Posting this bit here, as it's further on the tangent than my other reply.

weeble1000 wrote:

I agree with Arty here, and I will add that I don't think a nude is inherently sexualized. I daresay one might argue that automatically viewing a nude female as a sexual object is inherently sexist.
HFM absolutely sells sexualized models, but most of Kev's nudes do not even fall into that category. Kev sculpts from a mostly finished nude dollie. Finishing the dollie and selling the work separately is frankly good business sense, but more importantly, the nude was often not even intended for a sexualized model.
It's just a nude female.
The difference between a nude female and a sexist depiction of women is miles wide.

It's also entirely subjective. Let's also not pretend that we don't all know the majority market for these figures is guys who like to look at naked women. And that's fine - I've got no problem with that. The other thing is that if we can ignore noble intentions for a moment, the fact is certainly that in the societies that we both live in and I'd suggest that across the English-speaking world and quite a lot of the rest of it as well, images of nude woman are automatically sexualised. They just are. Perhaps not to you or me or Kev or Arty , but they are to someone. And quite a lot of someones.



...and just in case my reply to Arty gets Mod-deleted - even though it's much more about the miniatures.

 Artemis Black wrote:

And I still, completely, disagree. There is a huge difference between sexualised and sexist. I've never pretend we don't sell naked minis, both male and female. And a lot of them are sexualised (some are just naked). In fact at some points I have made Kev go out of his way to finish dollies to sell them as completely naked ones (There's one above, but we sell like 20 at this point). (I have also never made the 'arty' argument, no pun intended. That was other people).

But just being nude doesn't make something sexist? That's a crazy notion. However making a mini in a sci-fi setting with guns and massive amounts of armour and then just removing the torso section because boobs is 'not' what we do, and never will.

I'll agree with you to an extent, but at the same time, you couldn't claim that much of Kev's stuff is anything but gratuitous nudity. HF isn't alone in this of course, aside from the other companies listed, Reaper has more than their fair share as well. And we know why (in Reaper's case - they sell damned well.) With Hasslefree, my gut tells me that it's a combination of nudes selling well along with Kev simply sculpting what he enjoys. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, though.

I would never be embarrassed to show a non-gamer our range, I would be mortified to show them those.

Sure, but that's a basic point, innit? Everyone thinks their own products are fine. Angelos, the Shieldwolf guy swears blue that his figures are better sculpts than AoW or Mierce. It's a natural reaction for anyone who believes in their product. Even the Prodos guy feels that his sculpts are peachy-keen. I mean, when we get to Poots he might want to go with an explanation first before showing them to Theo's family, but even in your own range there's a big difference between these two.

NSFW


The first of yours (Kev's) there is a very classical sculpt. The second is pure 1980's-1990's. Now neither I nor my family are particularly easily offended, but I could show the first to my co-workers and while some might think it a little gratuitous, I'm confident that they would see the classical influence that would override any discomfort or shock from the nudity. The second one (or the topless female dwarf slayer, etc)? Well, in all honesty I think it'd get the same reaction by and large that the Prodos figures would get.

I think what it comes down to in many ways is that the Prodos stuff offends you personally (which is fine) but you're having trouble stepping back and seeing the bigger perspective on it.

Like I said somewhere else, if someone just can't see that difference straight off, there's not much point in arguing. But I am completely befuddled as to why.
You'll notice I haven't said a word about the covered up ones, nor would I ever have. The sexist ones can still feth off back to the 80s though.

The Prodos stuff - ridiculous as it is - I definitely agree with that - actually has a lot more in common with Anime and Manga (and Japanese videogame) design elements. It's much more that, shoved into a 40k-style shell than something especially 80's or 90's. With badly-sculpted balloon breasts.

Spoilered for size.

But if people keep wanna bringing up our minis, then I have no objection

Well, that's gonna happen when you wade in and start slinging mud, given that there are direct points of comparison between the two companies. In fact, if I were even slightly cynical, I might think you're here and so invested in this thread at least in part for marketing purposes. You've got double the amount of posts here than in the actual HF thread!

Oh, while you're here - are the Greek decals printed on decal sheets or are they individual decals? And do any of them come in white? They might be exactly what I'm after for a current project.

Seemed like a nightmare to try and reply in between each point and spoiler things etc .

