correct than mine, so you argue in favour of it. In light of this, it seems odd for you to criticise others for replying or reacting too much.
And, in fairness, I think just the fact that two parties had differing opinions and weren't willing to back down from them is what's generating so many replies. If that pic had been posted and people made their criticisms of it, and everybody else had not reacted, it would have gone no further. But since we have two opposing viewpoints being vocal about their views, lots of replies are made on the issue.
azreal13 wrote: I still don't see the relevance my quantity of reaction is in any way relevant to anyone's severity of reaction though?
It demonstrates that you cared about it, enough to make a fairly long post laying out your thoughts on the issue.
Eh, but they were basically just "because she wants to", IIRC, which I don't really find satisfying.
Perhaps. But than 99% of the 40K background shouldn't really be satisfying to you. "Because why not?" Is pretty much the basic principle the entire setting operates on. It's the 40K-verses first, second, third and fourth law of thermodynamics.
-Shrike- wrote: The thing is, I would argue that men are sexualised/portrayed unrealistically just as much as women.
When was the last time you saw a soldier in 40k with smaller muscles than Wolverine?
It is a very difernt thing..
But what I mean is sometimes something not to bad can just bring up some thaghts on the issues as a whole. In this case the comment wasn't even that much.
I myself have been jumped on for thaghts similar on this forum. It's very much a issue in the hobby.
What you have just said technically is classed as sexist also. If its not alright for a women to show a hint of chest why is it ok for men to show the whole thing? i mean i dont really care about this but that comment to me screams hypocrasy. its a trend i noticed in feminists haha.
But at the end of the day its the same thing, besides gender whats the difference between the catachans and the female inquisitor? none really.
Actuly I don't have anything against the picture, but this is exactly what I mean with my response..
If you don't know the difference between what the issue is with that, I would worry at this point.
The fact you point to feminist in such a way shows just the color of you, and your entire post has little to do with the issues that this is apart off.
He understands just fine.
Why is it a "male power fantasy" for men to be scantily clad and in shape but for women it's a "big problem"
because your double standards dictate so? Oh i see, you want to get rid of most double standards except keep all the ones that benefit women.
excuse me if i'm not sympathetic to your cause.
Zweischneid wrote: Funny how nobody objected to the white-haired Inquisitor being so obviously ill-dressed for battle.
- All that hair seems really inconvenient, hampering peripheral vision, etc..
- That cloak doesn't seem to offer much if a stray Lascannon should hit him.
- Clutters of paper everywhere that could singe and even burn, causing extra damage.
- He doesn't even have a totally unwieldy, loud and impractical weapon.
Somebody clearly didn't do their military research when they drew that guy!
Because the guy's outfit is not sexualized at all (not intentionally at least, it might apply for some hobo fetish). And that's the topic here, isn't it?
Kinda, It was said that it is sexualized because it is not appropriate for an Inquisitor going into battle, whereas it might be appropriate for.. dunno.. and Inquisitor at a social event. So if people would truly object to this depiction in the circumstances only, the white-haired inquisitor should irritate just as much.
If he doesn't, the whole "it's all about because she's about to go into battle" is clearly revealed as a flimsy front that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
If you object to a minor showing of skin on principle (independent of context), we're back to square one.
Because I would strongly object to a rigorously prude world where depiction of bosom and/or minor erotic images in gaming would be questionable on principle, because THAT would be the ultimate expression of stifled sexual maturity and gendered power-fantasies.
Because the guy's outfit is not sexualized at all (not intentionally at least, it might apply for some hobo fetish). And that's the topic here, isn't it?
Why are the women often sexualized and the men power fantasies directed at men too? .
To be fair calling it sexualised is pushing it, if you ask me, she's got a low cut top, and I'll be honest with you, that's hardly wrong, strange or over the top by any definition - I see more flesh revealed by girls on a more regular basis, and I live in Scotland. Low cut tops hardly get me sweating under the collar.
On topic, I think she looks pretty damn cool, and empowering.
Wouldn't it be a good idea to create a product that is possibly aimed at 100% of the possible target market and not just roughly 50%, especially when the pool of possible buyer is already small enough in a certain niche (in addition GW seems to sell fewer boxes every year).
Who would rather sell a relatively profitable product to less people? That just sounds shortsighted in my opinion.
If you say so bud. Personally, I don't ever see equal amounts of girls getting into this hobby as guys, regardless of what gets done. So I'll just disagree with you.
Zweischneid wrote: Perhaps. But than 99% of the 40K background shouldn't really be satisfying to you. "Because why not?" Is pretty much the basic principle the entire setting operates on. It's the 40K-verses first, second, third and fourth law of thermodynamics.
I suppose the problem is that we all "draw the line" somewhere different. I can accept acid-spitting supermen and pipe organ tanks, because, for me, it doesn't cross from "rule of cool" over to "unrealistic". For some, that artwork did edge over to "unrealisitc" or "objectionable". But for others, it was still well within the "rule of cool" zone.
I doubt that either of us can really change this standard in the other, so it's probably best we end it here.This debate is likely to drift around in circles, at this point.
New comer to this argument but after viewing that pic I see nothing wrong with her outfit in the 40K setting, (or really any sci- fi setting)
Yes she is pretty, but as a professional artist myself I like drawing sexy/pretty more then ugly. She isn't even THAT exposed. Yes she shows some cleavage, did you ever think this might be regular attire for her and not her battle uniform? Chainswords and such for figures of her standing is a common side arm at best, like today's police officer having a nightstick and mace common.
And also can we STOP with the liberal comments? I'm a liberal, and I'm fine with sex and nudity (I'm in favor of abolishing the FCC after all.) It's the right wingers that want women covered up like mummies and our children force fed a culture of "Nothing worse then Pg-13 allowed" BS.
-Shrike- wrote: The thing is, I would argue that men are sexualised/portrayed unrealistically just as much as women.
When was the last time you saw a soldier in 40k with smaller muscles than Wolverine?
It is a very difernt thing..
But what I mean is sometimes something not to bad can just bring up some thaghts on the issues as a whole. In this case the comment wasn't even that much.
I myself have been jumped on for thaghts similar on this forum. It's very much a issue in the hobby.
What you have just said technically is classed as sexist also. If its not alright for a women to show a hint of chest why is it ok for men to show the whole thing? i mean i dont really care about this but that comment to me screams hypocrasy. its a trend i noticed in feminists haha.
But at the end of the day its the same thing, besides gender whats the difference between the catachans and the female inquisitor? none really.
Actuly I don't have anything against the picture, but this is exactly what I mean with my response..
If you don't know the difference between what the issue is with that, I would worry at this point.
The fact you point to feminist in such a way shows just the color of you, and your entire post has little to do with the issues that this is apart off.
He understands just fine.
Why is it a "male power fantasy" for men to be scantily clad and in shape but for women it's a "big problem"
because your double standards dictate so? Oh i see, you want to get rid of most double standards except keep all the ones that benefit women.
excuse me if i'm not sympathetic to your cause.
Oh yes that's exactly not what I am even saying and meaning. But that's it isn't it, male power fantasy, but boobs to look at. The issue isn't that picture, it just a catylist for this thread.
Also to say that something is totely ok since I think this is just as not ok is rather bad argument isn't it.
Also what benifits me ? Catachan look stupid and anything but sexy or sexualised to me. The guy next to the inquisitor Is more sexy than the catachan picture is to me.
Well, you said that the people against it were reacting too much, yet you seem perfectly willing to debate the issue too.
No, I get what you're trying to say, I'm just not seeing what point you're trying to establish.
I am willing to debate what I see as a hyper-sensitivity to a barely sexualised image, that isn't the same argument, or somehow an opposite reaction to, those that are reacting to the image itself.
The issue isn't that picture, it just a catylist for this thread.
Well, the issue is that THIS picture was a catalyst for a thread that may have been appropriate for games like Tentacle Bento that objectify women as a central element of the game play or rather tasteless miniature sculpts like banelords melusine.
But, if this particular picture, which is a very minor display of bosom, can be the catalyst of such a thread, than any picture of a women not wearing a full-on Burka can be a catalyst for this kind of thread, and that is a very different, far more worrisome problem in itself. It's a different form of extremism.
Yeah, that's written next to your pseudonym. And I'm living in France ! I was expecting something a little bit more specific.
Zweischneid wrote: Do you want to invoke the rationalization of "what wars/battlefields would look like" for 40K or not? This sure isn't Flames of War, ya know, so better make that argument carefully.
I'm saddened by this. I thought I made it pretty clear I had no wish for realism. I'm all for over-the-top mad stuff like chainsword, when they are used to build some character. Chainsword are here to show how madly violent the universe has become. And it is pretty damn violent. But here, are Inquisitor supposed to be sexy ? And even if it was the case, would this be over-the-top sexy ? No, and no. So, this cleavage is neither something totally casual that we expect to see in everyday life, especially not given the context, nor some over-the-top emphasis on a trait of Inquisitors. Since I thought the rest of my message, which you didn't quote, clearly ruled out the latter, I also mentioned the former wasn't an explanation for this cleavage either.
Please, peoples, just take a little time to think about this : I went to see “Machete” and “Machete Kills”, which both include A LOT MORE sexy girls in very small and titillating outfits, and I had absolutely no problem with that. None whatsoever. However, I do have a problem with this cleavage on the Inquisitor. So, how does that goes well with your ideas of why I dislike this illustration ?
If not, then read again my original message, and maybe you'll understand that I don't want to “ban cleavage”. I want to ban “out-of-character cleavage on just everything with a vagina”. I find it stupid, and harmful to the atmosphere of the setting. We have awesome, over-the-top stories with lots of sexy women (Machete <3), what is so bad with having awesome, over-the-top stories without sexy women because they don't fit in this kind of awesome over-the-topness ?
For instance, someone pointed out the fact that Catachan are wearing nothing but a shirt. Yeah, they do. Yeah, that's maybe not the most convenient or efficient. But that does definitely emphasize their role as jungle-fighter rambo-like super tough guy. Having a huge cleavage doesn't emphasize the Inquisitor being some ruthless, extremely independent ruthless investigator with an enormous amount of authority, does it ? At least to me, it doesn't, and that's why I have issue with it.
Apple fox wrote: if they did a female inquisitor charecter in full power armor or ful, terminator armor without sexy just cos I would be jumping for joy.
They did, I have one in my army. It's wearing extremely unpractical, ridiculous outfit than looks very eccentric and therefore is way less out-of-character. I used her as a Jacobus stand-in, but now she is a priest.
They made three different models, but it's just basically a weapon swap, and I sadly have the least characterful one, the one in the middle.
OT :
cincydooley wrote: Um. Because men are predisposed to do that. . If you're going to claim that one of the first thoughts through your head, even subconsciously, upon seeing a new woman is whether or not you'd feth her, you're either lying or you're not attracted to women in the first place. It's how we're wired.
Well, there is this girl I met at work. Well, I first noticed how she was cool, and how we had lots of common interests. And then, some time later, that she wasn't very physically attractive to me.
Arguably, the first times I saw her was during very short time periods during which I noticed her XKCD (or other geekeries) T-shirt more than anything else, but still !
On a totally unrelated note, I'm 26 and still a virgin. Feel free to use that to “explain” everything or anything I write here, I don't care
You guys it isn't like 40k invented the partially clad boob. I find it pretty tame to a lot of stuff that's much older.
Conan for instance is rife with bulging muscles and jiggly boobs which appeals to both male and female audiences.
My girlfriend and I always have had tons of conversations over which actor/actress was hot or who's body we think is the best etc. She loves boobs just about as much as any guy I can't count the numer of times she pointed out some woman that just walked into the room and said hey what do you think about those? Just like guys one of the first things a women notices about other women are their boobs which also prompts an amusing reaction. If the woman has smaller pair they'll comment on how pretty she is or some other feature like her hair, but if she has bigger boobs the response is more like ooh that skank bitch. Women judge each other every bit as much as men judge women, you just may not have been privy to it.
Lots of women like to dress so that they can show their bodies off and all want to be the most beautiful and sexiest woman in the room, they do it to appeal to other women in addition to men. Watch a few wedding dress shows and you'll see so many brides that dress their bridesmaids in the worst gak possible as they don't want their hot friends having any chance at looking better than they do.
Space marine scouts are either a carrying a grapefruit in their pants or they've been harvested from John Holmes's geeneseed.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: But here, are Inquisitor supposed to be sexy ? And even if it was the case, would this be over-the-top sexy ? No, and no. So, this cleavage is neither something totally casual that we expect to see in everyday life, especially not given the context, nor some over-the-top emphasis on a trait of Inquisitors. Since I thought the rest of my message, which you didn't quote, clearly ruled out the latter, I also mentioned the former wasn't an explanation for this cleavage either.
Because it's just a cleavage. Like a Catachan fighter wearing, for varieties sake, a mustache perhaps. A cleavage is something you happen to find occasionally on female characters, as you'd occasionally might find a mustache on a male character.
Interpreting excessive sexual meaning into it as you just did again is your obsessively prudish bias, not the artist's fault as such.
And if the female inquisitor's cleavage is off "in the context", than so is the male inquisitor's impractical hair "in the (same) context". Yet nobody talks about it. So the "in-the-context" argument is largely bull.
Yeah, that's written next to your pseudonym. And I'm living in France ! I was expecting something a little bit more specific.
Zweischneid wrote: Do you want to invoke the rationalization of "what wars/battlefields would look like" for 40K or not? This sure isn't Flames of War, ya know, so better make that argument carefully.
I'm saddened by this. I thought I made it pretty clear I had no wish for realism. I'm all for over-the-top mad stuff like chainsword, when they are used to build some character. Chainsword are here to show how madly violent the universe has become. And it is pretty damn violent. But here, are Inquisitor supposed to be sexy ? And even if it was the case, would this be over-the-top sexy ? No, and no. So, this cleavage is neither something totally casual that we expect to see in everyday life, especially not given the context, nor some over-the-top emphasis on a trait of Inquisitors. Since I thought the rest of my message, which you didn't quote, clearly ruled out the latter, I also mentioned the former wasn't an explanation for this cleavage either.
Please, peoples, just take a little time to think about this : I went to see “Machete” and “Machete Kills”, which both include A LOT MORE sexy girls in very small and titillating outfits, and I had absolutely no problem with that. None whatsoever. However, I do have a problem with this cleavage on the Inquisitor. So, how does that goes well with your ideas of why I dislike this illustration ?
If not, then read again my original message, and maybe you'll understand that I don't want to “ban cleavage”. I want to ban “out-of-character cleavage on just everything with a vagina”. I find it stupid, and harmful to the atmosphere of the setting. We have awesome, over-the-top stories with lots of sexy women (Machete <3), what is so bad with having awesome, over-the-top stories without sexy women because they don't fit in this kind of awesome over-the-topness ?
For instance, someone pointed out the fact that Catachan are wearing nothing but a shirt. Yeah, they do. Yeah, that's maybe not the most convenient or efficient. But that does definitely emphasize their role as jungle-fighter rambo-like super tough guy. Having a huge cleavage doesn't emphasize the Inquisitor being some ruthless, extremely independent ruthless investigator with an enormous amount of authority, does it ? At least to me, it doesn't, and that's why I have issue with it.
Apple fox wrote: if they did a female inquisitor charecter in full power armor or ful, terminator armor without sexy just cos I would be jumping for joy.
They did, I have one in my army. It's wearing extremely unpractical, ridiculous outfit than looks very eccentric and therefore is way less out-of-character. I used her as a Jacobus stand-in, but now she is a priest.
They made three different models, but it's just basically a weapon swap, and I sadly have the least characterful one, the one in the middle.
OT :
cincydooley wrote: Um. Because men are predisposed to do that. . If you're going to claim that one of the first thoughts through your head, even subconsciously, upon seeing a new woman is whether or not you'd feth her, you're either lying or you're not attracted to women in the first place. It's how we're wired.
Well, there is this girl I met at work. Well, I first noticed how she was cool, and how we had lots of common interests. And then, some time later, that she wasn't very physically attractive to me.
Arguably, the first times I saw her was during very short time periods during which I noticed her XKCD (or other geekeries) T-shirt more than anything else, but still !
On a totally unrelated note, I'm 26 and still a virgin. Feel free to use that to “explain” everything or anything I write here, I don't care
Any assertion you noticed elements of a girls character ahead of any element of her physical appearance, unless you spoke to her extensively in the phone in the first instance, is just total BS.
Also, with regard to your "illogical cleavage argument"
Some inquisitors are women, some women are attractive, some attractive women choose to wear revealing clothing more often, therefore some Inquisitors may be attractive women who choose to wear revealing clothing.
I'll once again mention that this is artwork associated with a small-ish scale model range that needs to exaggerate feminine attributes in models or not bother, as from three feet away it will not be noticeable.
azreal13 wrote: No, I get what you're trying to say, I'm just not seeing what point you're trying to establish.
I am willing to debate what I see as a hyper-sensitivity to a barely sexualised image, that isn't the same argument, or somehow an opposite reaction to, those that are reacting to the image itself.
Your complaint basically seemed to be "the people critcising this image are talking too much". Whay I'm saying is that, in being so willing to participate in this debate, you're as much a part of the "problem" as those criticising it, in that your further fuel and extend the disagreements over it.
The issue isn't that picture, it just a catylist for this thread.
Well, the issue is that THIS picture was a catalyst for a thread that may have been appropriate for games like Tentacle Bento that objectify women as a central element of the game play or rather tasteless miniature sculpts like banelords melusine.
But, if this particular picture, which is a very minor display of bosom, can be the catalyst of such a thread, than any picture of a women not wearing a full-on Burka can be a catalyst for this kind of thread, and that is a very different, far more worrisome problem in itself. It's a different form of extremism.
Oh yes, tentacle bento is rather worrying. But I myself have seen basically nothing on that itself, and I ain't game to look it up. I think the miniture issue from this is rather important though, and I think 40k is realy bad on this subject and think its important.
Hybrid I had forgotten about those, but I realy mean something like a female charecter in full armor and until the lore is out no one knows its a she just looking at the mini, everything simply defaults to male in this hobby it feals :( unless its showing off breasts.
I also would like those models if not for the hair, it's just agh, I think that alone makes me not like them.
Also I think GW is turning around this issue. So maybe not all is lost for me !
azreal13 wrote: No, I get what you're trying to say, I'm just not seeing what point you're trying to establish.
I am willing to debate what I see as a hyper-sensitivity to a barely sexualised image, that isn't the same argument, or somehow an opposite reaction to, those that are reacting to the image itself.
Your complaint basically seemed to be "the people critcising this image are talking too much". Whay I'm saying is that, in being so willing to participate in this debate, you're as much a part of the "problem" as those criticising it, in that your further fuel and extend the disagreements over it.
No, my "complaint" is they are overreacting not that they're using too many posts or them thar words and such.
azreal13 wrote: [No, my "complaint" is they are overreacting not that they're using too many posts or them thar words and such.
Well, back on page 2 you used the words "disproportionate" and criticised how it took up several pages and spawned its own thread. That sounded like an issue with the amount of reaction to the pic, to me.
-Shrike- wrote: The thing is, I would argue that men are sexualised/portrayed unrealistically just as much as women.
When was the last time you saw a soldier in 40k with smaller muscles than Wolverine?
God, can we please kill this one before it starts?
You need to understand the difference between empowerment fantasy and sexual objectification.
God, can we please kill this one before it starts?
You need to understand the difference between empowerment fantasy and sexual objectification.
Not really? Pose, fictional role, etc.. that female Inquisitor pic is more likely to be an empowerment fantasy than sexual objectification, cleavage included. As said, it's not a submissive pose. It's not a servile character. It's one of the highest authorities in the fictional game-world. It's the pic next to the goddamn "Warlord Traits" table of the person you ought to envision leading your army.
I fail to see the objectification (again, unless every (!) cleavage ever is a sexual objectification and Amish-style coverage is women empowerment)
azreal13 wrote: [No, my "complaint" is they are overreacting not that they're using too many posts or them thar words and such.
Well, back on page 2 you used the words "disproportionate" and criticised how it took up several pages and spawned its own thread. That sounded like an issue with the amount of reaction to the pic, to me.
Yeah, so logically you figured I thought "look at all these posts" and adjusted my opinion accordingly? Not that it was the content of the posts, and not the number of them, that I would react to?
Also, disproportionate is a perfectly acceptable word for what I was trying to say, I'm not sure how you've interpreted it?
azreal13 wrote: Not that it was the content of the posts, and not the number of them, that I would react to?
Also, disproportionate is a perfectly acceptable word for what I was trying to say, I'm not sure how you've interpreted it?
You can react to both content and number. And I viewed disproporionate as meaning "an excessive amount", which matches up with the google definition of "too large or too small in comparison with something else".
God, can we please kill this one before it starts?
You need to understand the difference between empowerment fantasy and sexual objectification.
Not really? Pose, fictional role, etc.. that female Inquisitor pic is more likely to be an empowerment fantasy than sexual objectification, cleavage included. As said, it's not a submissive pose. It's not a servile character. It's one of the highest authorities in the fictional game-world. It's the pic next to the goddamn "Warlord Traits" table of the person you ought to envision leading your army.
I fail to see the objectification (again, unless every (!) cleavage ever is a sexual objectification and Amish-style coverage is women empowerment)
I am not talking about that crappy FFS illustration. This thread is about the depiction of women in wargaming as a whole and specifically I am talking now about the difference between empowerment fantasy and objectification.
That Catachan art was created to make people (read; men) think "Wow, look how powerful they are. I want to wield that power on the table top." That's an empowerment fantasy, it has nothing to do with with being sexually appealing to women.
Can we PLEASE pull away from this booby inquisitor for the sake of the thread?
EDIT: and submissiveness does not inherently equate sexual objectification.
azreal13 wrote: Not that it was the content of the posts, and not the number of them, that I would react to?
Also, disproportionate is a perfectly acceptable word for what I was trying to say, I'm not sure how you've interpreted it?
You can react to both content and number. And I viewed disproporionate as meaning "an excessive amount", which matches up with the google definition of "too large or too small in comparison with something else".
Except I used the words "disproportionate" and "reaction" in context of one another.
If you weren't clear on my intent, perhaps you should have asked, rather than drag this, frankly, fething dull conversation out over yet more excessive posts?
But honestly, if you're needing to Google words like disproportionate for translations, we're pretty much at a dead end anyway.
I am not talking about that crappy FFS illustration.
But than you are missing the problem. If a harmless illustration of cleavage can and did spawn this kind discussion (which other pictures/miniatures/games may well deserve), than we're facing an irrational hyper-prudish overreaction where literally any depiction of a women in less-than-Taliban-approved-attire is potentially contentious. And that is a serious issue.
Shaming sexual objectification is important. But it shouldn't mean falling into the opposite extreme of vilifying any and all depictions of female skin on principle.
I am not talking about that crappy FFS illustration.
But than you are missing the problem. If a harmless illustration of cleavage can and did spawn this kind discussion (which other pictures/miniatures/games may well deserve), than we're facing an irrational hyper-prudish overreaction where literally any depiction of a women in less-than-Taliban-approved-attire is potentially contentious. And that is a serious issue. .
Zweischneid wrote: Because it's just a cleavage. Like a Catachan fighter wearing, for varieties sake, a mustache perhaps. A cleavage is something you happen to find occasionally on female characters, as you'd occasionally might find a mustache on a male character.
I never saw a Catachan with a mustache, and I think it would look very bad. It really doesn't work well with their style.
Zweischneid wrote: Interpreting excessive sexual meaning into it as you just did again is your obsessively prudish bias
So I'm a prude who also happens to love this kind of things ?
Does my prude level change with the phases of the moon, or something like that ? Please, care to explain to me why my prudishness doesn't prevent me from enjoying Rodriguez movies, among other things ?
When you are done with that, please explain to me why my prudishness doesn't even make me react negatively to the dark eldar succubus models !
Zweischneid wrote: And if the female inquisitor's cleavage is off "in the context", than so is the male inquisitor's impractical hair "in the (same) context".
The Inquisitor's long white hair go well with the idea of an old, wizened, eccentric guy. It reinforces the Inquisitor's character. Hence, cool.
Went there once. Didn't noticed that much cleavage on women. But I saw some statue of Robin Hood, IIRC.
Apple fox wrote: Hybrid I had forgotten about those, but I realy mean something like a female charecter in full armor and until the lore is out no one knows its a she just looking at the mini
azreal13 wrote: Except I used the words "disproportionate" and "reaction" in context of one another
But you also used it alongside a complaint about the amount of posts which were generated, which led to my seeing it as a complaint about the amount of posts.
But if you're tired of this conversation, then we can stop. I only kept replying because you seemed confused about my point and wanted clarification on it.
If I had intended to use disproportionate in conjunction in terms of number of posts or pages, I would have said "disproportionate number of posts/pages" not used it in conjunction with the word reaction.
Yes, I'm very tired of this line of discussion, especially as it was predicated on a misunderstanding.
But anyway, I'd say that the Sisters are up there in terms of women being depicted in sci-fi, I'd certainly put them above a lot of the stuff that Raging Heroes makes. They're fully armoured, and are entirely defined by their beliefs and occupation. They avoid a lot of the usual pitfalls, IMO.
What I find hilarious about this topic is I always seem to see a trend of more men being upset at scantily clad women than women themselves are.
But then most women I know are just as fine with having a good look at a buff, half naked guy as the guys I know are quite fine with having a look at an attractive, scantily clad women.
And one of the main reasons being 'but they aren't properly attired for a combat role' makes no sense when half naked, buff 'jungle fighters' are apparently fine when it's the last way you want to dress in a jungle setting.
But anyway, I'd say that the Sisters are up there in terms of women being depicted in sci-fi, I'd certainly put them above a lot of the stuff that Raging Heroes makes. They're fully armoured, and are entirely defined by their beliefs and occupation. They avoid a lot of the usual pitfalls, IMO.
Does my prude level change with the phases of the moon, or something like that ? Please, care to explain to me why my prudishness doesn't prevent me from enjoying Rodriguez movies, among other things ?
It must be.
Even more surprisingly, I find it odd how you keep arguing "context" in 40K yet can accept camp in something like a Rodriguez Zombie movie, which, compared to the all-out-whackyness of the 40K-verse, is bordering on documentary. It's like somebody not minding a leaking roof at home, yet complaining about water-drops out on the open ocean in a small boat during a full-blown hurricane.
Hybrid(on iPad,gets leggy big posts)
I have shadowsun but I mean more like that, hehe brain isn't working 100%.
40k isn't bad at its representing of women, it just lacks enough of them on the table top.
Other company's are better, and others are so much worse, oh so much worse.
-Loki- wrote: What I find hilarious about this topic is I always seem to see a trend of more men being upset at scantily clad women than women themselves are.
On the other hand, how many women are there hanging around here ? Not many, I fear.
This was taken from FFG, but lets stop and consider who GW considered their target audience. It's not adults, it's not females of any sort.
It's pubescent males who want to see boobies.
In fact, the two things that spare us from having the gaming table utterly overrun by this sort of thing is the facts that GW seems to have let go anyone who could sculpt anything even remotely female and their fear that if they go 'too far' Mom and Dad will disapprove of juniors obsession with white metal smut.
Reflect on this : the most expensive 10 pack of minis you will likely find on ebay is the Juan Diaz daemonettes.
Now, why could that be? Can't they see all the buff muscly dudes that were definitely drawn for their benefit?
Because it is a hobby that mainly appeals to, is mainly manufactured by, and is mainly participated in, by males. Yes there is the odd girl, but they are rare indeed.
Now, why could that be? Can't they see all the buff muscly dudes that were definitely drawn for their benefit?
Because it is a hobby that mainly appeals to, is mainly manufactured by, and is mainly participated in, by males. Yes there is the odd girl, but they are rare indeed.
NEXT!
That is the point.
It's intentionally geared toward men and therefore shuts out people who could potentially enjoy this awesome hobby the same way others do. Rampant portrayal of women as sexual objects is a result of this and contributes to this being a male dominated hobby when it doesn't have to be.
-Loki- wrote: What I find hilarious about this topic is I always seem to see a trend of more men being upset at scantily clad women than women themselves are.
On the other hand, how many women are there hanging around here ? Not many, I fear.
Largely, because most women I know disdain the violent aspects of this hobby most of all (far more than the scantily clad stuff). Cue Computer Games. The all-male games tend to be the violent and military-fascist ones, not the sexy ones.
Because war and conflict, as well as liking boobies, are more defined traits in the typical male psyche.
Women tend to be more attracted to less adversarial, more co-operative pastimes, in fact, I was reading an article that cited that aspect of its design as a reason why Candy Crush has been so successful with the female demographics just today.
EDIT
This was a reply to las' last post, but forgot to grab the quote and now he's edited it.
Apple fox wrote: Hybrid(on iPad,gets leggy big posts)
I have shadowsun but I mean more like that, hehe brain isn't working 100%.
40k isn't bad at its representing of women, it just lacks enough of them on the table top.
Other company's are better, and others are so much worse, oh so much worse.
there's the new dark elf witches. those are really nice, the best female models GW has ever made. and plastic if you want to convert.
This was taken from FFG, but lets stop and consider who GW considered their target audience. It's not adults, it's not females of any sort.
It's pubescent males who want to see boobies.
In fact, the two things that spare us from having the gaming table utterly overrun by this sort of thing is the facts that GW seems to have let go anyone who could sculpt anything even remotely female and their fear that if they go 'too far' Mom and Dad will disapprove of juniors obsession with white metal smut.
The funny thing is I don't think any of the males around that age where I play have any interest in female models for that :p I would find it interest what younger males think about them, as even the sexy ones seem to draw no interest from the ones I know.
Fantasy also is doing both sexy and awsome females well I think slowly.
Well, there is this girl I met at work. Well, I first noticed how she was cool, and how we had lots of common interests. And then, some time later, that she wasn't very physically attractive to me.
Arguably, the first times I saw her was during very short time periods during which I noticed her XKCD (or other geekeries) T-shirt more than anything else, but still !
On a totally unrelated note, I'm 26 and still a virgin. Feel free to use that to “explain” everything or anything I write here, I don't care
Yeah, I'd wager this has a lot to do with your perspective, quite frankly. Honestly, I have trouble believing that your realization that you didn't want to feth her came that much later (most probably you knew it pretty quickly and rationalized it to yourself later), again, simply because that's how were wired.
Since no one commented on the amazing Dark Elf mini posted earlier: wow. Simply stunning. I didn't realize it was a mini till I scrolled down to see the base. I thought it was CG art at first.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Additionally, are there that many of you that actually care if there are females in you hobby? I mean, unless your hobby I orgies or swinging, I can't see why dudes even care.
Zweischneid wrote: Even more surprisingly, I find it odd how you keep arguing "context" in 40K
I didn't mention anything about context in my last messages. So, no, I don't keep arguing “context”. I did use the word once in one message, merely as a sidenote. Do you even try to understand my point of view ? Why do you stick to your explanation about why I don't like this illustration, when I explicitly tell you it's not the right one, and you do acknowledge that it doesn't make any sense to you ?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cincydooley wrote: Honestly, I have trouble believing that your realization that you didn't want to feth her
Did I say that ?
cincydooley wrote: Additionally, are there that many of you that actually care if there are females in you hobby?
Because it's quite sad that half of humanity would be left out of this awesome thing .
Well, there is this girl I met at work. Well, I first noticed how she was cool, and how we had lots of common interests. And then, some time later, that she wasn't very physically attractive to me.
Arguably, the first times I saw her was during very short time periods during which I noticed her XKCD (or other geekeries) T-shirt more than anything else, but still !
On a totally unrelated note, I'm 26 and still a virgin. Feel free to use that to “explain” everything or anything I write here, I don't care
Yeah, I'd wager this has a lot to do with your perspective, quite frankly. Honestly, I have trouble believing that your realization that you didn't want to feth her came that much later (most probably you knew it pretty quickly and rationalized it to yourself later), again, simply because that's how were wired.
Since no one commented on the amazing Dark Elf mini posted earlier: wow. Simply stunning. I didn't realize it was a mini till I scrolled down to see the base. I thought it was CG art at first.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Additionally, are there that many of you that actually care if there are females in you hobby? I mean, unless your hobby I orgies or swinging, I can't see why dudes even care.
That's not entirely true, about how people are wired, it can vary quite a lot for people.
I had actuly seen the model before, it's very good.
I actually assume that the people I play with enjoy my company..
That sorta comes of a bit creepy, I assume it's not your intention.
Additionally, are there that many of you that actually care if there are females in you hobby? I mean, unless your hobby I orgies or swinging, I can't see why dudes even care.
Yeah, because the only thing that females can possibly offer is orgies and swinging.
Additionally, are there that many of you that actually care if there are females in you hobby? I mean, unless your hobby I orgies or swinging, I can't see why dudes even care.
Yeah, because the only thing that females can possibly offer is orgies and swinging.
Try and at least see the point he was making, rather than jumping in the language.
Many hobbies require another willing participant to be worthwhile, few need that person to be of the opposite gender.
Additionally, are there that many of you that actually care if there are females in you hobby? I mean, unless your hobby I orgies or swinging, I can't see why dudes even care.
Yeah, because the only thing that females can possibly offer is orgies and swinging.
Try and at least see the point he was making, rather than jumping in the language.
Many hobbies require another willing participant to be worthwhile, few need that person to be of the opposite gender.
It has nothing to do with needing anything from anyone. It's about the climate of exclusion that exists toward women in wargaming. cincydooley's post is a perfect example of this.
I did mention earlier that the Repentia have a very good fluff reason for looking like that. They're the insanely devoted zealots who feel that they have failed their god, and desperately seek absolution in their battlefield pennance. Not only does it fit, it's badass!
Though I will admit, I've had my issues with the Repentia before. I did used to worry about what sort of image of the Sisters they gave off to people. But after discussing the matter, the point was made that their fluff really does befit an over the top appearence, and that there's probably always going to be a certain sort of person making those sorts of comments about the Sisters anyway. So I've come to accept their appearence a bit more.
I'm interested to see what new Repentia minis would look like, though. Wondering how GW would redesign them.
-Loki- wrote: And one of the main reasons being 'but they aren't properly attired for a combat role' makes no sense when half naked, buff 'jungle fighters' are apparently fine when it's the last way you want to dress in a jungle setting.
The point there was that at least there was a fluff justification for the appearence of the Catachan, despite its validity being debatable. With the Inquisitor, however, we don't get this.
Additionally, are there that many of you that actually care if there are females in you hobby? I mean, unless your hobby I orgies or swinging, I can't see why dudes even care.
Yeah, because the only thing that females can possibly offer is orgies and swinging.
Try and at least see the point he was making, rather than jumping in the language.
Many hobbies require another willing participant to be worthwhile, few need that person to be of the opposite gender.
It has nothing to do with needing anything from anyone. It's about the climate of exclusion that exists toward women in wargaming. cincydooley's post is a perfect example of this.
there is no climate of exclusion. just nerds debating fluff and little plastic men is enough to send a normal girl running before she even takes a close look at the product. sorry to burst your bubble.
Additionally, are there that many of you that actually care if there are females in you hobby? I mean, unless your hobby I orgies or swinging, I can't see why dudes even care.
Yeah, because the only thing that females can possibly offer is orgies and swinging.
Try and at least see the point he was making, rather than jumping in the language.
Many hobbies require another willing participant to be worthwhile, few need that person to be of the opposite gender.
It has nothing to do with needing anything from anyone. It's about the climate of exclusion that exists toward women in wargaming. cincydooley's post is a perfect example of this.
Oh please!
Women aren't excluded, they're not interested!
We have no Wii equivalent, no soft option.
My best friend is a very feminine girl, albeit she likes her tech and will occasionally play a video game. Other than a rare bout of Streetfighter 2 if the opportunity arises, she pretty much loathes anything adversarial, she doesn't like anything with a winner and a loser as such. She would much rather play co-op or within a group. In fact, pretty much every girl friend I have falls into the same basic category.
We play, ignoring any pedantry, wargames. Women just don't have the psychology, in general, to find this as appealing as we do.
I did mention earlier that the Repentia have a very good fluff reason for looking like that. They're the insanely devoted zealots who feel that they have failed their god, and desperately seek absolution in their battlefield pennance. Not only does it fit, it's badass!
Though I will admit, I've had my issues with the Repentia before. I did used to worry about what sort of image of the Sisters they gave off to people. But after discussing the matter, the point was made that their fluff really does befit an over the top appearence, and that there's probably always going to be a certain sort of person making those sorts of comments about the Sisters anyway. So I've come to accept their appearence a bit more.
I'm sorry to break this to you, but the models were created and the fluff designed to fit. GW just wanted to make boobies.
azreal13 wrote: Women aren't excluded, they're not interested!
I should point out that women aren't a hive mind.
I've come across plenty of women who are into nerd stuff like vidya gaems and 40K. In regards to wargaming specifically, just look around this site. There are lots of women who like wargaming.
The presence of boobs is not what is turning women off to gaming. They don't get a hint of cleavage an run from the room screaming OMG beewebs!!!!!!!
Case and point next time you are at a bookstore or walmart take a look at the romance section or women's magazines which cater exclusively to the female market and you going to see cleavege at every turn. There's the hunky Fabio type with gleaming pecs and the women are all but falling out of their silk tops. Most women are fine with such images.
What drives the women away from the hobby is the fact that most gaming stores are unclean eyesores and the gaming boys/men are typically quite uncouth socially and have little concept of hygine. Women do no like mess, they do not like smell and they don't like being disrespected which is all common fare at the typical gaming store. Women do not like feeling like they are being excluded and most gaming stores have a very "boy only" amosphere. When you have stores that offer nice brightlighting and shelves that look like a normal retail place it not only drives away the light fearing man-child-trolls it makes the place much more inviting towards women and I've seen lots of more upscale stores with a much improved male/female ratio over the typical gaming man cave type store.
There's a reason nobody ever markets purfume with "Eau de' la Butt Crack" scent, women find poor hygine seriously unattracractive. A woman walking in the door and getting a wiff of stale sweat and week old ass is going to turn right around and walk out. Women also don't want to be mommy to some adult man child and don't want to be in an eviroment that's constantly filthy. Many game stores are beyond disgusting as most boys/men are prefectly content to wallow in a filthy enviroment.
Not saying that every individual here falls into this category, but many gaming shops do and that is what repels women far more than the imagry used in gaming art or miniatures.
azreal13 wrote: Women aren't excluded, they're not interested!
What about most of them are not interested, but those that are interested are often put off by a number of reason that have nothing to do with the game itself ?
I really don't want to get involved in some pointless social justice warrior/professional offence-taker brigade nonsense that seems to think any visual depiction of women is somehow automatically degrading/sexist/misogynistic/encouraging rape culture/robbing them of their agency/etc., so instead I'll do something a bit more lighthearted:
azreal13 wrote: In fact, pretty much every girl friend I have falls into the same basic category.
azreal13 wrote: I'm sorry to break this to you, but the models were created and the fluff designed to fit. GW just wanted to make boobies.
Ah, and you were present at the designing of the Repentia, so you can confirm this as fact?
Anyway, you're ignoring the importance of fluff. Fluff is just as important as appearence in explaining a model. The Repentia do have strong fluff behind them to go with their appearence, it is certainly not just a case of "hurr bewbs".
Additionally, are there that many of you that actually care if there are females in you hobby? I mean, unless your hobby I orgies or swinging, I can't see why dudes even care.
Yeah, because the only thing that females can possibly offer is orgies and swinging.
Try and at least see the point he was making, rather than jumping in the language.
Many hobbies require another willing participant to be worthwhile, few need that person to be of the opposite gender.
It has nothing to do with needing anything from anyone. It's about the climate of exclusion that exists toward women in wargaming. cincydooley's post is a perfect example of this.
there is no climate of exclusion. just nerds debating fluff and little plastic men is enough to send a normal girl running before she even takes a close look at the product. sorry to burst your bubble.
There realy is a fairly big climate of exclusion, even just with this thread I would say. Normal girls are playing the games, shouldn't be as rare as people seem to think it should be. My group will get up to a 40% ratio for anything other than 40k, I play in a all girl group for RPGs and few others play magic. One of the bigist reason is no one even assumes we would be into it.
At conventions you will be left standing there assumed to be with someone, when at a new club people won't even talk to you like you could know what is going on, when finally playing people will say all sorts of things that realy shouldn't be said.
It's intentionally geared toward men and therefore shuts out people who could potentially enjoy this awesome hobby the same way others do. Rampant portrayal of women as sexual objects is a result of this and contributes to this being a male dominated hobby when it doesn't have to be.
Which is why historical wargames have a diverse fanbase with a healthy amount of female players!
I don't like the repentia models. It just doesn't work to me. It isn't repulsive and disgusting. Unlike my avatar. Which is totally naked, if you've seen the whole picture, and I never complained about that either. Still one more issue with the “He's just a prude” theory !
azreal13 wrote: Women aren't excluded, they're not interested!
I should point out that women aren't a hive mind.
I've come across plenty of women who are into nerd stuff like vidya gaems and 40K. In regards to wargaming specifically, just look around this site. There are lots of women who like wargaming.
azreal13 wrote: Women aren't excluded, they're not interested!
I should point out that women aren't a hive mind.
I've come across plenty of women who are into nerd stuff like vidya gaems and 40K. In regards to wargaming specifically, just look around this site. There are lots of women who like wargaming.
Women aren't a hive mind, in fact due to the chromosomal construction of female DNA, they are more diverse than men.
To try and pretend that there are common traits to most is just daft.
There's a handful of females who post regularly on a site with tens of thousands of members, not exactly lots.
Also, at 35, I can count the number of girls/women who were genuinely, independently enthusiastic about video games I've known/know on one hand. All those have been interested in video games.
My girl friends demonstrate an appreciation for my painting if they see my models, not a one has ever expressed an interest in playing a game. I suspect that maybe, maybe one or two might enjoy a game of X Wing or something with a similarly shallow entry curve if I pushed them. But enough to buy it themselves, or go further and invest in the models and materials to play a full blown miniatures game? Absolutely not.
If you know plenty of women that are interested in wargames, I suggest you ask one on a date and work very hard in making her your wife, as your future hobby life will be infinitely easier.
For the rest of us, the best we can realistically hope for in a partner is tolerance.
azreal13 wrote: I'm sorry to break this to you, but the models were created and the fluff designed to fit. GW just wanted to make boobies.
Ah, and you were present at the designing of the Repentia, so you can confirm this as fact?
Anyway, you're ignoring the importance of fluff. Fluff is just as important as appearence in explaining a model. The Repentia do have strong fluff behind them to go with their appearence, it is certainly not just a case of "hurr bewbs".
No, it is well known that the production method at GW is models first, then the writing happens.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: I don't like the repentia models. It just doesn't work to me. It isn't repulsive and disgusting. Unlike my avatar. Which is totally naked, if you've seen the whole picture, and I never complained about that either. Still one more issue with the “He's just a prude” theory !
Get over the "I'm not a prude thing" you're protesting too much.
If you're seriously saying your only issue with the picture is that she is poorly dressed for combat, and people have made several good arguments as to how this wouldn't necessarily the case, why is there still an issue?
azreal13 wrote: I'm sorry to break this to you, but the models were created and the fluff designed to fit. GW just wanted to make boobies.
Ah, and you were present at the designing of the Repentia, so you can confirm this as fact?
Anyway, you're ignoring the importance of fluff. Fluff is just as important as appearence in explaining a model. The Repentia do have strong fluff behind them to go with their appearence, it is certainly not just a case of "hurr bewbs".
azreal13 wrote: No, it is well known that the production method at GW is models first, then the writing happens.
To be fair the models are playing on the flagellation/ religious asceticism tropes, which feel very natural in an army of religious fanatics
Apple fox wrote: There realy is a fairly big climate of exclusion, even just with this thread I would say.
Hey, shut up, all those men around here know way better than you do how girls feels in a random LGS than you do, because it happens to them every time they go into one ! Oh, wait…
azreal13 wrote: There's a handful of females who post regularly on a site with tens of thousands of members, not exactly lots.
Also, at 35, I can count the number of girls/women who were genuinely, independently enthusiastic about video games I've known/know on one hand. All those have been interested in video games.
So because they're supposedly a minority, they don't count?
I just don't like the generalisations you're applying, here. Like women who like these things are "exceptions" to women, rather than just individuals who happen to enjoy a certain hobby. I'm sorry if you feel that I'm misunderstanding you, or anything, but that's how I feel about your reasoning.
Also, I do think that a big part of what repels some women from these sorts of hobbies is them being so male dominated, as well as the "territorial male nerd" rubbish. A woman might feel like she sticks out coming into an otherwise all-male group, and they might treat her differently. And then there's the factor of some men in these hobbies being actively suspicious of women trying to enjoy them, with idiocy like "fake geek girls" actually being a thing. Basically, what I'm saying is that a lot of "nerd culture" probably isn't all that inclusive of women, which can be a major factor in women participating in these things.
azreal13 wrote: My girl friends demonstrate an appreciation for my painting if they see my models, not a one has ever expressed an interest in playing a game. I suspect that maybe, maybe one or two might enjoy a game of X Wing or something with a similarly shallow entry curve if I pushed them. But enough to buy it themselves, or go further and invest in the models and materials to play a full blown miniatures game? Absolutely not.
Again, the implication of present tense multiples. Interesting.
azreal13 wrote: If you're seriously saying your only issue with the picture is that she is poorly dressed for combat
You either did not read any of my message, including the very first message of this thread, or are voluntarily trying to infuriate me. Which one is it, pray ?
azreal13 wrote: My girl friends demonstrate an appreciation for my painting if they see my models, not a one has ever expressed an interest in playing a game. I suspect that maybe, maybe one or two might enjoy a game of X Wing or something with a similarly shallow entry curve if I pushed them. But enough to buy it themselves, or go further and invest in the models and materials to play a full blown miniatures game? Absolutely not.
Again, the implication of present tense multiples. Interesting.
I will point to the distinction between "girl friends" and "girlfriends."
Unfortunately.
Frankly, my dating history, up until the last few years, for a wargamer, would just sound like I was making stuff up to sound impressive anyway, nobody would believe me!
Apple fox wrote: There realy is a fairly big climate of exclusion, even just with this thread I would say.
Hey, shut up, all those men around here know way better than you do how girls feels in a random LGS than you do, because it happens to them every time they go into one !
Oh, wait…
Actually for those of us who have had girlfriends and need to pick something up from LGS and or GW. ya. we do have an idea. lol
azreal13 wrote: If you're seriously saying your only issue with the picture is that she is poorly dressed for combat
You either did not read any of my message, including the very first message of this thread, or are voluntarily trying to infuriate me. Which one is it, pray ?
I'll admit to my vision slipping off your posts slightly, as while your English is good, interpreting your turn of phrase isn't as natural for me as with an English native, but I've gone back and re-read your OP, and I see you say you don't mind impractical, you just object to the faint hint of cleavage.
azreal13 wrote: Frankly, my dating history, up until the last few years, for a wargamer, would just sound like I was making stuff up to sound impressive anyway, nobody would believe me!
By most wargamer's standards if you can count past girlfriends on more than one finger you've already headed into Don Juan, and Cassnova territory.
azreal13 wrote: Frankly, my dating history, up until the last few years, for a wargamer, would just sound like I was making stuff up to sound impressive anyway, nobody would believe me!
By most wargamer's standards if you can count past girlfriends on more than one finger you've already headed into Don Juan, and Cassnova territory.
Well, if anyone is curious the highlights include 2 pole dancers, 1 glamour model, a student nurse (complete with uniform) and an aerobics instructor.
I swear, hand on heart, I'm not making this gak up, they were all nice, decent, articulate, intelligent people (other than the nurse, who I suspect was in the stages of a drinking problem, or was just 19, not sure) that I met outside their places of work (and technically one of the dancers and the model went on to do that, they didn't do it while we were together)
Believe it or not, your choice, I lived it, so I know.
azreal13 wrote: I'll admit to my vision slipping off your posts slightly, as while your English is good, interpreting your turn of phrase isn't as natural for me as with an English native
Oh. I need to work on it then. Any advice ?
azreal13 wrote: and I see you say you don't mind impractical, you just object to the faint hint of cleavage.
Not right again ! I have no problem with cleavage on some models. Hell, I wouldn't have problem with full nudity on some models, if it's done right. Just on the right model, and done the right way.
paulson games wrote: By most wargamer's standards if you can count past girlfriends on more than one finger you've already headed into Don Juan, and Cassnova territory.
Could still count mine on my fingers even if I had both my hands cut off. And my feet too.
azreal13 wrote: I'll admit to my vision slipping off your posts slightly, as while your English is good, interpreting your turn of phrase isn't as natural for me as with an English native
Oh. I need to work on it then. Any advice ?
Nothing specific, it's just your French grammar and syntax coming through I suspect, the more native English you encounter, the better you'll get I expect.
azreal13 wrote: and I see you say you don't mind impractical, you just object to the faint hint of cleavage.
Not right again ! I have no problem with cleavage on some models. Hell, I wouldn't have problem with full nudity on some models, if it's done right. Just on the right model, and done the right way.
But why seize on this model, with no real nudity and reasons to explain it, to object to? Other than "you would have preferred some thing different "
I'm very confused by
“Fortunately, I'm very good at separating work from their creators, it'd be very hard to be an Earthworm Jim fan otherwise.”
I like the Earthworm Jim video games, especially the second one. What horrible things did the Earthworm Jim creators do ?
azreal13 wrote: Women aren't excluded, they're not interested!
I should point out that women aren't a hive mind.
I've come across plenty of women who are into nerd stuff like vidya gaems and 40K. In regards to wargaming specifically, just look around this site. There are lots of women who like wargaming.
Dear god, for some reason I just thought of this picture reading your post and I have no idea why...
azreal13 wrote: But why seize on this model, with no real nudity and reasons to explain it, to object to? Other than "you would have preferred some thing different "
It's not even a model, it's an illustration. It's because I really thinks here it breaks the harmony of the rest of the picture, feels very unnatural, and because Inquisitors are supposed to be awesome in a certain specific way that doesn't mix at all with this.
There is just cloth all around it, with the collar and the cape !
It's also because there are very very few female models and illustrations in 40k, and most of them are ok (like the eldars, both craftworld and dark). There's way worse stuff in the rest of the industry, in video games and even in WFB I guess. So since it's a rare occurrence, I reacted to it. If Blizzard made some boob-hole in some armor… well, business as usual, right ?
Believe it or not, your choice, I lived it, so I know.
I worked for 5 years as a bouncer at a couple of major niteclubs and a strip club, not much phases me anymore. The things women will offer just to avoid paying a $3 cover fee or get a string of mardi gras beads has never ceased to amaze me. The simplest pick up device ever invented is the clip board and earphone.
azreal13 wrote: But why seize on this model, with no real nudity and reasons to explain it, to object to? Other than "you would have preferred some thing different "
It's not even a model, it's an illustration. It's because I really thinks here it breaks the harmony of the rest of the picture, feels very unnatural, and because Inquisitors are supposed to be awesome in a certain specific way that doesn't mix at all with this.
There is just cloth all around it, with the collar and the cape !
It's also because there are very very few female models and illustrations in 40k, and most of them are ok (like the eldars, both craftworld and dark). There's way worse stuff in the rest of the industry, in video games and even in WFB I guess. So since it's a rare occurrence, I reacted to it. If Blizzard made some boob-hole in some armor… well, business as usual, right ?
Yeah, ok, pic, not model, my bad.
It is a bustier and a cape, not boob hole armour, which seems pretty gothic to me. But I think this boils down to the fact you'd like to have seen something different, which is fair enough, but it certainly isn't excessively sexualised, objectified or anything along those lines.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I just searched Google Images for gothic dress, this came up on the first page (and isn't cherry picked, just one of the first that isn't just pictured on the hanger)
Looks quite similar, add a cape and you're right on the money. So in fact the image is actually fairly true to the imagery that 40K draws on.
This one came to us from 'TheArtificer' on Deviant Art. (Most of his stuff is NSFW and contains 'promotions' of dubious size, but tend to be funny) This particular one turned up in a 40k humor thread elsewhere and I tracked down the original to see if there were any more like it. (ATM there are not but supposedly the series with Jane the Succubus [blond on sofa] and her hobbies is ongoing, so I check back every now and then. So far there's been a World of Tanks one, a 40k one, and a [again NSFW] one of her and an aquarium).
Also, note: this guy primarily caters to the fetish crowd. You may need brain bleach for the one's that are 'adult'.
azreal13 wrote: It is a bustier and a cape, not boob hole armour, which seems pretty gothic to me.
It looks like a boob hole because it's surrounded by cloth, and it looks like armor because the part on the breast really looks like metal to me. It shows much much more of the breast than the picture you posted. And gothic is some very vague word. This is considered a gothic look : I'm a fan of “gothic” music (coldwave, deathrock, batcave, all that kind of stuff) and I'm used to metal fans having a completely different concept of what gothic is supposed to mean, with a bunch of heated discussions on the subject .
azreal13 wrote: It is a bustier and a cape, not boob hole armour, which seems pretty gothic to me.
It looks like a boob hole because it's surrounded by cloth, and it looks like armor because the part on the breast really looks like metal to me.
It shows much much more of the breast than the picture you posted. And gothic is some very vague word. This is considered a gothic look :
I'm a fan of “gothic” music (coldwave, deathrock, batcave, all that kind of stuff) and I'm used to metal fans having a completely different concept of what gothic is supposed to mean, with a bunch of heated discussions on the subject .
Uh.... not to point out a failure of your English language comprehension, but that picture is "Goth", not "Gothic".
This discussion would probably be a bit more fruitful if there weren't quite so many parts of it predicated on misunderstandings...
EDIT: It's also worth pointing out that the woman in the illustration "shows much much more of the breast than the picture you posted" because the woman in the illustration is very well endowed, but Az's picture much more modestly apportioned.
EDIT2: I suppose it's worth pointing out that "Goth" versus "Gothic" is probably quite confused with regards to music... which would be very important were we talking about music rather then a genre/company with a very well established context that precludes such confusion.
As is "amply" demonstrated by the ever lovely Miss Simpson in this medieval "wench" Halloween costume (same era as my earlier dress pic is from, admittedly less gothic in tone)
Or perhaps closer to the image in question, as it appears to be armoured and would perhaps squeeze and push a bit more
Well, if you could furnish us with an image of what a female imperial agent with near limitless power and resources from 40 000 years in the future actually looks like, we could all do with the point of reference.
Hah. You're right. Authentic would be no women fighting at all. Good call there.
Minor detail: not true. Weirdly enough militant orders for women did exist, they were highly unusual, but did exist. The Order of the Hatchet, which raised the siege of Tortosa by sallying against the Moors, is an example of one.
The Knights of Santiago were also, IIRC, not shy about women under arms in actual warzones at the time, either, IIRC. The Order of the Glorious Saint Mary in Italy (which allowed women under arms and granted them knighthood) was suppressed by Sixtus V in 1558 in Italy. They were founded in 1233, so that was a fair run as well.
But (heterosexual) men, by their very nature, are biologically and culturally predisposed to think of women in that way.
This is certainly not universal, in fact I would like to think that only a minority of men think in such a fashion.
True. Though it is important to note that there is an extremism as dangerous, if not more so, on the other end of the spectrum of objecting to even the slightest hint of erotica, and of condemning even small and harmless displays of skin and a bit of bosom as "overtly sexual", which is as despicable and even more so an instrument of masculine subjugation of women in society and of individual women (and a symptom of sexual immaturity without equal).
Spoiler:
A liberal society must be tolerant of many things, including a bit of "sexy art" (which this particular picture isn't).
Hardly the same to compare muslims in burquas to what I assume are Amish women. Amish men cover up just as much unlike muslim men who'll often wear western fashions like t-shirts and jeans while their wives are dressed in burquas. One is a standard of morality that only applies to females, the other is universally expected.
Hah. You're right. Authentic would be no women fighting at all. Good call there.
Minor detail: not true. Weirdly enough militant orders for women did exist, they were highly unusual, but did exist. The Order of the Hatchet, which raised the siege of Tortosa by sallying against the Moors, is an example of one.
The Knights of Santiago were also, IIRC, not shy about women under arms in actual warzones at the time, either, IIRC. The Order of the Glorious Saint Mary in Italy (which allowed women under arms and granted them knighthood) was suppressed by Sixtus V in 1558 in Italy. They were founded in 1233, so that was a fair run as well.
Isn't most of the clothing we see female inquisitors in reflective of more baroque and would have been seen during the gothic revival as opposed to the original time frame that birthed gothic architecture?
Isn't most of the clothing we see female inquisitors in reflective of more baroque and would have been seen during the gothic revival as opposed to the original time frame that birthed gothic architecture?
Ok, yes, that's true. It has much more to do with what the Victorians THOUGHT that time period was like than the reality. And is also one of the reasons that 'Goth' and 'steam punk' have so much bleed between them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
azreal13 wrote: I think trying to pin the influences that inform 40K down to a specific period or style is the route to madness!
Not really. It's pretty solidly Victorian, and neatly reflects the Victorian's preconceived notions of what other periods of history were like. Amusingly enough, there are rather blatant traces of it. The bolter being .75 cal being a good example of it. (Reference to the British Brown Bess musket).
I actually appreciate the bit of Info though, baron. I just read a few articles about those female orders thanks to you! Really really interesting stuff.
Not sure why a fully clothed woman with a touch of cleavage is so objectionable.
This nationally treasured work of art work is considered to be a French masterpiece as well as a masterwork of feminisitic ideals.
Which depicts an even less clothed version of woman assuming leadership of a heroic and inspiring charge made up of fully clothed men. Traditionally strong female characters are often shown with elements of nudity to project symbols of grace and purity. It's a very common thread in art and considered to be progressively feminist expression. Not all nudity means an overtly sexualized "hey I'm a hooker" statement. Nudity in art is often a direct expression of the edowment of power. (go ask an art history teacher).
A nude or partially nude female form suggests that she has a significant level of power or station Lesser females would be subject to the confines of male society and be required to be clothed. Her nudity directly challenges the establish norms of the male driven hierachy. Maybe the artist just wanted to show some cleavage, or maybe there's some deeper thought behind the piece. College educated artists afterall have to sit through art history and humanities classes (which explains all this stuff).
The 40k setting emulates the old world dark age culture that focuses on oppression of spirit and blind conformance to doctrine and tradition. A female character showing some of her breast (ie her femininity) is in fact showing her refusal to submit to that order which is an empowering element in that piece. Both 40k and the Star Wars settings purposefully remove the feminine elements to show a cold detached nature of their empires.
(artistically it implies infertility and the inability to sustain itself except through war, as men are represented as destroyers while women are life givers)
Under the gothic framework the Iquisitors are the most devote elements of the empire tasked with enforcing the imperial doctrine. If you mix in elements of the feminine you have a clash of principles which indicates the character has an impressive level of power behind her, or might indicate that she is a radical as the udnerlying elements hint at progressive ideals. Either of which would be very apt for somebody the level of an inqusitor.
azreal13 wrote: I think trying to pin the influences that inform 40K down to a specific period or style is the route to madness!
Not really. It's pretty solidly Victorian, and neatly reflects the Victorian's preconceived notions of what other periods of history were like. Amusingly enough, there are rather blatant traces of it. The bolter being .75 cal being a good example of it. (Reference to the British Brown Bess musket).
Oh, for the Imperium, that is undoubtedly the overarching influence, I was talking more in a broader sense as well as having a dig at GW's habit of pinching ideas from everywhere, then litigating the feth out of everyone who dares contemplate doing similar to them.
azreal13 wrote: I think trying to pin the influences that inform 40K down to a specific period or style is the route to madness!
Not really. It's pretty solidly Victorian, and neatly reflects the Victorian's preconceived notions of what other periods of history were like. Amusingly enough, there are rather blatant traces of it. The bolter being .75 cal being a good example of it. (Reference to the British Brown Bess musket).
Oh, for the Imperium, that is undoubtedly the overarching influence, I was talking more in a broader sense as well as having a dig at GW's habit of pinching ideas from everywhere, then litigating the feth out of everyone who dares contemplate doing similar to them.
It's not hard:
We've covered the Imp so...
Tyranids are the Xenomorphs from Alien taken nearly whole cloth
Tau come from a Rodger Dean album cover for Uriah Heep with a helping of anime inspired mecha and some serious 1960's touchy feely 'let's all get along'.
The Eldar as a mashup between Tolkein's elves and Moorcock's Melinboneans, some of them quite literally as GW had the rights to both of them at one point or another and just did some headswaps when they lost the rights and added guns.
Chaos was again lifted largely intact from Moorcock, though individual Chaos powers may vary.
The Orks are a little harder to pin down. They seem to be a mashup of modern British hooligan cultural memes.
Necrons are tomb kings in space. Tomb kings themselves were lifted from Universal's The Mummy franchise.
Necrons predate Tomb Kings, and possibly even the Mummy movie, I think they're just "Undead in Space" as the army book in WHFB hadn't split into two yet.
With the obvious Ancient Egyptian influence too, perhaps some Mayan, Inca or Aztec too, I don't have the memory or knowledge to call that.
EDIT yep, 3rd was 98, Necrons existed in 2nd (barely) and the first Mummy movie was 99, so while they may have pinched from it as time went on, it wasn't an initial influence.
Orks undoubtedly draw heavily from British hooliganism, but I think there is some ancient European tribal influence I there somewhere too (Vandals, Visigoths etc) and perhaps a dash of the Mongol hordes.
I'm just going to cut&paste my response from the other thread, because frankly if I have to read any more moebius strip-level logical twisting to justify people's reactionary prudishness, I think I might have to start drinking again.
Yodhrin wrote: showing an Inquisitor wearing an elegant baroque dress with a décolletage entirely in keeping with the style is tasteless and borderline sexist.
So, metal bra is part of an “elegant baroque dress” ? Are those big metal ]I[ on her hands and arms also part of an elegant baroque dress ? Is that brown and plain cape also part of it ?
Also, saying cleavage with a pidgin French word may make it look better to English speakers, but for French-speaker it just makes it silly.
Yodhrin wrote: but this bizarre prudishness that seems to have arisen of late which can equate a woman in a dress with those previous things is what I myself find ridiculous.
Of course, it's not the same. It's a question of degree !
Mr Morden wrote:They might even be attending an event at the Govenors palace - hence their dress. Then the usual bad things happen.
I think some type of Inquisitors attend events at the Governor palace by trying to fit in, bringing only easily concealable weapon like digital weaponry, while other don't give a damn, and those kind can attend with a huge chainsword… but won't change their clothing either.
Haight wrote:Other than that.... yeah, sorry, complaining that a game company is stooping to the level of putting tits or armor of questionable tactical viability is pretty futile. They all do it.
So what ? Shouldn't stop us from complaining !
Also, concept art for Lord of the Ring Online
Loan words are a thing, of course I'm sure the superior French language is pure and unsullied by dirty foreign words, but some of us were just in such awe at the sheer majesty of your wondrous tongue that we couldn't help but borrow terms from it
Bull0 wrote: Nope - people have just as much right to call it out as you do to enjoy it, don't try and silence them please
Pointing out that someone's opinion is ludicrous is not the same as claiming they have no right to express it.
Sources on those? I'm interested to see the exact nature of this fluff.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: You need to expand your viewpoint a bit on why someone could be on the battlefield.
So that entails being accepting of them being on one in quite inappropriate dress for the battlefield? I just don't think there's ever really a decent reason to have exposed skin if you're out on a battlefield. Especially when you're one of the most powerful people in the Imperium and likely have access to protection as good as power armor.
You are completely unable to think of any scenario at all in which an Inquisitor would be in a combat scenario without armour? Quick, someone call Sandy Mitchell and tell him he's doing it wrong when that happens in his books. Dan Abnett as well.
Seriously though, we're talking about a universe where entire military formations go into battle in full-dress uniform, where naval officers wear uniforms right out of the Napoleonic-era and fight hand-to-hand boarding actions on enemy ships in them, and where Inquisitors wear whatever they damn well please and rely on a combination of displacer/force fields and the sheer terror most people feel at the sight of them to protect themselves in any situation where they don't categorically know they're going into a literal battlefield(as in, armies clashing, not a gang fight in the middle of an investigation, or an ambush at their residence or what have you).
We've already established that one needn't be a prude to find fault with this.
No, you and others have asserted that, but I'm still fairly well convinced one must proceed from an initial standpoint of "sexy = bad" in order to ignore the sheer mountain of scenarios which could justify the inclusion of evening attire and a chainsword in the same image.
Rostere wrote: The fact remains that the kind of clothing we saw in that picture is bordering on the ridiculous considering the context. Why would a serious person like an Inquisitor dress up like a tart? Yes, I understand male fanservice is generally much accepted in many subcultures, but I'd rather have none of it in WH40K.
How would people react if this was the basis for GWs future male inquisitors:
Yes, an Inquisitor could technically wear any type of clothing. Yes, that means they could wear unprotective clothing (even if this is probably more rare than having you know, actual protective armor for combat missions). But why would they wear skimpy clothing? That's a type of clothing which signals submission, or desperation out of having no alternatives to attract attention/gain favours from the opposite sex. Wearing that type of clothing is very denigrating for a person. This or this type of clothing signals authority. This (or this) type of clothing comes off as unserious and as mostly meant to trigger sexual behaviour. If you view of female Inquisitors is that they are supposed to be some kind of space strippers who trigger sexual behaviour in male troops, I believe you are direly mistaken, both from a lore POV and from common sense. Now it's not my personal "prudeness" - or course I wouldn't mind if Slaaneshi cultists wore skimpy clothing or even ran around naked, but Inquisitors (or Commissars, as mentioned) are people of a quite different ideology (and in a different society) whom I'd like be given a serious treatment and not be subjected to cheesy fanservice.
And thus, my point is proved, because equating an evening dress with male strippers is pretty much the perfect example of how completely daft the argument against this artwork is.
Damn, those old-timey painters are awful! Just blatant "fan service"
I'm done with this, if you're seriously out-there enough to buy into the idea that this bit of artwork is equivalent to male strippers, there's no discussion left to have at that point because we're not even living on the same planet any more.
azreal13 wrote: and the first Mummy movie was 99, so while they may have pinched from it as time went on, it wasn't an initial influence.
1932. The first The Mummy was in 1932. The 1999 was a reboot. 1999 was also the year of the 3rd Ed Necron release. Chambers originally desinged them as a rip off of the Terminator's T800 (as for 2n d ed they were only Warriors and Scarabs) but GW threw out Chambers WD version with the end of 2nd ed.
Not really a lot to plunder from the 1932 movie though huh?
I remember clearly the terminator-esque first iteration, I remember receiving my free Warrior on the front of WD.
Of course, they themselves borrowed heavily from the androids in Space Crusade, which also leaned heavily on Terminator, so I guess that is the genesis, with Undead in Spaaace coming later, then Tomb Kings in Spaaace later still.
Hardly the same to compare muslims in burquas to what I assume are Amish women. Amish men cover up just as much unlike muslim men who'll often wear western fashions like t-shirts and jeans while their wives are dressed in burquas. One is a standard of morality that only applies to females, the other is universally expected.
And?
Because Amish oppress men as well with their prudish bs, it is suddenly less oppressive? Doesn't make sense. Oppressing twice the population is twice as bad in my book. No choice is no choice, whether its women, men, or both.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: I'm very confused by
“Fortunately, I'm very good at separating work from their creators, it'd be very hard to be an Earthworm Jim fan otherwise.”
I like the Earthworm Jim video games, especially the second one. What horrible things did the Earthworm Jim creators do ?
Yodhrin wrote: if I have to read any more moebius strip-level logical twisting to justify people's reactionary prudishness
We've already established that one needn't be a prude to find issue with this. Criticising one depiction of a skimpily dressed woman (and based on the context of it, not the skimpiness itself) is not the same a prudishness.
Yodhrin wrote: You are completely unable to think of any scenario at all in which an Inquisitor would be in a combat scenario without armour?
Not a good one, no. That picture showed us an Inquisitor apparently ready for fight, since she had her chainsword ready, yet wearing clothes not really appropriate for a combat situation. Ergo, I view it as a bad portrayal of an Inquisitor.
Yodhrin wrote: and rely on a combination of displacer/force fields
Though displacer fields can fail, or be possibly bypassed. If that happens, why not have a little extra protection underneath?
Yodhrin wrote: No, you and others have asserted that, but I'm still fairly well convinced one must proceed from an initial standpoint of "sexy = bad" in order to ignore the sheer mountain of scenarios which could justify the inclusion of evening attire and a chainsword in the same image.
You're ignoring the context of this objection. I'm not even saying "sexy=bad", but that "going into battle dressed in clothes which leave your torso and legs bare=bad". In relation to that, I see no satisfactory explanation for an Inquisitor going into combat in evening attire.
This is not the same as objecting to sexiness itself, so please stop trying to twist the arguments against it into this. I could go around accusing everybody in favour of it of being pervs, but I assume that you all have a better reason for your stance than that.
The problem is, however, that there is an assumption by the OP that she IS going in to battle. It could just as easily be a ceremonial sword. Just take a look at any of the background on the nobility in much of 40k. They often carry dress weapons, not just swords, but ornate las weapons. Military people will often carry power weapons and bolt pistols. Inquisitors will carry what they need and dress how they wish. To fit in to the spire of a hive they may well carry dress weapons and wear fine clothes, including a chain sword. There is no evidence this is intended to be an image of someone in front line combat. It could just as easily be an image of an inquisitor who has just uncovered a stealer cult whilst attending a party at the palace of the planetary governor, or attacked by slanesh cultists whilst investigating strange goings on at a drinking den on an agri world.
Your assuming that combat = preparation. Either that or that an inquisitor expecting the possibility of combat will always wear full armor. There are many situations where that would not be appropriate. Inquisitors are not front line troops. The FBI don't ware body armor all of the time, yet carry, and use, guns as a matter of course. Same with plain clothed cops. Same situation with an inquisitor.
Hardly the same to compare muslims in burquas to what I assume are Amish women. Amish men cover up just as much unlike muslim men who'll often wear western fashions like t-shirts and jeans while their wives are dressed in burquas. One is a standard of morality that only applies to females, the other is universally expected.
And?
Because Amish oppress men as well with their prudish bs, it is suddenly less oppressive? Doesn't make sense. Oppressing twice the population is twice as bad in my book. No choice is no choice, whether its women, men, or both.
In a world where equality and fairness had no meaning, your post would actually make sense.
In all others, I have to say: If you are so desperate to repel any criticism directed at your arguments with half-assed counter-arguments you should maybe better exit the discussion.
Either you take it too personal, or you are prone to writing before thinking, and neither is good for you or the discussion.
####################
(sorry if this comes across as too male-oriented but I believe the problem-drivers here to be boys: )
The tabletop hobby - as expressed in its media - is by and large sexist. Probably 7 out of 10 images or sculpts of women are over-sexualized, titillating, or otherwise sexually cliched. There are good counter-examples but the overwhelming majority of depictions of women between 16 and 56 (in standard Earth years) in our hobby is biased towards "Be a good (i.e. beautiful, sexy, big-breasted, half-naked, white) girl, will you?"
Of course that has to do with the target audience. And no, I don't mean "men", I mean "heterosexual males that came/come into the hobby in puberty and got/get socialised in and by the community and said media representations".
There ARE other men. Queers, for example, or mostly-straights that only really got into the hobby in their twenties (like myself).
Pointing that out does not make me prudish. I like sexy sculpts. I like sexy women. I even married one. It's just that I also like a lot of non-sexy, ugly or beautiful but in any case normal women without breast implants and chainmail bikini and super-cleavage galore, and at least in the non-historical parts of the hobby they lead a very marginal life, indeed, unless they are old hags, witches or kids.
There is nothin wrong with the depiction of a sexy lady. There is nothing wrong with a nude sculpt.
It is the accumulation and bias towards these images and sculpts that makes it sexist.*
The male strippers actually make a good point. Although women are usually not as aroused by visual stimuli as men, or so I am told, imagine half-naked Stripper boys with 15inch shlongs in their trousers running around for the Inquisition, all the time. As a man, you would find it ridiculous! Maybe not demeaning in the beginning but over time you too might get annoyed at seeing yet another big-penised callboy with a lasgun lying at the feet of the heroine, it always being about sexual attraction in one way or another and not a single normal guy on the horizon.
The example the OP gave might be pretty weak to make the point. (I find it much more revolting to see how antiseptic and polished the Wh40K is becoming than to find the odd cleavage or two).
But I understood that it was more the reaction against the OP that led to this thread, not the discussion of the image itself, so there are my 2cents on the hobby.
*A big caveat to that: There are single depictions of women that are in themselves sexist and don't need a hobby-context. Ass and chainmail bikini tits in one perspective, for example, is always softporn. You might like Kingdom Death Hentai minis - but don't pretend them to be OK from a humanist point of view.
EDITED for spelling. Feel free to correct further.
Steve steveson wrote: The problem is, however, that there is an assumption by the OP that she IS going in to battle. It could just as easily be a ceremonial sword. Just take a look at any of the background on the nobility in much of 40k. They often carry dress weapons, not just swords, but ornate las weapons. Military people will often carry power weapons and bolt pistols. Inquisitors will carry what they need and dress how they wish. To fit in to the spire of a hive they may well carry dress weapons and wear fine clothes, including a chain sword. There is no evidence this is intended to be an image of someone in front line combat. It could just as easily be an image of an inquisitor who has just uncovered a stealer cult whilst attending a party at the palace of the planetary governor, or attacked by slanesh cultists whilst investigating strange goings on at a drinking den on an agri world.
Your assuming that combat = preparation. Either that or that an inquisitor expecting the possibility of combat will always wear full armor. There are many situations where that would not be appropriate. Inquisitors are not front line troops. The FBI don't ware body armor all of the time, yet carry, and use, guns as a matter of course. Same with plain clothed cops. Same situation with an inquisitor.
This is the problem I see with this particular image being used as there is no context on where the Inquisitor is or was and maybe everything just went pairshaped at a high society party and one of her retinue gave her a weapon.
Now I understand that alot of people have a problem with over sexualised pictures in 40k but personally I have more of a problem with The Adepta Sororitas cover as her posing seems more offensive while in full armour than the Inquisitor in a Baroque Dress with Cloak.
I thought the image was good when I first saw it and thought cool - couple of Inquisitors about to Kick Ass.
I assumed she was just a noble born Inquisitor dressing normally for a function - accessorising with I symbols to reinforce her position. She was likely brought up from birth to "command" and carries on that style. Certainly there is nothing submissive about her stance or implying that she is anything other than command of the situation. Unlike her male colleague whose fringe obscures his vision and appears to have just accidently conjured up some Daemons - likely she is just about to take his head
Her chainsword may well have been carried in by one her flunkies as part of a impressive procession on entering.
I will ask some of my female friends as to their opinion on it - I know at least one of the them is in favour of the sexy combat look as she thinks it distracts your opponent.
Mr Morden wrote: I thought the image was good when I first saw it and thought cool - couple of Inquisitors about to Kick Ass.
I assumed she was just a noble born Inquisitor dressing normally for a function - accessorising with I symbols to reinforce her position. She was likely brought up from birth to "command" and carries on that style. Certainly there is nothing submissive about her stance or implying that she is anything other than command of the situation. Unlike her male colleague whose fringe obscures his vision and appears to have just accidently conjured up some Daemons - likely she is just about to take his head
Her chainsword may well have been carried in by one her flunkies as part of a impressive procession on entering.
I will ask some of my female friends as to their opinion on it - I know at least one of the them is in favour of the sexy combat look as she thinks it distracts your opponent.
I would think that that image itself won't be seen in to bad a light, I think it was more just a few comments that become a discussion.
Allways good to get more perspective on things :-D
It's a tough discussion and very tough for it to Be understood at times.
Bull0 wrote: Nope - people have just as much right to call it out as you do to enjoy it, don't try and silence them please
Pointing out that someone's opinion is ludicrous is not the same as claiming they have no right to express it.
Wasn't really talking to you with that one, you backed up your position with some examples and explanation. I was responding to this, which didn't understand or add anything to the discussion at all but did ask the dissenters to "get over it":
xruslanx wrote: it's a bit of booby guys...get over it. The dark elf army book was covered in them (at least when i had it around ten years ago).
That said I'm not convinced you can call someone's opinion "ridiculous" or "ludicrous" without simultaneously implying they shouldn't have said it. You might well disagree.
Zweischneid wrote: Funny how nobody objected to the white-haired Inquisitor being so obviously ill-dressed for battle.
- All that hair seems really inconvenient, hampering peripheral vision, etc..
- That cloak doesn't seem to offer much if a stray Lascannon should hit him.
- Clutters of paper everywhere that could singe and even burn, causing extra damage.
- He doesn't even have a totally unwieldy, loud and impractical weapon.
Somebody clearly didn't do their military research when they drew that guy!
I actually mentioned the same thing in the original thread.............but no one noticed :(
Plus I think he likely accidently summoned the daemon............
It all seems very pander-y. I mean, if they were just trying to show off sexiness and stuff then they wouldn't be afraid to show off penises, but it's all the same bare-breasted stuff.
Honestly though all of it would be really embarrassing to put on the table painted up.
Panzeh wrote: It all seems very pander-y. I mean, if they were just trying to show off sexiness and stuff then they wouldn't be afraid to show off penises, but it's all the same bare-breasted stuff.
Honestly though all of it would be really embarrassing to put on the table painted up.
I can't believe I'm saying this in a wargaming forum, but...
I can't believe I'm saying this in a wargaming forum, but...
Nobody likes looking at penises.
Don't be making sweeping statements like that. I can assure you there are people who like seeing penises.
I think you'll find, and again, I really don't believe I'm having this conversation, that, especially in comparison to breasts, the male lunchbox is not exactly appreciated for it's aesthetic qualities. Speak to some of your female friends, I'm sure most will tell you they aren't spending hours staring at them.
Panzeh wrote: It all seems very pander-y. I mean, if they were just trying to show off sexiness and stuff then they wouldn't be afraid to show off penises, but it's all the same bare-breasted stuff.
Honestly though all of it would be really embarrassing to put on the table painted up.
I can't believe I'm saying this in a wargaming forum, but...
Nobody likes looking at penises.
Ah, the old problem. Making your personal issues a general rule...
I am totally OK with mine, you know? So is my wife. We regularly have a look & laugh, thank you very much.
Panzeh wrote: It all seems very pander-y. I mean, if they were just trying to show off sexiness and stuff then they wouldn't be afraid to show off penises, but it's all the same bare-breasted stuff.
Honestly though all of it would be really embarrassing to put on the table painted up.
Have you looked at some of the Foundry historic German and Greek warriors - bit of a sausage fest - but I believe accurate in terms of people fighting "sky clad".
Also the image being discussed is not bare breasted - as indeed are other "sky clad" historic female warriors
Zweischneid wrote: Perhaps. But than 99% of the 40K background shouldn't really be satisfying to you. "Because why not?" Is pretty much the basic principle the entire setting operates on. It's the 40K-verses first, second, third and fourth law of thermodynamics.
I suppose the problem is that we all "draw the line" somewhere different. I can accept acid-spitting supermen and pipe organ tanks, because, for me, it doesn't cross from "rule of cool" over to "unrealistic.
Seriously?
And a woman in a low-cut top who may or may not be preparing for some sort of conflict does cross over to unrealistic?
Panzeh wrote: It all seems very pander-y. I mean, if they were just trying to show off sexiness and stuff then they wouldn't be afraid to show off penises, but it's all the same bare-breasted stuff.
Honestly though all of it would be really embarrassing to put on the table painted up.
I can't believe I'm saying this in a wargaming forum, but...
Nobody likes looking at penises.
Ah, the old problem. Making your personal issues a general rule...
I am totally OK with mine, you know? So is my wife. We regularly have a look & laugh, thank you very much.
I like looking at them and at men, but a lot of men realy don't keep themselves in shape , and I find my female friends are the same. Just don't talk about it with men much.
marcus.iscariat wrote: I have more of a problem with The Adepta Sororitas cover as her posing seems more offensive while in full armour
Oh? I thought it was a very good cover, myself. And their poses seem fine, all are holding their weapons at the ready.
Steve steveson wrote: The problem is, however, that there is an assumption by the OP that she IS going in to battle.
It certainly seems like it. She's got her chainsword up, and seems to be eying something. And her friend looks like he's got some pretty potent magic at the ready.
Heterosexual women, homosexual men and bisexuals might disagree!
azreal13 wrote: =the male lunchbox is not exactly appreciated for it's aesthetic qualities. Speak to some of your female friends, I'm sure most will tell you they aren't spending hours staring at them.
Saldiven wrote: And a woman in a low-cut top who may or may not be preparing for some sort of conflict does cross over to unrealistic?
Considering that bare skin is just such a bad idea in combart, and this person is supposedly one of humanity's best and most well-equipped, yes.
As for the bloke, sure, he's made some poor decision too, apparently. Though being a psyker, he could be a bit odd like that.
Here's the deal, though. Inquisitors are not always dressed up to go to war. Sometimes, conflicts happen when they're inconvenient. An Inquisitor investigating things in a Hive City isn't likely to be doing so in full Power Armor. There is absolutely NOTHING in that picture that indicates that the pair are about to step into an ongoing war. Heck, the lack fo stuff going on in the background indicates the exact opposite.
Buzzsaw wrote: Uh.... not to point out a failure of your English language comprehension, but that picture is "Goth", not "Gothic".
I'm sorry, do you mean it's Goth rather than Gothic ?
Buzzsaw wrote: EDIT: It's also worth pointing out that the woman in the illustration "shows much much more of the breast than the picture you posted" because the woman in the illustration is very well endowed, but Az's picture much more modestly apportioned.
Yeah, so ? What's your point here ?
Buzzsaw wrote: EDIT2: I suppose it's worth pointing out that "Goth" versus "Gothic" is probably quite confused with regards to music... which would be very important were we talking about music rather then a genre/company with a very well established context that precludes such confusion.
My point was gothic being something very vague and ill-defined. It spawned off some people/tribe/ethnic group/whatever in Europe, started as a derogatory term against older architecture, was also used to describe some specific script, used mainly in Germany, became somehow popular with the Gothic fiction literary genre, was used again in a derogatory manner to describe some musical off-shot of punk music, and finally became popular again to described “dark fairy princess” and other avatar of teen angst in metal .
Let's take the example of the dress Azreal posted. Does it look similar to any pictures on the Wikipedia page you linked to ? Not really. It's much more likely called Gothic because of the “dark fairy princess”-thing going on with metal bands. Now, more to the point. Does that dress feels 40k to you ? To me, absolutely not.
- It's definitely not fitting for low-class hive scum, which should either reeks of poverty and misery, or feel more like a ganger. The few example we have of hive women seem to look like that, and are actually closer to punk and batcave-goth. They have a special background, though, they are not supposed to be representative of the average hive woman.
- It's definitely not fitting for high-class imperial aristocracy. Because it seems way too plain ! 40k has always had extremely ostentatious elite with huge display of wealth and power. Which is why I would rather use the term baroque than gothic for the Imperium. But baroque is not as popular a buzzword as gothic, these days.
azreal13 wrote: Or perhaps closer to the image in question, as it appears to be armoured and would perhaps squeeze and push a bit more
Yeah, it's clearly the closest to the illustration. But still feels way less strange because of no collar and cape. Are you trying to make a point by posting this picture ? I'm a bit lost on why, here.
paulson games wrote: This nationally treasured work of art work is considered to be a French masterpiece as well as a masterwork of feminisitic ideals.
A masterwork of feminist ideals ? Not in France, then. And why should it be ? It's usually a symbol of the French revolution. The first one which happened in 1789, for most people. It's actually representing some completely different one from that time period during which we kept switching political system between republic, monarchy, and empire.
This painting is from 1883. Women were allowed to vote in France just after WWII. So… no the best symbol of feminism imho.
It's pretty much like Athenians, in ancient Greece, raised statues to Athena, but were far, very very far from feminists.
Yodhrin wrote: Loan words are a thing, of course I'm sure the superior French language is pure and unsullied by dirty foreign words, but some of us were just in such awe at the sheer majesty of your wondrous tongue that we couldn't help but borrow terms from it
It's quite sad that this the only part of my message which you found worthy of answering to.
Is this sentence weird in English ?) Also, it's a thing to include words of foreign origin, it's another to even keep the accent even though they don't really exist in the English language, while changing the sense…
Thanks. It's okay, then, it's not like he had tortured and killed his own children! I'm relieved.
Steve steveson wrote: It could just as easily be a ceremonial sword. Just take a look at any of the background on the nobility in much of 40k. They often carry dress weapons, not just swords, but ornate las weapons.
Problem is, this chainsword isn't ornate or elegant . And she's wearing too much bare metal for her attire to look like she's dressed for a party with the planetary governor.
treslibras wrote: but the overwhelming majority of depictions of women between 16 and 56 (in standard Earth years) in our hobby is biased towards "Be a good (i.e. beautiful, sexy, big-breasted, half-naked, white) girl, will you?"
The white part is in no way restricted to female models !
treslibras wrote: Of course that has to do with the target audience. And no, I don't mean "men", I mean "heterosexual males that came/come into the hobby in puberty and got/get socialised in and by the community and said media representations".
There ARE other men. Queers, for example, or mostly-straights that only really got into the hobby in their twenties (like myself).
I am an heterosexual male that came into the hobby in puberty. Didn't made me like this.
marcus.iscariat wrote: but personally I have more of a problem with The Adepta Sororitas cover as her posing seems more offensive while in full armour than the Inquisitor in a Baroque Dress with Cloak.
I don't find the posing on the Adepta Sororitas cover offensive actually. I find it odd and unnatural. But not offensive.
Mr Morden wrote: I know at least one of the them is in favour of the sexy combat look as she thinks it distracts your opponent.
And make sure those people you just tried to kill won't rape you if given the slightest chance. Oh, wait…
Saldiven wrote: An Inquisitor investigating things in a Hive City isn't likely to be doing so in full Power Armor.
Some of them, the most in-your-face style, would be. Well, they'll do what passes as investigation to them, and mindless massacre to other. But I'm pretty sure no Inquisitor would investigate things in a Hive City dressed as the woman on this illustration .
Let me give you naked women, 40k-style (NSFW, official artwork) :
In a world where equality and fairness had no meaning, your post would actually make sense.
In all others, I have to say: If you are so desperate to repel any criticism directed at your arguments with half-assed counter-arguments you should maybe better exit the discussion.
Either you take it too personal, or you are prone to writing before thinking, and neither is good for you or the discussion.
"Fairness" does not diminish the wrongness of a particular act. Theft isn't any less wrong, if you steal from many persons equally, rather than from just a few. Oppression is not any less wrong, if you oppress all people, rather than a selected few.
I feel very sorry for you if these very basic concepts of morality strike you as half-assed.
First off: I had seen so little of it that I was initially grateful there was some.
Second: I must admit I am a little prejudiced: the female form just looks better: with no nasty dangly bits.
Third: My eye is always drawn to the most mean and nasty models and a great many of them are female.
Fourth: There is a decided lack of the "joe model" in any given army containing a normal mix of women.
Fifth: We are still fighting a long history of women not being included in warfare so time of change come slow...
Sixth: There is still that rule of "women and children first!" as a phrase for continuing the species: you only need a couple men while at 9 months per pregnancy women are rather a precious element of the species while men are somewhat expendable.
If we look back at WW2 the majority of women made all the equipment for their men off to war, so I expect to see a lot more female engineers in miniature games.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: A masterwork of feminist ideals ? Not in France, then. And why should it be ? It's usually a symbol of the French revolution.
Funny that I need to tell somebody from France that their own revolution was represented by lady liberty and that both the revolutionary movement and national identity is refered to in a female context. Yes women may not have had the right to vote until later but it does not mean the ideals were not put into place much earlier. Is the US blacks didn't have the right to vote until nearly 20 years after france adopted a womens vote, but for 200 years we supposedly had the creed all men are created equal. (Governments can be very contray to the idels expressed by the people). Women gained rights in France far ahead of many other countries, french culture through writing and art helped inspire the feminist movements not the actual law, so yes they were considered to be progressive for the time.
(Want to go back a bit further? Joan of Arc what other country had a female wartime leader several hundred years before the feminist movement? Many also feel she was an apt symbol of justice and liberation)
France gifted the US the statue of liberty, which is ideals of democracy and progressive culture personified in a female form. The US symbol of law and justice is the blind maiden which again ties into a classic view of how symbolic concepts feminity are held in art. Which have their source with Athena and Nike.
(However the US expresses their national idenity largely as a male entity embodied by Uncle Sam, which is largely a result of us being a repulbic more than a true democracy)
Fortunately not every Frenchman is a woman hater and afraid of boobs.
paulson games wrote: Funny that I need to tell somebody from France that their own revolution was represented by lady liberty
Marianne. The title of this painting may be “La liberté guidant le peuple”, but I'm pretty sure most people would be convinced it's Marianne anyway.
paulson games wrote: Is the US blacks didn't have the right to vote until nearly 20 years after france adopted a womens vote, but for 200 years we supposedly had the creed all men are created equal. (Governments can be very contray to the idels expressed by the people).
I'm pretty sure the people actually believed not all men were equal, and worth was dependent on skin color. Don't worry, we have the same kind of history over here. And most other countries have something similar.
paulson games wrote: Joan of Arc what other country had a female wartime leader that far back?
Two thousand years before, Deborah .
paulson games wrote: France gifted the US the statue of liberty, which is ideals of democracy and progressive culture personified in a female form. The US symbol of law and justice is the blind maiden which again ties into a classic view of how symbolic concepts feminity are held in art. Which have their source with Athena and Nike.
Yeah. Exactly my point. Did you read what I wrote about Athenians ? Compare the way they treated their women to how Lacedemonians treated theirs. Clearly the Athenians were not the feminists.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
paulson games wrote: Fortunately not every Frenchman is a woman hater and afraid of boobs.
paulson games wrote: Under the gothic framework the Iquisitors are the most devote elements of the empire tasked with enforcing the imperial doctrine. If you mix in elements of the feminine you have a clash of principles which indicates the character has an impressive level of power behind her, or might indicate that she is a radical as the underlying elements hint at progressive ideals. Either of which would be very apt for somebody the level of an inqusitor.
The exposed breasts is a depiction often associated with Marianne (or Nike in a more classic form) which is depicted with a spear or other weapon. Since the inquisitor is a figure that represent the face of imperial law in 40k, mabye there's a bit deeper of a meaning behind the cleavage then just boobies/objectification.
(Want to go back a bit further? Joan of Arc what other country had a female wartime leader several hundred years before the feminist movement? Many also feel she was an apt symbol of justice and liberation)
Yes, there are other female leaders in history, but not all of them were venerated and intertwined with the national identity in quite the same manner as Joan of Arc. Most other countries have a masculine association with their national identity. France's association with the feminine identity is very deep and long running.
It represent France, and the French republic. It's as progressive and as conservative as French people get.
Funny how you just mentioned Joan of Arc as a progressive and feminist symbol, because she is a very popular figure amongst French hardline right-wingers that are definitely not feminist or progressive at all. She is popular because, you know, the idea of fighting back invaders out of France appeal to them . The main reason why Marianne is not as popular among them is that not all of them love the republic as a political system .
Symbols will only mean what people will project on them. Marianne will almost always be a symbol of the values of the French guy you are talking with, by a surprising coincidence. That can mean very progressive, or very conservative.
Saldiven wrote: There is absolutely NOTHING in that picture that indicates that the pair are about to step into an ongoing war.
Sure there is. Her chainsword is up and at the ready, whilst her pal seems to have some pretty serious magic at the ready. This would suggest some sort of combat situation.
Saldiven wrote: Heck, the lack fo stuff going on in the background indicates the exact opposite.
To be fair, we see very little of the background. They could be looking towards whatever the threat is.
Saldiven wrote: There is absolutely NOTHING in that picture that indicates that the pair are about to step into an ongoing war.
Sure there is. Her chainsword is up and at the ready, whilst her pal seems to have some pretty serious magic at the ready. This would suggest some sort of combat situation.
Or if could be a symbol paraphrasing imperial law and justice. The woman is the depiction of justice who's sword is used to strike down those that would violate the law. The blind seer is the follower of law who judges not by sight but by faith (which would also be why he's weilding sanctified magic). The figureheads of law and justice are common themes in art, they usually have a weapon but are not actively smiting their oppoenents or wearing armor as they are not pressing into battle in a warriors sense, but they are shown prepared/armed for it as they are the defenders of law.
Long flowing robes and a sword at ready...
The Inquisitor would be shown minus the scales as Imperial Justice flows from the Emperor and is delt by his judgement alone. (Imperial authority is often symbolized by keys or a seal)
paulson games wrote: Or if could be a symbol paraphrasing imperial law and justice. The woman is the depiction of justice who's sword is used to strike down those that would violate the law. The blind seer is the follower of law who judges not by sight but by faith (which would also be why he's weilding sanctified magic).
You do have a lot of imagination !
Justice with a chainsword must be pretty messy.
Also, more Joan of Arch .
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: [You do have a lot of imagination !
Justice with a chainsword must be pretty messy.
No, I just have an understanding of the classic art symbols that Blanche and crew took from actual history and worked into their setting.
Anyone who paid attention while sitting through an art history class can point these things out. Sorry if you thought all of 40k visuals were made up on the spot from nothing.
paulson games wrote: Anyone who paid attention while sitting through an art history class can point these things out. Sorry if you thought all of 40k visuals were made up on the spot from nothing.
I'm pretty sure there's testimony to the contrary. And I'm sure it's the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
40K contains servitors, which so far as I'm concerned are the ultimate depiction of objectification. Literally turning someone into a machine for your use.
I should note though I see nothing wrong with recognising and appreciating the value of a woman as a prospective sexual partner (even if only for the purpose of sex). Only when you forcibly reduce her and constrain her to this role alone does it become harmful. The fact that such information is so incredibly easy to obtain (and often pleasurable to do so) should not be held against us.
Talizvar wrote: Fourth: There is a decided lack of the "joe model" in any given army containing a normal mix of women.
Infinity has a pretty even mix of male and female for almost every human unit type, especially basic infantry, and one of the alien factions, Tohaa, who mirror human anatomy are the same.
Kojiro wrote: 40K contains servitors, which so far as I'm concerned are the ultimate depiction of objectification. Literally turning someone into a machine for your use.
With servitors I agree, however I can't recall of pictures of females being servitors. Not saying there aren't any but all the servitors models and sketches I recall seeing are generally male. (and this thread is about females)
The Sisters Repentia aren't servitors but are themed after the religious practice of self-mortification. (ie flagellants)
In a world where equality and fairness had no meaning, your post would actually make sense.
In all others, I have to say: If you are so desperate to repel any criticism directed at your arguments with half-assed counter-arguments you should maybe better exit the discussion.
Either you take it too personal, or you are prone to writing before thinking, and neither is good for you or the discussion.
"Fairness" does not diminish the wrongness of a particular act. Theft isn't any less wrong, if you steal from many persons equally, rather than from just a few. Oppression is not any less wrong, if you oppress all people, rather than a selected few.
I feel very sorry for you if these very basic concepts of morality strike you as half-assed.
You talking about difference for the victims or some sort of objective morality?
Because it feels VERY different for the victims of said oppression. You might want to educate a bit on victims' accounts before talking about such things.
But if you are just talking about vague morals (like most "couch philosophers"): I am happy that we at least agree that "moral wrongness" doesn't become wronger with different numbers (and so your "twice as bad" was utter nonsense from that perspective).
Panzeh wrote: It all seems very pander-y. I mean, if they were just trying to show off sexiness and stuff then they wouldn't be afraid to show off penises, but it's all the same bare-breasted stuff.
Honestly though all of it would be really embarrassing to put on the table painted up.
I can't believe I'm saying this in a wargaming forum, but...
Second: I must admit I am a little prejudiced: the female form just looks better: with no nasty dangly bits.
Not trying to single either of you out -- your posts were on the same page, so it's easy to quote 'em both to make my point -- but I think you ought to realize the preferences you're describing are culturally-inherited effects of socialization.
There's nothing inherently more beautiful about "the female form" than anything else, but centuries of Western art (and, well, pornography) have conditioned people to believe that there is.
If you agree with the general idea that women have been consistently oppressed (to differing degrees at different times in different places) then it follows that the oppressors were the ones privileged with making determinations about the aesthetic value of various forms, images, representations, etc. If men are the ones making these determinations, and men are predisposed to wanting to see naked women or have something to gain from fostering a culture in which these depictions are widespread, then it's logical that depictions of naked women would gradually become defined as acceptable/beautiful/whatever.
One weird artifact/example of this kind of thing that every North American is likely familiar with would be the depiction of nudity/genitalia in movies. There's a bizarre scale of what is acceptable and what is taboo. Boobs and butt all day long, distant vagina is pretty common, a flaccid penis is ok from time-to-time, a bared vulva is a rare bird, and an erect penis is an anathema.
Steve steveson wrote: It could just as easily be a ceremonial sword. Just take a look at any of the background on the nobility in much of 40k. They often carry dress weapons, not just swords, but ornate las weapons.
Problem is, this chainsword isn't ornate or elegant . And she's wearing too much bare metal for her attire to look like she's dressed for a party with the planetary governor.
You both chose to willfully ignore my point by quoting what I said out of context. There is nothing to show the image in question is someone who chose to dress in an inappropriate fashion knowing they were going to be in a fight. Having a weapon is not evidence of knowing they were going to be in a fight. Ask any plane clothes cop or federal agent why they always carry a gun but don't always ware body armor.
This is not a comment on 40k and the genre in general. Just that people are making up outrage about this image. I see no reason to be upset.
Steve steveson wrote: You both chose to willfully ignore my point by quoting what I said out of context. There is nothing to show the image in question is someone who chose to dress in an inappropriate fashion knowing they were going to be in a fight. Having a weapon is not evidence of knowing they were going to be in a fight. Ask any plane clothes cop or federal agent why they always carry a gun but don't always ware body armor.
I did not ignore your point, I counter-pointed based on what you said at the time. To use your analogy of a plain clothes cop, the thing is that he can conceal his weapon. A chainsword, however, rather hard to hide. So I don't think that we can assume that she was undercover, given that a chainsword would have been pretty noticeable.
Steve steveson wrote: Just that people are making up outrage about this image. I see no reason to be upset.
I should clarify, again, that I'm not actually"outraged" by this, just sticking to my viewpoint. It's just a piece of art that an artist drew for a book. The rest of it is actually pretty nice, and up to the usual good standard of FFG stuff. I just find the Inquisitor's choice of clothing odd.
And, of course, I'm still very tempted to buy the Inquisition codex that this picture appears in. But, sadly, I must restrain myself whilst I'm still getting my Gun Nuns army up to scratch.
Altruizine wrote: There's nothing inherently more beautiful about "the female form" than anything else, but centuries of Western art (and, well, pornography) have conditioned people to believe that there is.
That's debatable. One could also argue, from an evolutionary standpoint, that we're programmed to be attracted to certain features in the opposite sex so that we choose more desirable mates to produce healthier offspring with.
Troike wrote: That's debatable. One could also argue, from an evolutionary standpoint, that we're programmed to be attracted to certain features in the opposite sex so that we choose more desirable mates to produce healthier offspring with.
But that works both ways. Men are programmed to be attracted to certain features in women, and women are programmed to be attracted to certain features in men. The only reason women are held up as "inherently more beautiful" is because our culture is dominated by the male perspective. So what men (on average) are attracted to is treated as equivalent to being what everyone wants to see, while the idea that women even care at all about physical attraction is dismissed and/or shamed.
Steve steveson wrote: You both chose to willfully ignore my point by quoting what I said out of context. There is nothing to show the image in question is someone who chose to dress in an inappropriate fashion knowing they were going to be in a fight. Having a weapon is not evidence of knowing they were going to be in a fight. Ask any plane clothes cop or federal agent why they always carry a gun but don't always ware body armor.
I did not ignore your point, I counter-pointed based on what you said at the time. To use your analogy of a plain clothes cop, the thing is that he can conceal his weapon. A chainsword, however, rather hard to hide. So I don't think that we can assume that she was undercover, given that a chainsword would have been pretty noticeable.
You did. You chose to quote what I was saying without context, ignoring what I was saying about it not necessarily being the intention that there is combat. You did it again picking up specifically on the example of a plain clothes cop ignoring the example of a federal agent. A plain clothes cop can conceal his weapon however Federal agents do not necessarily. An inquisitor carrying of weapons in most places in the 40k universe would not raise an eyebrow. In fact most people carrying weapons would not raise an eyebrow. There is nothing to say that the inquisitor in question has to have been expecting to get in to trouble. 40k background is repleat with images and examples of people carrying weapons as part of normal every day dress. She could have been undercover, she could have been quite open but not expecting combat. Many police carry guns but do not ware body armor, or just ware a stab proof vest. US state troopers for example.
I'm not saying the clothes would not be inappropriate for combat, all I am saying is that there are many reasons, and real life examples, of law enforcement openly carrying weapons but not wearing armor.
She could have been driving along with her retinue, on the way to a meeting, only to be ambushed by enemy agents. Carrying weapons because that is the norm on the planet in question, but dressed how she feels comfortable or appropriate for a meeting. There are many reasons she could be dressed in that way. I think people are reading far to much in to it by saying "She is badly dressed for combat!"
Steve steveson wrote: You did. You chose to quote what I was saying without context, ignoring what I was saying about it not necessarily being the intention that there is combat.
No, I'm pretty sure that I addressed that. I talked about how her raised chainsword and her friend's magic indicating a combat situation.
Steve steveson wrote: You did it again picking up specifically on the example of a plain clothes cop ignoring the example of a federal agent. A plain clothes cop can conceal his weapon however Federal agents do not necessarily. An inquisitor carrying of weapons in most places in the 40k universe would not raise an eyebrow.
Sure, but considering that possession of the weapon does imply an some expectation of trouble, and the life of an Inquisitor and the 40K universe is bloody dangerous, it still seems odd to me that she dressed like that.
Steve steveson wrote: She could have been waling down the normal street with her retinue, on the way to a meeting, only to be ambushed by enemy agents. Carrying weapons because that is the norm on the planet in question, but dressed how she feels comfortable.
Yes, but without any context, this is all just speculation. In this absence of context, I myself view it as an "average representation" of an Inquisitor. And we see one with a melee weapon yet dressed pretty oddly for combat.
I'm not going to read through this entire topic, but I will say that Catachans portray men in the same sexualised way. It's just that men don't really care.
Daemonettes are also the only basic Daemons to be given any kind of covering up as well, which indicates to me that GW is trying to appease today's modern feminist.
I must say that the image really doesn't warrant what I would call an over-the-top reaction though. It's just cleavage. It's not going to hurt anyone.
And I read somewhere in this topic that there was some form of reaction to people's reactions to the image? Could someone summarise that for me?
Surely the context is that this piece of art is originally from a "sneaking around investigating things" RPG rather than a "let's tool up and hit the battlefield" wargame?
And in 40k, taking a chainsword to a social engagement is probably part of standard evening dress.
Going armed day to day has been common in plenty of human societies throughout history, and has always been portrayed as common in the 40k universe.
Imperial society is militant in outlook. Their God Emperor is a supreme warrior, who is almost always depicted with sword in hand. Virtually every imperial saint was a soldier of some sort. Modern ideals of aversion to violence have no place in 40k. Indeed pacifism could be seen as Heresy - a failure on the part of the pacifist to do their duty in opposing the enemies of humanity at every turn.
I remember reading years ago that even administratum scribes have a dagger as part of their uniform. I imagine that almost everyone in Imperial service is armed nearly all the time, whether on duty or off.
I honestly feel that the picture being discussed is very fitting for 40k. I think there is a wider problem of female portrayal in gaming, but I don't think this picture is a particularly good example of it.
a fat guy wrote: I'm not going to read through this entire topic, but I will say that Catachans portray men in the same sexualised way. It's just that men don't really care.
That's a false equivalency, because men are/have been the traditionally privileged group, so those portrayals don't have any teeth because they're not underpinned by the sheer weight of history tilted towards one group's advantage.
It's the same reason that me hurling certain racial epithets at people of certain ethnicities would cause them actual, felt, experienced distress, whereas someone calling me any of the common epithets for a white person wouldn't make me feel much of anything at all. I haven't suffered from experienced racism, so someone deploying racist insults towards me wouldn't hurt. It doesn't matter that the words fulfill the same grammatical function and category, they're not the same.
I would also disagree that the Catechans are "sexualized" in any way -- there may be similar elements of superficiality and the idealization of certain physical traits, but they aren't sexual in nature. Catachans were designed by heterosexual male artists/writers for consumption by heterosexual male consumers.
There's nothing inherently more beautiful about "the female form" than anything else, but centuries of Western art (and, well, pornography) have conditioned people to believe that there is.
This line set off my bs alarm. What is it about the objective beauty of the female form that you find offensive? Are you offended that men are attracted to women?
There's nothing inherently more beautiful about "the female form" than anything else, but centuries of Western art (and, well, pornography) have conditioned people to believe that there is.
This line set off my bs alarm. What is it about the objective beauty of the female form that you find offensive? Are you offended that men are attracted to women?
Beauty isn't objective. He isn't offended by female beauty, he placidly made a logical point about the socializing effect of culture. I know there are some bad examples being set here by longtime posters but you simply don't win by calling the other guy "offended" or "outraged" any more than you do by telling him to "stop crying, lol" or "get over it".
If your bs alarm is going off it's probably because you wore it out with your posts. It's stuck; it's drowning in bs. It can no longer tell bs from salient thoughts. I'd say get a new one but it'd only suffer the same fate, sadly
There's nothing inherently more beautiful about "the female form" than anything else, but centuries of Western art (and, well, pornography) have conditioned people to believe that there is.
This line set off my bs alarm. What is it about the objective beauty of the female form that you find offensive? Are you offended that men are attracted to women?
Beauty isn't objective. He isn't offended by female beauty, he placidly made a logical point about the socializing effect of culture. I know there are some bad examples being set here by longtime posters but you simply don't win by calling the other guy "offended" or "outraged" any more than you do by telling him to "stop crying, lol" or "get over it".
If your bs alarm is going off it's probably because you wore it out with your posts. It's stuck; it's drowning in bs. It can no longer tell bs from salient thoughts. I'd say get a new one but it'd only suffer the same fate, sadly
ignoring your pointless personal attack, i am merely surprised that an attraction to the female form - something that all non-homosexual men have - should be treated with such distain.
Hell the very first example of shared culture in europe was the venus women - carvings of sexually fertile women in wood or clay. There is no reason for a wargame aimed at men not to have such images, any more than a wargame aimed at women and homosexual men would have images of topless, muscular men.
So, is it all sexual attraction that you're averse to? In which case, be greatful you're here in the first place.
Or is it only a sexual attraction to women you're averse to? In which case that is discrimination.
You could be opposed to any depiction of sexual lust at all, but then 40k is aimed at teenagers/young adults, and they have every right to enjoy a game with images that they find attractive.
Nobody's "treating sexual attraction with disdain". You can file that alongside telling people they're outraged, offended, etc. "Averse to" is just a rewording of "offended by", and we've dealt with that.
You felt it was pointless, but you called a very good rational point "bs" before pouring out the same yourself. I just wanted to make you aware of that. It's a shame you opted to ignore it really but I didn't expect much better if I'm being totally honest
I'm a bit late to this party and trying to decipher all the different view points that have been shared.
I think women being depicted "in miniature games" as beautiful/curvy is a good thing. The sexual appeal sells and if it helps move product then good for the companies who cash in on market trends.
Kingdom death is a good example - that game has its miniature waves sell out overnight because they have embrace the stereotypical female depictions. For those who are upset over these miniatures and ones like them, well its just too bad - we can't please everyone, so we may as well try to please the majority.
My girlfriend actually loves the kingdom death miniatures (she made me order the most scantily clad ones that were in stock lol). If you think guys are obsessed with boobs, women are just as bad.
With servitors I agree, however I can't recall of pictures of females being servitors. Not saying there aren't any but all the servitors models and sketches I recall seeing are generally male. (and this thread is about females)
This thread has come up numeous times, and I always shake my head in disbelief at how much fake outrage the issue generates.
Personally, I find the whole KDM style minis to be ridiculous, and I like my sisters to look gritty and tough, but regardless, its such a tiny issue I dont understand the discussion, and I find the attitude of people like Palindrone in his back and forth with Az to be frankly, a little bit sad.
If you want to get outraged on other peoples behalf, then go on a crusade, critique womens unequal pay, slate the Islamic worlds awful treatment of girls and women, campaign for marriage equality for women across the U.S. whatever floats your boat.
But dripping about minis being dressed a bit skimpy is just, pointless. How about you do what everyone else does and simply not buy the ones you think suck?
Its a non issue to all but the most brash and militant feminist, and nobody likes them anyway, because they ignore obviously abhorrent things like rape and genital mutilation because they are too busy haranguing pleasant, working class family men who happen to be great dads and excellent loving husbands, for the awful crime of reading FHM on the bus home from work.
Not that I want to stick up for FHM, but... priorities?
mattyrm wrote: This thread has come up numeous times, and I always shake my head in disbelief at how much fake outrage the issue generates.
Personally, I find the whole KDM style minis to be ridiculous, and I like my sisters to look gritty and tough, but regardless, its such a tiny issue I dont understand the discussion, and I find the attitude of people like Palindrone in his back and forth with Az to be frankly, a little bit sad.
If you want to get outraged on other peoples behalf, then go on a crusade, critique womens unequal pay, slate the Islamic worlds awful treatment of girls and women, campaign for marriage equality for women across the U.S. whatever floats your boat.
But dripping about minis being dressed a bit skimpy is just, pointless. How about you do what everyone else does and simply not buy the ones you think suck?
Its a non issue to all but the most brash and militant feminist, and nobody likes them anyway, because they ignore obviously abhorrent things like rape and genital mutilation because they are too busy haranguing pleasant, working class family men who happen to be great dads and excellent loving husbands, for the awful crime of reading FHM on the bus home from work.
Not that I want to stick up for FHM, but... priorities?
no just no. You think people don't cretique women's unequal pay, state of Islamic worlds awful treatment of girls and women.
I support campaigns for all of that, and I am part of this hobby dealing with reading such BS like this in support of a rather sexist hobby at times.
There is no issue with how much skin is shown, it's that is all we get a lot of the time.
It's a non issue to men since they don't have to deal with it constantly.
When I post in these threads it's not about what is avalible, it's that I want things for me in this hobby also. I want a variety in the hobby, and I want to see it grow.
Things like KD would be a none issue if it wasn't the norm so often, and I did support it, and getting no pin ups.. But could you imagine KD in a store. It would probably be like the porn at Video stores :p just imagine trying to sell it next to the warhammer when a mother walks in.
I will say, when these company's put there mind to it they can make some sexy stuff that's great.
I wish I could find an article with an interview with an artist for a female gamers site, but he said he never got to do females often so he went for more sexy. Never able to experiment with more charecteristics.
Maybe that's an issue in itself.
Hey, it's quite funny, mattyrm : I recently heard about you in a thread called “7 ridiculous restrictions on women’s rights around the world”. Seems like those post were removed though.
I actually agree with you. Yeah, there are a lot of way worse issues. No doubt if I ever wanted to launch a crusade for women's right I wouldn't start it by posting here ! That would be pretty stupid.
I'm not really in a crusade, but still, I do rant a lot about the treatment of women in Islamic jurisdiction, among other problems I have with Sharia and those that wish to apply it.
However, I don't come to DakkaDakka to crusade about women's right. I come here to speak about one of my hobby. What I'm excited about, what I'm disappointed about. I can praise or denigrate new rules, new models… And I something like to explain why. I didn't like that picture, I mentioned it, and it started a storm of heated off-topic argument, so I thought to create a new thread to allow all those people that seems very opinionated about this to talk about it.
The price of new models is totally insignificant to the global economy, and to most people's purchasing power actually. Yet some people that comes here like to talk and rant about it, because it's something that is part of one of their favorite hobby, and therefore something they feel concerned about. Would you want them not to discuss it because there are way more worrying economic matters to discuss ?
It's the same about this issue. I don't even approach it from a “women's right” angle, just from a “cool-looking vs lame-looking” angle, but if I did want to speak about women's right on dakkadakka, it would be a much more appropriate subject than, say, women's right violation in Saudi Arabia. (And beside that, not only the conversation would dry up very quickly since nobody would want to defend the Saudi way, but also if I spoke my mind too much on the subject, I may end up like you, banned from DakkaDakka Off-Topic forum ).
paulson games wrote: No, I just have an understanding of the classic art symbols that Blanche and crew took from actual history and worked into their setting.
Well, this illustration is definitely not in Blanche's style. Neither does it look in any way like the blindfolded, sword-bearing classic personification of Justice I know.
Steve steveson wrote: There is nothing to show the image in question is someone who chose to dress in an inappropriate fashion knowing they were going to be in a fight. Having a weapon is not evidence of knowing they were going to be in a fight.
My point was that the weapon don't go well with “an special, more elegant dress worn to go to the governor's palace”. And even if it did, I still call that attire horribly bad taste.
Steve steveson wrote: Just that people are making up outrage about this image. I see no reason to be upset.
I just don't like it, and explain why. No outrage.
pgmason wrote: Virtually every imperial saint was a soldier of some sort.
Except for, you know, Sebastian Thor.
xruslanx wrote: an attraction to the female form - something that all non-homosexual men have
Could we have an agreement that when something along the lines of "men find women attractive" that pointing out that a minority of men, for one reason or another don't isn't a valid rebuttal?
While sweeping generalisations should be avoided, and challenged, when something along those lines is put forward, picking out the one or two specific circumstances where it doesn't apply just doesn't really move things forward, and it is fair to assume that most people are aware of those exceptions.
Otherwise we are going to get to a point where each statement is going to need to be qualified so much it will just take forever to write any sort of reply.
TLDR Pointing out exceptions doesn't invalidate a point.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Hey, it's quite funny, mattyrm : I recently heard about you in a thread called “7 ridiculous restrictions on women’s rights around the world”. Seems like those post were removed though.
I can guess what you were talking about
Posting things about Islam, even demonstrably true things, true things that appear in mainstream left leaning publications like The Guardian, is not allowed on dakka in any form, because a small number of the moderators censor such things with an aggression that would make the dearly departed Kim Jong blush, and they don't even like other people mentioning me either for that same reason. I presume it is because they also follow an abrahamic faith, and as such feel threatened by such a debate, so you just can't talk about it. Such is life, its not a democracy on here, so thats the end of it, but don't keep beating the drum on the subject, or you will wind up with a perpetual banning order like me.
Regards the topic, I struggle to understand exactly what Apple Fox was saying, and I was actually pointing out that I heartily dislike all of the models that were made by KDM, I mean I've only seen them on here so Im hardly an expert, but they look a bit pervy and I've got no interest in seeing them, my point was simply that, at the end of the day, its a pointless discussion because its called freedom, and we have to suck on it.
If some bloke wants to buy kinky models, thats his business, I don't think they really do any harm in the grand scheme of things, so what is the point in this conversation? Nobody is saying that they should be banned right? And most people are saying that there should be more ordinary looking female models for use as guardsmen, I entirely agree with that premise too, so exactly what is the debate? That we think they are silly, but we don't actually think they should be removed?
Thats what I am talking about. I understand peoples criticisms because I wouldnt buy them either and I like heavily armoured female soldiers because it makes sense, but its a free country, and a free market, as long as nobody is actually saying "kinky looking models should be banned" and Im pretty sure nobody actually is, then exactly what are we supposed to be debating?
TLDR Pointing out exceptions doesn't invalidate a point.
Obviously yeah, your comments about evolution were spot on as well. It is entirely natural to like looking at other humans, or else we would have wound up like those KaKapo Birds.. you know.. almost extinct because shagging is not actually very tempting and we would rather just sit under a tree and look at the sea.
Don't like Scantily Clad Miniatures? Don't buy 'em.
Instead of whining about a miniature, how about we deal with actual issues? 90 % of gamers in 40K and elsewhere play something roughly akin to Space Marines. why not start by making them feel welcome to play, by cleaning up our language as much as possible, and dealing with the fools that actually do something to harm women. I get so tired of the attitude of I have to look like I'm doing something to help, so I'm going to CREATE an issue, instead of dealing with an ACTUAL issue. Make the ladies feel more at home when playing, and you'll eventually have enough of a demographic shift to change the scantily clad minis.
I will admit that I have not read through the entire thread so this may have already be said and if so just ignore me.
Many people are gripping over the sexualization of the pictures or cleavage some say it makes sense some say it is stupid. One thing we should look at is the Imperium which is not exactly the model civilization on forward thinking here and is in fact a Male dominated society since most positions of power are held by men and that the greatest warriors are all male space marines. However there has been mention of women serving in potions such as guradsmen inquisitors and planetary governors.
If we look at the Sisters of Battle they are for the most part fully clothes in battle armour except for the sister repentant who are scantily clad and seem to have unhealthy BDSM fetishes for the most part Sisters of Battle are somewhat front line fighting force it would not make sense for them to be scantly clad and it also seems they have a dress code with in their ranks.
The Inquisition seem to have a more lax dress code with their agents and allow how they seem fit. The Inquisitor is suppose to gather intel and go after traitors and cultists and internal threats. I can see a female Inquisitor using her sexuality to get t what she need or to persuade someone to help her that could not be intimidated by her position of office or who is resistant to their interrogation techniques.
xruslanx wrote: This line set off my bs alarm. What is it about the objective beauty of the female form that you find offensive? Are you offended that men are attracted to women?
This is just as laughably insane as your opinions on non-GW games*. If you pay attention you'll notice that the argument is disputing the claim that women are somehow the ideal of beauty and nobody wants to look at men, not attempting to claim that nobody finds women attractive.
*For those who don't know, xrulslanx thinks that playing non-GW games is like having sex with animals. So you should consider him an intelligent and reasonable poster and value his opinions.
There is no reason for a wargame aimed at men not to have such images, any more than a wargame aimed at women and homosexual men would have images of topless, muscular men.
And this is the problem: why should a wargame be aimed at men specifically?
You could be opposed to any depiction of sexual lust at all, but then 40k is aimed at teenagers/young adults, and they have every right to enjoy a game with images that they find attractive.
Which is why 40k should have lots of images of cool tanks, power armored super-soldiers killing stuff, etc. Throwing in sexy stuff is just a pathetic attempt to get people to buy a mediocre product that can't sell on its own merits as a wargame.
azreal13 wrote: Could we have an agreement that when something along the lines of "men find women attractive" that pointing out that a minority of men, for one reason or another don't isn't a valid rebuttal?
While sweeping generalisations should be avoided, and challenged, when something along those lines is put forward, picking out the one or two specific circumstances where it doesn't apply just doesn't really move things forward, and it is fair to assume that most people are aware of those exceptions.
Otherwise we are going to get to a point where each statement is going to need to be qualified so much it will just take forever to write any sort of reply.
TLDR Pointing out exceptions doesn't invalidate a point.
Saying that "no one likes looking at penises for hours" is a really dumb statement, though because I hope no one stares at breasts for hours, either. The depiction of the male genitalia also has a considerable role in art, and the inability of miniatures makers outside a few historicals to do so tells me where their priorities truly stand. It has nothing to do with sex, but it's just pure pandering.
azreal13 wrote: Could we have an agreement that when something along the lines of "men find women attractive" that pointing out that a minority of men, for one reason or another don't isn't a valid rebuttal?
While sweeping generalisations should be avoided, and challenged, when something along those lines is put forward, picking out the one or two specific circumstances where it doesn't apply just doesn't really move things forward, and it is fair to assume that most people are aware of those exceptions.
Otherwise we are going to get to a point where each statement is going to need to be qualified so much it will just take forever to write any sort of reply.
TLDR Pointing out exceptions doesn't invalidate a point.
Saying that "no one likes looking at penises for hours" is a really dumb statement, though because I hope no one stares at breasts for hours, either. The depiction of the male genitalia also has a considerable role in art, and the inability of miniatures makers outside a few historicals to do so tells me where their priorities truly stand. It has nothing to do with sex, but it's just pure pandering.
Except
a) that isn't what I said, and
b) wasn't what I was referring to
azreal13 wrote: Could we have an agreement that when something along the lines of "men find women attractive" that pointing out that a minority of men, for one reason or another don't isn't a valid rebuttal?
Except if the point is that there are no exceptions .
Now, yeah, most men find some women attractive. Doesn't mean in any way that the female body is inherently more beautiful.
And actually, I would like GW's version of Dr Manhattan way better if they made him as whole as the actual blue superpower, rather than some kind of Barbie-anatomy puppet . Not because I like penises, but because I don't like that kind of hypocrite prudishness.
See ? It's my turn to call other prudes ! That, and the total disregard from the original for normal human social conventions was an awesome element of the plot very well conveyed by his lack of clothes ! Here, nudity actually serves the (over-the-top and unrealistic) plot, and is awesome.
In case someone plan to accuse me of double standard between male and female miniatures, I'm going to mention that I'd love the repentia models to look more like the illustration I posted some message ago. And that means, along with a lot of really disturbing and disgusting things, naked . Same reason as above, it would actually serves the (over-the-top and unrealistic) setting (those girls also totally disregard normal human social conventions, but for totally different and also awesome reasons) !
In the case of this Inquisitor, I find it doesn't serve the setting the slightest bit, and looks bad .
mattyrm wrote: my point was simply that, at the end of the day, its a pointless discussion because its called freedom, and we have to suck on it. […]
so what is the point in this conversation?
It has no point, like most discussions . Don't need one. The point is in discussing. Writing, reading, having fun while doing it, putting your thought into words, exchanging idea !
Khan Raider wrote: Instead of whining about a miniature, how about we deal with actual issues?
Because there are so few girls playing that I almost never witnessed any actual issue. Actually, I think the most frequent issue I can think of is people using sexual insults on my Sisters of Battle army (and I don't like it when they do that ).
I had no more luck when trying to get girls into the hobby than I had getting boys into the hobby : none was actually interested enough to actually start it.
Alpha 1 wrote: and is in fact a Male dominated society since most positions of power are held by men
Well, apart from the Emperor and stupid marines nobody cares about, most organizations are mixed-gender. I'm not sure we would be able to tell the difference, but I would be surprised if all the Fabricator-General from Mars were males. Actually, I guess the only place amongst the High Lord that is explicitly restricted in gender is… Abbess of the Sororitas. Its name seems to imply that the Paternova is always male, but I wouldn't bet on it given there are female Navigators.
Also, Privateer Press makes some clearly male horse, GW do not .
Graphite wrote: Surely the context is that this piece of art is originally from a "sneaking around investigating things" RPG rather than a "let's tool up and hit the battlefield" wargame?
Right, it's about sneaking around and getting into scraps when they arise or on a smaller scale. And the chainsword says "expecting trouble", but the exposed armour says "social event".
Graphite wrote: And in 40k, taking a chainsword to a social engagement is probably part of standard evening dress.
Hm, debatable. Unknown at best. Maybe on some planets, but on others I'm sure that wearing a chainsword to an evening ball would go down about as well as it would in our world.
gossipmeng wrote: I think women being depicted "in miniature games" as beautiful/curvy is a good thing. The sexual appeal sells and if it helps move product then good for the companies who cash in on market trends.
Hm, not sure I quite agree. Sure, it's not always a bad thing to have a skimpy female mini, buit I think that doing it just to sell models isn't exactly a good thing. It adds to the problem of women being portrayed in a mainy sexual way too often. Increased profits does not make right.
It's not a miniature, it's a piece of artwork from Dark Heresy that got put into the new Inquisition codex.
Khan Raider wrote: Make the ladies feel more at home when playing, and you'll eventually have enough of a demographic shift to change the scantily clad minis.
Easier said than done, sadly. Wargaming culture, as well as "nerd culture" overall, still has some pretty shameful issues with letting women in, so there's a lot of gakkers out there giving women a hard time just for trying to enjoy something, Though I'm optimistic that this is steadily improving.
And yes, we can all work towards betterment here, just by making sure that we treat any women we come across in this hobby decently.
Alpha 1 wrote: If we look at the Sisters of Battle they are for the most part fully clothes in battle armour except for the sister repentant who are scantily clad and seem to have unhealthy BDSM fetishes
I addressed this earlier on. I don't see the Repentia as too problematic, as they have a very good fluff reason for looking like that. The SoB are the Imperium's most hardcore zealots, and the Repentia are SoB who feel that they have failed their god in some way. To put it lightly, this is a big deal to them, so becomig a Repentia is a way work to absolve these apparent sins, be it through pained, brutal fighting of the enemy or a death fighting in Big E's name.
Yes, there is also the BDSM undertone, but that too has a good explantion. The Mistress is there to punish the Repentia constantly to help them work harder to forgiveness, as well as driving them on in the fight. Neither party actually derives any sexual pleasure from the whipping.. I'll admit that I was somewhat uncomfortable with the look and "BDSM" elements of the Repentia, but I've come to be more accepting of it in light of their fluff. They're meant to be competely over the top religious nutters desperately seeking forgiveness or death, so it fits.
Troike wrote: Yes, there is also the BDSM undertone, but that too has a good explantion. The Mistress is there to punish the Repentia constantly to help them work harder to forgiveness, as well as driving them on in the fight. Neither party actually derives any sexual pleasure from the whipping.. I'll admit that I was somewhat uncomfortable with the look and "BDSM" elements of the Repentia, but I've come to be more accepting of it in light of their fluff. They're meant to be competely over the top religious nutters desperately seeking forgiveness or death, so it fits.
Sorry, but no, that “Mistress” idea was just plain stupid. I don't like it at all. I wish they removed it. It brings nothing good or cool.
ignoring your pointless personal attack, i am merely surprised that an attraction to the female form - something that all non-homosexual men have - should be treated with such distain.
I think bringing things back around to an example from a fictional universe might help keep this civil, so let me ask you a question; do you think Space Marines would conceive of the female form as an ideal of beauty?
Personally, I can't imagine it appearing very consistently in their art (even if we're talking about the Marines who have the most "human" attitudes towards sex , like the Space Wolves). That's because the culture they're a part of places a higher value on images of masculinity, religiousity, and even a kind of tech-porn slant.
I know it's a pat example, but that's kind of intentional. I just want to point out that the idea of inherent/objective beauty is pretty flimsy, and that art is a product of culture, not our genetic predispositions.
Cheers to Bull0 and Peregrine for understanding what I was trying to say.
azreal13 wrote: Except the inquisitor doesn't have a collar at all?
There is a small metal chain that is clearly used to fasten her cape. And then, above it, there is a huge purple collar, the same color as her dress. While her cap is brown.
azreal13 wrote: Except the inquisitor doesn't have a collar at all?
There is a small metal chain that is clearly used to fasten her cape. And then, above it, there is a huge purple collar, the same color as her dress. While her cap is brown.
To say the collar is part of the dress and not attached to the cape is pure supposition on your part, and not how I interpreted it at all, which is not to say either of us is right or wrong.
The skirts also appear to be a different colour, but that could be shadow as much as a different colour.
People select items with details that complement other parts of their outfits all the time, just because things are the same colour, doesn't mean they're attached.
There could even be a fashion for Imperials to wear separate collars a la the Elizabethans for all we know, I believe 41st millennium civilian fashions are fairly sparsely catered for in the fluff!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Probably worth reposting the image as we are some pages on, just to keep it fresh in people's minds.
Now, yeah, most men find some women attractive. Doesn't mean in any way that the female body is inherently more beautiful.
I would just like to throw in there that I think this is 'wrong' (probably not the right word but hopefully you'll get my meaning) in so much as female beauty is more highly valued by men and women than male beauty. A beautiful woman will generally 'profit' more in life from that beauty than an equivalent male will (though he will also benefit).
azreal13 wrote: To say the collar is part of the dress and not attached to the cape is pure supposition on your part, and not how I interpreted it at all, which is not to say either of us is right or wrong.
It's still a collar, isn't it ? Looks very much like a collar to me.
azreal13 wrote: just because things are the same colour, doesn't mean they're attached.
Just like the collar on those guys is not attached to their collar .
Am I the only one to see a similarity here ? Really ?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kojiro wrote: female beauty is more highly valued by men and women than male beauty.
Not sure, because I rarely ask women what they think of other women's bodies. Or men what they think about other men's bodies. Or, actually, really, anyone what they think about anyone else body. Maybe someone who is very used to ask those kind of questions could help us.
mattyrm wrote: Women and men like to look attractive to others, it seems entirely acceptable that a woman actually would wear a dress like that out of choice.
The issue isn't people wearing attractive clothing in social situations where nice clothes are important, it's that women are portrayed in attractive clothing even in situations (a battle, for example) where attractive clothing is irrelevant at best, while men just wear practical stuff with no attempt to be sexy.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Sorry, but no, that “Mistress” idea was just plain stupid. I don't like it at all. I wish they removed it. It brings nothing good or cool.
Yeah, it's certainly controversial. If the SoB had been made by the GW of the present, she might have been different. But as I said, her fluff is solid. The BDSM vibe is quite unfortunate, and I do find it unfortunate that certain people will get certain impressions of the Sisters from her.
But she also fits very will with the relgious nutter theme. Flagellation and extreme pennance is something that extremists like the Sisters do, so she has a good basis for being there, at least. One needn't look at her in terms of BDSM only, and to do so would be a misrepresentation of her fluff.
mattyrm wrote: Women and men like to look attractive to others, it seems entirely acceptable that a woman actually would wear a dress like that out of choice.
The issue isn't people wearing attractive clothing in social situations where nice clothes are important, it's that women are portrayed in attractive clothing even in situations (a battle, for example) where attractive clothing is irrelevant at best, while men just wear practical stuff with no attempt to be sexy.
azreal13 wrote:Exactly!
Like the Catachans!
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:Catachan aren't attempting to look sexy. Those guys are :
Aaand...surprise of all surprises, Hybrid Son of Something I can't Pronounce and Troike appeared to take what they wanted out of my diatribe, to enforce their own position.
I will applaud Troike's Effort in trying to do things my way. Nothing ever comes easy man, except surrendering, and that gets you nowhere. what needs to happen is those that are giving ladies a hard time need to be told "don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out" in no uncertain terms and backed up with force, if necessary. I go 45 mins one way to a paint night with friends (I haven't been to their events), and while we're fairly rough and tumble, we have ladies who play: Specifically Tyranids, Dark Eldar, and Slaanesh Daemons. Myself and a buddy who is a navy vet pretty much guard dog for everyone. We've had some sleazy types come up and usually the off putting ones are scared off pretty quick by us paying attention to their interactions or the situation gets ironed out. It all comes down to having a combination of a "Club Mom" who puts people in line and a couple guys who are willing to put their foot down and say "Oh. Hell. No." when the sleazeballs are trying their crap.
mattyrm wrote: Women and men like to look attractive to others, it seems entirely acceptable that a woman actually would wear a dress like that out of choice.
The issue isn't people wearing attractive clothing in social situations where nice clothes are important, it's that women are portrayed in attractive clothing even in situations (a battle, for example) where attractive clothing is irrelevant at best, while men just wear practical stuff with no attempt to be sexy.
men enjoy the aesthetics of the female body, hence its appearence in art. Clearly if you are not such a person all you need to do is not buy it.
There is no valid reason to have a problem with this. It is not offensive, it does not break the willing suspension of disbelief, it is in keeping with the aesthetic...and yeah, boobs just look good. 40k is squarely aimed at males and realistically most of us are straight, therefore we want to see some tits every now and then.
Khan Raider wrote: Aaand...surprise of all surprises, Hybrid Son of Something I can't Pronounce and Troike appeared to take what they wanted out of my diatribe, to enforce their own position.
I didn't cherrypick, I just didn't really have anything to say to the rest of your post. I already clarified that I'm not "up in arms" about this (just rather stubborn), and my later post about treating women decently basically agrees with your point about dealing with the IRL issue anyway. That's something that we should all be doing anyway.
Khan Raider wrote: Nothing ever comes easy man, except surrendering, and that gets you nowhere.
Oh, I didn't mean to imply that the problem was unfixable, just that it it, sadly, presently very prevelant in this subculture. Though I did add that it seems to be improving with time, with more women feeling comfortable participating in nerdy hobbies and more people advocating tolerance.
Khan Raider wrote: what needs to happen is those that are giving ladies a hard time need to be told "don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out" in no uncertain terms and backed up with force, if necessary.
Yes, ideally (though the "with force" part might get you into trouble ).
xruslanx wrote: men enjoy the aesthetics of the female body, hence its appearence in art. Clearly if you are not such a person all you need to do is not buy it.
This only makes sense if you assume that men are the primary consumers of art, and women don't really matter. Otherwise you notice the obvious fact that women enjoy the aesthetics of the male body and so art should also have similar men for the women to enjoy.
It is not offensive, it does not break the willing suspension of disbelief, it is in keeping with the aesthetic
It might not be offensive to you, but that doesn't mean it isn't offensive to anyone else. Put yourself in the position of a potential female customer who is essentially being told that they're only welcome in the game as something for the men to enjoy looking at.
And yes, it does break suspension of disbelief. Put men in similar outfits and poses and it would look absurd. It only looks "reasonable" for women to do it because you're starting from the assumption that the game needs to provide you with porn.
...and yeah, boobs just look good. 40k is squarely aimed at males and realistically most of us are straight, therefore we want to see some tits every now and then.
Yes, straight men want to see sexy women. That's what porn is for. But that doesn't mean that all of us need to have porn in our wargames to enjoy them.
Though this would explain your absurd idea that playing a non-GW game is like having sex with your dog. After all, if 40k is a sexual experience for you then it's only natural that other potential sexual partners might be outside of your comfort zone. So maybe you need to lust after your space marines, and trying to transfer that lust to, say, an x-wing would be like sex with an animal.
i don't know what world you live in where women's cleavage isn't featured prominantly, but it's the same world that gw inhabits. 40k has no reason to market to females, since they aren't its target market. Pokemon doesn't market to the elderly, saga don't market to young singletons...why should 40k be appealing to women?
And yeah most straight men prefer cleavage over a lack of cleavage. It's an aesthetic choice and you are clearly in the minority.
xruslanx wrote: i don't know what world you live in where women's cleavage isn't featured prominantly, but it's the same world that gw inhabits.
Have you ever looked at pictures of real female soldiers?
40k has no reason to market to females, since they aren't its target market.
Do you understand the concept of marketing to people outside your main target market? It's one of the differences between successful companies and incompetent idiots like GW. Good companies understand that broadening their customer base means more profit. Idiots just narrowly define their target market and throw away all that profit.
why should 40k be appealing to women?
Why shouldn't it be? It's a game about killing stuff on a battlefield, what should "which sexy people to look at" have to do with anything?
And yeah most straight men prefer cleavage over a lack of cleavage. It's an aesthetic choice and you are clearly in the minority.
So let me get this straight: you think a majority of men require cleavage in their products to enjoy them? A majority of men can't enjoy a game about soldiers killing each other in a hellish wasteland unless there's a sexy woman to admire? I'm really not sure why you insist on insulting men like that.
xruslanx wrote: i don't know what world you live in where women's cleavage isn't featured prominantly, but it's the same world that gw inhabits.
Have you ever looked at pictures of real female soldiers?
Yeah, apart from this isn't real, and it isn't a soldier, nor is it even clearly a combat situation.
40k has no reason to market to females, since they aren't its target market.
Do you understand the concept of marketing to people outside your main target market? It's one of the differences between successful companies and incompetent idiots like GW. Good companies understand that broadening their customer base means more profit. Idiots just narrowly define their target market and throw away all that profit.
But trying to market your product to everybody is a futile waste of time and resources, much better to focus on the definites, probables and maybes, anything else you pick up is gravy.
why should 40k be appealing to women?
Why shouldn't it be? It's a game about killing stuff on a battlefield
At this point, you've answered your own question.
And yeah most straight men prefer cleavage over a lack of cleavage. It's an aesthetic choice and you are clearly in the minority.
So let me get this straight: you think a majority of men require cleavage in their products to enjoy them? A majority of men can't enjoy a game about soldiers killing each other in a hellish wasteland unless there's a sexy woman to admire? I'm really not sure why you insist on insulting men like that.
There isn't much that can't be improved by the addition of boobs when marketing to the male gender at large.
azreal13 wrote: But trying to market your product to everybody is a futile waste of time and resources, much better to focus on the definites, probables and maybes, anything else you pick up is gravy.
You're right, which is why GW should market to people who like wargames. But there's a difference between not abandoning the core idea of your product in a desperate attempt to sell to everyone and throwing in a bunch of sexy women because you can't imagine how to sell your game to anyone other than 15 year old boys.
At this point, you've answered your own question.
Only if you make the sexist assumption that only men can be interested in wargames.
There isn't much that can't be improved by the addition of boobs when marketing to the male gender at large.
So your argument is that most men are shallow and childish and need everything to be porn?
azreal13 wrote: But trying to market your product to everybody is a futile waste of time and resources, much better to focus on the definites, probables and maybes, anything else you pick up is gravy.
You're right, which is why GW should market to people who like wargames. But there's a difference between not abandoning the core idea of your product in a desperate attempt to sell to everyone and throwing in a bunch of sexy women because you can't imagine how to sell your game to anyone other than 15 year old boys.
At this point, you've answered your own question.
Only if you make the sexist assumption that only men can be interested in wargames.
There isn't much that can't be improved by the addition of boobs when marketing to the male gender at large.
So your argument is that most men are shallow and childish and need everything to be porn?
At this point, I'm going to repost what I wrote earlier...
azreal13 wrote:Could we have an agreement that when something along the lines of "men find women attractive" that pointing out that a minority of men, for one reason or another don't isn't a valid rebuttal?
While sweeping generalisations should be avoided, and challenged, when something along those lines is put forward, picking out the one or two specific circumstances where it doesn't apply just doesn't really move things forward, and it is fair to assume that most people are aware of those exceptions.
Otherwise we are going to get to a point where each statement is going to need to be qualified so much it will just take forever to write any sort of reply.
TLDR Pointing out exceptions doesn't invalidate a point.
I am not saying women cannot like wargames, merely that many aren't interested.
Why have you jumped from titilation, mild at that, straight to porn? Sexing things up a bit is a well known, and effective, technique of marketing to men, this is just an image with a mild bit of cleavage on display, nobody's getting bent over or tied up, or have I completely mis-interpreted the image?
It isn't in the least bit immature to enjoy looking at the female form either, nor is it shallow. That you characterise it in that way probably speaks more to your own personal prejudices and feelings on the matter than the issue at large.
I dont really see why people are railing against Az, I know it goes against the spirit of dakka, but cant we actually agree to disagree just this once?
I say that, because I dont think anyone is hugely disagreeing, I think everything he has said is correct, but I don't feel at odds with Peregrine.
Basically, 95% of hobbyists are blokes, ergo, you cant really blame manufacturers for playing to their market. That is how the world works, its why Chuck E Cheese advertise cheese pizza and not caviar, because you aim at your market.
Is there anything wrong with that? And I don't like sexy models, I don't buy them, because even though I like looking at a set of baps every now and then, I don't feel the urge to look at miniscule plastic ones when I can see proper ones all over the place, its not like we are short of tits here in the West, they even use them to sell burgers over here!
Ergo, I can agree with both of you, and I don't see any reason for an argument.
azreal13 wrote: I am not saying women cannot like wargames, merely that many aren't interested.
And many men aren't interested either. Also, the important question is why aren't they interested? Is wargaming inherently unpopular, or is it because the game (along with a certain obnoxious element in the community) works to drive women away and tell them that their only place is looking pretty for the men?
Why have you jumped from titilation, mild at that, straight to porn? Sexing things up a bit is a well known, and effective, technique of marketing to men, this is just an image with a mild bit of cleavage on display, nobody's getting bent over or tied up, or have I completely mis-interpreted the image?
It's not hardcore porn, but the intent is still the same.
And yes, it's common. That doesn't mean we have to like it and encourage it.
It isn't in the least bit immature to enjoy looking at the female form either, nor is it shallow.
Context matters. Looking at women is fine, in a context where the whole point is enjoying the pretty people (porn, etc). It crosses into shallow childishness when you need to have something sexy to look at even in a context where sex is completely irrelevant. And yes, sex is irrelevant in 40k. The only reason to include it is if you believe that your product can't sell on its own merits without including a little sex to keep your customers interested.
Women, in general, don't enjoy adversarial pastimes, as I've already mentioned, it goes to the hunter-gatherer nature of men vs the more nurturing nature of women.
To argue that a low cut dress in a sketch is in any way sharing "intent" whatever you mean by that, with porn is just daft.
Nobody, HAS to have something sexy to look at while playing 40K, frankly they'd be SOL of they did, but some just don't get so hot under the collar about a bit of unnecessary cleavage.
Additionally, I think it is fairly easy to interpret some of GW's recent policies and actions as they, in fact, don't have a huge amount of confidence in their product. But that's another subject.
azreal13 wrote: Women, in general, don't enjoy adversarial pastimes, as I've already mentioned, it goes to the hunter-gatherer nature of men vs the more nurturing nature of women.
Oh good, let's bring in some evolutionary psychology pseudoscience. Can we talk about how these differences are clearly genetic and have nothing to do with social pressure to fit into those roles, or would that be too embarrassing for you?
To argue that a low cut dress in a sketch is in any way sharing "intent" whatever you mean by that, with porn is just daft.
How is the intent any different? It's blatant sex for the sake of sex with no purpose beyond that. The only difference between that and porn is that porn doesn't have a pretense of being anything else and so it has the freedom to do it right.
Nobody, HAS to have something sexy to look at while playing 40K
Really? Because that seems to be what people just said:
40k is squarely aimed at males and realistically most of us are straight, therefore we want to see some tits every now and then.
but some just don't get so hot under the collar about a bit of unnecessary cleavage.
You're right. Some people feel that since they have the privilege of not being on the wrong end of it there's no reason to care. That's not really something to brag about.
Nobody, HAS to have something sexy to look at while playing 40K, frankly they'd be SOL of they did, but some just don't get so hot under the collar about a bit of unnecessary cleavage.
Remember what I said about specific examples not really being effective at countering a general point?
If gender stereotypes really are all down to social conditioning, I wonder why it is that many of the young children I have contact with seem to follow those stereotypes while being too young to go without nappies let alone have any awareness of social trends? Must be coincidence.
I can't really address your point about intent, as you still really haven't clarified what you mean? Do you really consider the pic that was the genesis of this thread a mastabatory aid?
Who's bragging? I save my moral outrage for people being kidnapped, forcibly addicted to drugs and made to have sex with strangers to earn others money, or for those who cannot get ahead in their field solely for the random outcome of a 50/50 chance, or for any number of other reasons of gender inequality and exploitation.
If you can demonstrate how someone is somehow being negatively affected by this picture that somebody made up in their head, and not a theoretical "might under these circumstances" I mean right now, demonstrate how any legitimate art, from any walk of life is having a negative impact on even one person at this moment in our history, I will concede this argument and add "Peregrine is right in all things" to my sig.
EDIT Morally outraged doesn't count as "damaged" either.
Nobody, HAS to have something sexy to look at while playing 40K, frankly they'd be SOL of they did, but some just don't get so hot under the collar about a bit of unnecessary cleavage.
azreal13 wrote: If gender stereotypes really are all down to social conditioning, I wonder why it is that many of the young children I have contact with seem to follow those stereotypes while being too young to go without nappies let alone have any awareness of social trends? Must be coincidence.
How exactly are you getting any useful information about behavior from children that young? Are you sure you aren't just projecting your own expectations onto them? Or the expectations of their parents, which show social trends without explicitly giving them a lecture?
And of course there are plenty of counter-examples to the stereotype. Women can compete just fine in sports (including martial arts, which is about as anti-nurturing as you can get) when given the opportunity, for example. So it's a lot more likely that the reluctance to compete has more to do with social pressure to be "feminine" and cooperate than any inherent inability or lack of desire.
I can't really address your point about intent, as you still really haven't clarified what you mean? Do you really consider the pic that was the genesis of this thread a mastabatory aid?
Not literally to that extreme, but the intent is to get interest by presenting a sexual image. It's degrees of the same concept, not a totally different idea.
Who's bragging? I save my moral outrage for people being kidnapped, forcibly addicted to drugs and made to have sex with strangers to earn others money, or for those who cannot get ahead in their field solely for the random outcome of a 50/50 chance, or for any number of other reasons of gender inequality and exploitation.
So because there are worse things in the world we should just shut up and stop complaining? That's an awful "argument".
If you can demonstrate how someone is somehow being negatively affected by this picture that somebody made up in their head, and not a theoretical "might under these circumstances" I mean right now, demonstrate how any legitimate art, from any walk of life is having a negative impact on even one person at this moment in our history, I will concede this argument and add "Peregrine is right in all things" to my sig.
Have you really not seen anything about women feeling unwelcome because of images like that? This specific one might not be the worst offender, but it's still part of the same problem.
I came back here to say, I see women here in NZ wearing low cut shirts, very short shorts, bellies showing, fishnets, thigh high stockings etc all the time. That picture in the OP is pretty much how women TEND to present themselves in the first place. Of course its not all of them, but a lot of them. If i go into the city or to the mall i can pretty much garantee ill see women dressed similar or worse than the picture of the inquisitor above.
And chances are its worse in America and other western countries.
Heck adverts, tv shows and movies all have it too.. have any of you been in a fashion clothing store? Its full of ill modest clothing and children even wear that kind of clothing.
So when i see a picture like that its nothing at all shocking in any way as that's how i see girls, teens and women presenting themselves all the time. If it where truly offensive, wrong or inappropriate towards women then most of them probably wouldn't dress like this in the first place.
Before i get ripped into for this im not calling women sluts or anything nor am i saying ALL women behave this way but it is the trend. My girlfriend looked at this picture and agrees that what women wear in real life is far worse than what is depicted in that picture.
I've seen little girls choosing dolls, or pink things, purely because they wanted them, and boys going for toy cars and guns, even when given free reign
I had My Little Pony when I was young, because I grew up with horses, but the majority of my toys were Transformers, Masters Of The Universe and other assorted action figures, because that's what I wanted.
Yes there are worse things in the world, which hopefully makes this looks so insignificant it makes people realise how pointless it is giving it a second thought, let alone getting bothered by it.
To the point about women feeling unwelcome, I say, so? That might sound a bit callous, but if I went I to something traditionally female dominated, like say, an aerobics class, I'd expect to feel bloody awkward. I wouldn't start throwing my hands in the air demanding they make it more "man friendly." You can bet that if I was really keen though, I wouldn't let it stop me participating.
I'll take that as a "no" on the demonstrating that art is in any way damaging then shall I?
azreal13 wrote: I've seen little girls choosing dolls, or pink things, purely because they wanted them, and boys going for toy cars and guns, even when given free reign
But you don't really have free reign. Even if the parents allow free choice there's still the message from people around them that girls play with dolls and boys play with guns, a desire to play with the same toys as their friends, etc.
Yes there are worse things in the world, which hopefully makes this looks so insignificant it makes people realise how pointless it is giving it a second thought, let alone getting bothered by it.
Do you apply the same standard to everything else in your life? For example, do you ignore any local political issues because starving children in Africa are so much worse?
To the point about women feeling unwelcome, I say, so? That might sound a bit callous, but if I went I to something traditionally female dominated, like say, an aerobics class, I'd expect to feel bloody awkward. I wouldn't start throwing my hands in the air demanding they make it more "man friendly." You can bet that if I was really keen though, I wouldn't let it stop me participating.
How exactly does an aerobics class make men feel unwelcome, beyond the men being a minority?
I'll take that as a "no" on the demonstrating that art is in any way damaging then shall I?
Only if you make the ridiculous assumption that being made to feel unwelcome in a hobby you're interested in joining doesn't count as damage.
No, I ignore local political issues because I'm a UK resident and local political issues in my part of the world tend to revolve around what days the bins are collected and excessive numbers of seagulls.
Its late, my battery is low, and you just asked why a man would feel awkward in an aerobics class full of women.
I don't have the energy to continue us this just now, perhaps we will continue at a later juncture.
snurl wrote: Remember, these are fantasy / sci-fi wargames.
If you are looking for realism, play historicals.
This is actually a very good point. These are sci fi and fantasy games. Given the context of sci fi and fantasy, scantily clad women shouldn't be a surprising thing at all. Even geek holy grails like Star Wars and Star Trek have their fair share of it - for example, there was no reason for Leia to be in a gold bikini when she was Jabbas slave. There is no reason for Aayla Secura to have her massive cleavage showing in the middle of a lightsaber battle. Look at geek cult fantasy settings. Conan? Yah, Valerias nice, visible rack was a huge combat asset, I'm sure.
Yet someone makes a fantasy miniature with visible cleavage, and suddenly they're pandering to a completely different audience?
No one was saying the problem is exclusive to wargames or miniatures. There is a problem in many works of fantasy though where women tend to be sex objects first and characters second.
carlos13th wrote: No one was saying the problem is exclusive to wargames or miniatures. There is a problem in many works of fantasy though where women tend to be sex objects first and characters second.
Subject: Representation of women in miniature games (go-to thread to prevent off-topic on other threads)
Key word here is Fantasy.
I don't want my fantasy stuff to be filtered by the everything must be P.C. crowd.
-Loki- wrote: for example, there was no reason for Leia to be in a gold bikini when she was Jabbas slave.
Sure there was, she was a slave being kept for decoration and entertainment. You'll notice that every other time she appears in the movies she's wearing normal "unsexy" clothes just like everyone else.
Yet someone makes a fantasy miniature with visible cleavage, and suddenly they're pandering to a completely different audience?
Nobody is arguing that this is something unique to miniatures games. But that doesn't make it less of a problem.
-Loki- wrote: for example, there was no reason for Leia to be in a gold bikini when she was Jabbas slave.
Sure there was, she was a slave being kept for decoration and entertainment. You'll notice that every other time she appears in the movies she's wearing normal "unsexy" clothes just like everyone else.
Except Chewbacca and the droids, everyone forgets Chewbacca was always naked save his utility belt. C3PO is always parading his gay gold body everywhere and even shares a steamy oil bath scene with R2.
Lucas probably wanted to offer some fan service to all the furries and technopilles out there.
What fluff ? She's whipping the repentia. Apart from that…
Troike wrote: But she also fits very will with the relgious nutter theme. Flagellation and extreme pennance is something that extremists like the Sisters do, so she has a good basis for being there, at least.
Self-flagellation, yeah. Not flagellation of others while staying comfortably in a power armor.
Peregrine wrote:The issue isn't people wearing attractive clothing in social situations where nice clothes are important, it's that women are portrayed in attractive clothing even in situations (a battle, for example) where attractive clothing is irrelevant at best, while men just wear practical stuff with no attempt to be sexy.
azreal13 wrote:Exactly!
Like the Catachans!
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:Catachan aren't attempting to look sexy. Those guys are :
You're not even trying to follow the conversation now are you?
I am. I ignored the practical part because we all know nothing in 40k is practical. Men wears unpractical stuff with no attempt to be sexy, including the Catachan.
Oxayotl. The Chameleon Skink special character back when it was unique of its kind. Now, he has been renamed Oxyotl.
Khan Raider wrote: Myself and a buddy who is a navy vet pretty much guard dog for everyone.
I usually play at my FLGS where the staff will and do play this role better than me .
xruslanx wrote: it does not break the willing suspension of disbelief, it is in keeping with the aesthetic...
It does, and it's not.
azreal13 wrote: To argue that a low cut dress in a sketch is in any way sharing "intent" whatever you mean by that, with porn is just daft.
May be a slight exaggeration, but still, here this cleavage is definitely not here to convey some information about her character (unlike Dr Manhattan or Repentia sisters or Dark Elves Succubus or …). I think that was his point.
I'm quite sad that absolutely nobody at all reacted to my opposition between story-driven nudity versus eye-candy nudity.
What fluff ? She's whipping the repentia. Apart from that…
That's simplifying it a little. She's not whipping them "just because", she's doing it to punish them for their sins, and to drive them ever harder towards seeking Big E's forgiveness. She's a brutal spiritual overseer, basically.
Self-flagellation, yeah. Not flagellation of others while staying comfortably in a power armor.
The point of the Mistress is that she actually is above the Repenita. Mistresses are some of the most faithful Sisters in the order, which is why they're chosen to oversee the Repentia, and punish them whilst also pushing them to forgiveness.
Sadly I don't access to my codex right now, else I'd reference what the fluff actually says, but I think that what I said about them is accurate.
Anyway, I thought you liked the extremity of the Repentia? You certainly seem to like the "hardcore version" that we see in the artwork. I just see the Mistresses of a part of that extremity, myself. Very over the top, as befits the extreme end of an organisation of extreme zealots.
Troike wrote: The point of the Mistress is that she actually is above the Repenita. Mistresses are some of the most faithful Sisters in the order, which is why they're chosen to oversee the Repentia, and punish them whilst also pushing them to forgiveness.
The fluff mention how the repentia included some of the most devout Sisters that actually got in here because they obsess over extremely minor or imaginary sins. I like that way better than the Repentia being some kind of Penal Legion where you go when you are punished and forced to by others, and need an overseer.
Troike wrote: Sadly I don't access to my codex right now, else I'd reference what the fluff actually says, but I think that what I said about them is accurate.
Well, it mainly says that she is the one who will be able to say which one earned redemption at the end of battle.
Troike wrote: I just see the Mistresses of a part of that extremity, myself.
For me, it doesn't go well with it, because of what I said above. If anything, the Sororitas should try to restrain its more self-destructive elements so that they can actually help in battle.
The sentiment 'wargames are for guys so it is OK to have some T&A' is just stupid. It used to be same for RPGs, but nowadays most companies recognise an women are part of the potential target audience too. With computer games number of women playing is constantly increasing. And women do compete, they play competitive games, they compete in sports. Now, I hate prudery, and chainmail burkha is not an improvement over chainmail bikini, but if you are going to put sexy art in your game, then let there be sexy art featuring both genders equally.
That being said, I don't think that main problem in GW games regarding representation of women is that they're featured only as sex objects, it is that the're barely featured at all. There really should be a lot more female miniatures and female special characters.
carlos13th wrote: No one was saying the problem is exclusive to wargames or miniatures. There is a problem in many works of fantasy though where women tend to be sex objects first and characters second.
Subject: Representation of women in miniature games (go-to thread to prevent off-topic on other threads)
Key word here is Fantasy.
I don't want my fantasy stuff to be filtered by the everything must be P.C. crowd.
It has nothing to do with being PC. Tits for tits sake serves no purpose except to draw in people via sex appeal. Its a very cheap and lazy approach to take.
I think the Repentia mistress is meant to represent a School Mistress, an older term for a senior female teacher who teaches at a girl's school, Master being the male equivalent. The Repenita would then be a cross between naughty schoogirls and naughty nuns, two tropes popular in earlier British humour. The Mistress, with deliberate cross reference to BDSM mistresses, and her whip would preside over these naughty young ladies and provide appropriate spankings when needed.
Crimson wrote: The sentiment 'wargames are for guys so it is OK to have some T&A' is just stupid. It used to be same for RPGs, but nowadays most companies recognise an women are part of the potential target audience too. With computer games number of women playing is constantly increasing. And women do compete, they play competitive games, they compete in sports.
This is quite interesting actually, but one thing to keep in mind when you compare video games to wargaming is that you cant really compare the two The video game industry is massive and rivals both the movie and music industry, video games is also mainstream these days while wargaming is still very much a niche.
With that said, what really interested me is why women dont seem to be interested in wargaming? As you say women are becoming more and more common in video game circles and in my experience there has always been a female demographic for roleplaying games, but in wargaming? Not so much. In my limited experience I have never met a women who has showed any interest in wargaming (Their sentiment usually ranges from "indifferent" to "condescending") and I dont see any inherent reasons for it. I dont buy the "competitive" argument as Wargaming isn't really that competitive in my opinion. Painting and sculpting is not male-exclusive and fantasy and sci-fi have had female fans for a long time too. And if you get down to it, is there really such a big difference between toy soldiers and doll houses?
That being said, I don't think that main problem in GW games regarding representation of women is that they're featured only as sex objects, it is that the're barely featured at all. There really should be a lot more female miniatures and female special characters.
Well you have to keep in mind that GWs main market is 12-year old boys and that is who their targeting. And if had to guess which demographic would be the least interested in female miniatures, my guess would be 12-year old boys
Which begs the question, how do you market wargaming to a female demographic?
One of the reasons you will find is that big tits on a poster in a public place will instantly make a lot of girls uncomfortable.
It's a sign that your unwanted there for anything other than your sex appeal and for looking at.
Pictures at conventions and such, and in game stores. It also doesn't help that if you walk in you do get stared at. So it becomes a sign to just stay away.
You can also look at how things are worded, playing some RPGs with guys comeing from wargaming had them weirded out by how often the books would refer to the players as female, think how that feals for female players reading up about Alot of these games. With the lack of female representation it's much harder to get into the game.
Lego is a good example, they started advertising heavily to boys and girls started to stop getting there products. It become a thing boys do and girls are not welcome, now they are trying to get girls back into it with realy crappy products.
At pax there was a good amount of girls playing pokemon TCG, but nearly non playing magic the gathering.
And board games of all sorts are very popular with both sexes.
Sex sell easily, but it also pushes out potential custermers easy.
Firstly, the reason people object to sexualised depictions of women in media isn't because they think sex is bad or breasts are sinful or something*. It's because of what the subtext of the images conveys. When all your depictions of women are young, attractive to men and sexually available, you're suggesting that those are really the only women that matter. You have this breadth of men ranging from the beautiful to the hideous, the young to the very old, but when it comes to the women you have this tiny, narrow spectrum and the rest are disappeared. There's a strong message from society that if you're a woman, nothing you do counts unless you're attractive to men. That's harmful. These things reinforce it.
Secondly, these depictions can send a message to female players, current and prospective, saying: this game isn't for you. That you like this at all is an accident and don't expect what you want to be given the slightest consideration. It's all about the men (or, some would argue, the boys). These can drive women away from the game before they even get into it. Even those of us who've been around this sort of thing for a long, long time can get hit by that alienated feeling occasionally.
Anyway, in relative terms the inquisitor is a pretty good drawing. Hey, the armour is kinda stupid, but still, it's not too bad. What annoys me about that picture is the male-as-default pronoun in the text. Guys: it's okay to use generic pronouns. Male pronouns aren't "generic." They never were. Using them as if they are is quite creepy and exclusionary.
Why should it not? It can appeal to men whilst appealing to women too, it's not some weird cleavage-based tradeoff.
well in the real world there are very few things that seek to appeal to both men and women. I see no reason why a sci-fi setting where 99% of the people who follow it are men, should appeal to women instead.
For people asserting that these images or miniatures put off potential female gamers, I just want to put out one little bit of anecdotal information.
Our FLGS has a large number of female gamers, more than I have ever seen at any game store in the 25+ years that I have patroned them. The store has the same amount of hypothetically "offensive" or "gender stereotype" imagery as any other place. It just about has to since it sells GW, Wyrd, PP, and everything else you can think of. All of their miniatures and art work, boobies and all.
None of them in my discussions have ever indicated that they bear offense to this imagery. Heck, many of them buy, paint, and play with the most sexualized miniatures out there.
If I had to guess, the reason they come to the store is because it is nice, clean, well-lit, and has an owner with a great personality and inclusive manner to all kinds of gamers. We even have severall openly LGBT gamers at the store.
If I had to guess, the imagery in the game is far less important to people that the actual gamers they meet and interactions they have on a social level.
Saldiven wrote: For people asserting that these images or miniatures put off potential female gamers, I just want to put out one little bit of anecdotal information.
Our FLGS has a large number of female gamers, more than I have ever seen at any game store in the 25+ years that I have patroned them. The store has the same amount of hypothetically "offensive" or "gender stereotype" imagery as any other place. It just about has to since it sells GW, Wyrd, PP, and everything else you can think of. All of their miniatures and art work, boobies and all.
None of them in my discussions have ever indicated that they bear offense to this imagery. Heck, many of them buy, paint, and play with the most sexualized miniatures out there.
If I had to guess, the reason they come to the store is because it is nice, clean, well-lit, and has an owner with a great personality and inclusive manner to all kinds of gamers. We even have severall openly LGBT gamers at the store.
If I had to guess, the imagery in the game is far less important to people that the actual gamers they meet and interactions they have on a social level.
The images themselves are not the entire issue, and I would say I never talk about this stuff with my clup or store. As can be it means a very awquard and often when bring this up in places like this is something many of us have learned just not to do.
Also those company's are fairly good in there depiction of women with only GW falling behind due to lack of representation at all.. PP actuly gets praised for its depiction of women in gaming.
Which I agree with.
A good store can still be inviting, but It can still have issues that people just put up with.
Saldiven wrote: For people asserting that these images or miniatures put off potential female gamers, I just want to put out one little bit of anecdotal information.
Our FLGS has a large number of female gamers, more than I have ever seen at any game store in the 25+ years that I have patroned them. The store has the same amount of hypothetically "offensive" or "gender stereotype" imagery as any other place. It just about has to since it sells GW, Wyrd, PP, and everything else you can think of. All of their miniatures and art work, boobies and all.
None of them in my discussions have ever indicated that they bear offense to this imagery. Heck, many of them buy, paint, and play with the most sexualized miniatures out there.
If I had to guess, the reason they come to the store is because it is nice, clean, well-lit, and has an owner with a great personality and inclusive manner to all kinds of gamers. We even have several openly LGBT gamers at the store.
If I had to guess, the imagery in the game is far less important to people that the actual gamers they meet and interactions they have on a social level.
How women are represented in the games themselves is just part of a much more complicated issue.
Before I got married, I never realized how much women have to take their personal safety into consideration every day of their lives. At first I though that how obsessive she was about locking the car doors while we drive, or not wanting to go to the mall or other crowded stores by herself was a little silly. But we talked about it, and I realized she has to deal with a lot of legitimate threats to her safety. Just because she's a 5 foot tall 100 pound woman in a world where women are often the targets of violence. It's a much scarier world when you're not a guy. Yeah, guys get mugged to, but every mugger's got to wonder whether that skinny guy is a secret Krag Maga master or is packing heat. As guys we benefit from those types of positive stereotypes with out really realizing it.
So yeah, there's are lot of girls that are potential mini's gamers that would be put off by a store that doesn't have any other girls around. As humans we get uncomfortable when there aren't other people like us around. For women it's compounded by the aforementioned personal safety concerns.
Luckily, I noticed that, if you do get women into a group, it becomes easier to grow that demographic. If a random women walks into a game store, and sees other women playing a game, she's more inclined to become interested herself. It's much more easier to be the nth person than the 1st person no matter your gender, race, orientation, or whatever.
.
?
?
.
).