For the record, I don't consider HF 'my' products in that way. And I've long sold HF while having no stake in the company and my opinion was the same then as now, I was never embarrassed by the nudity of a figure, I'm embarrassed by 'concepts' and I can't think, off the top of my head, of a HF mini that would embarrass me that way.
I'm also pretty known for speaking my mind even about things I sell My opinion isn't something that should factor into anyone else's purchases so I've never been afraid to say that I don't like something in my own shop, whether it be by someone else or by Kev.

Also I am going to have to go against something I read elsewhere about naked figures selling better, none of our top selling miniatures are topless or nude.

Generally Kev makes what he likes but also things that make a modicum of sense.I would hope none of the figure he makes are purely for titilation purposes, I know none of the ones I've asked him to make were. I don't like to speak too much for Kev though, I'm not his keeper

Many times the naked or partially naked minis are simply that Kev sculpts from the body up, so usually ahs a mostly sculpted naked ody to start with. If he makes a body he partilarly likes, artistically, then he won't want to cover it. Taxxis, for example, is a naked woman that started as the dolly for Alicia a completely covered up figure.
Lately I have exaggerated this by checking his WIPs for dollies I think will sell as a naked one if he finishes it.

I don't consider either of the minis you selected as 'sexist' or coming from a sexist concept. They might be if all of our males were perfectly normally attired and all of our females were big boobed, manga armoured nonsense even if Kev sculpted them all very well.

The Prodos boobmarines were clearly made for titilation and 'look boobs!' purposes. I find that offensive and embarrassing. Enough so to interject myself into another company's thead on a forum I barely use. I honestly think the absolute best scenario upon showing them to a woman is an eye roll, and most reaction would be worse than that.

While some HF figures may certainly get an eye roll, I doubt we'd ever get much worse than that.

And while I'd love to take credit for the HF mentioning, I was only speaking as myself, other people brought HF into it (not particularly unsurprisingly). I also don't think I ever posted in the HF thread until well into this one, thought I might as well while I'm here

(Decal sheets, we don't do precut at the moment. We don'thave white but I could do a test print in white if you wanted, just drop me a pm with what you're after and I could see how they come out)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that we have firm plans for a KS at long last and it will 'definitely' involve nakedness and some cheesecake. So that should be fun for a few of th people who followed me from the old FF threads

I shall make sure I come back here for that, if only for them to get their licks in

Several years ago, when Poser was a brand new program, an artist did a crowd scene - to save rendering time, the figures in the back, where no one could see them, were nude.

Humans being humans, somebody took the file, rendered it from another angle, then lambasted the artist for his nude scene....

The artist, in that case, was not responsible - the responsible party was the idiot that did a new render, just to show the nekkid people that were not visible from the angle intended.

Ral Partha, way back when, had more than their fair share of bottomless male orcs, goblins, ghouls, and satyrs - and the models were not overly sexualized.

Prodos, by comparison, is doing women in armor that does not protect the part of the body that most need protecting - the gut.

Instead they decided that bikinis were just the ticket for a futuristic firefight.

If they have force fields that protect the bodies, then why bother with the heavy armor on arms, legs, and shoulders?

If they do not have forcefields, then they should be wearing their gosh darned armor!

So, yes, there is a difference.

The Auld Grump - who has decided not to buy from Prodos, but is quite happy to buy from Hasslefree, Reaper, Darksword, and other companies that do tasteful nude miniatures.

Well, the thing there is that you're possibly in too deep to have a "normal" perspective on Kev's nudes vs Prodos' nudes. At least compared to someone who doesn't see them on a daily basis as part of your work. We all become somewhat innured to things in our own jobs/lives/circles that would be far from forgettably routine to others. Interesting that you say none of your top selling models are topless or nude - though they clearly sell well enough to be a pretty notable feature of the overall ranges - and the fact that you intercept some of Kev's nudes before they get clothed.

I think an objective observer (not one of Buzzsaw's extreme feminists, but someone reasonable, like me) could go through the HF range and make a decent judgement on which figures are there for prurient reasons and which aren't. And to retread old ground... this one is as much "look, BOOBS!" as the Prodos figures. It's just better sculpted.



I expect thatyou'll disagree, and then we'll simply have to agree to disagree, but I think it's a completely gratuitous figure and pose.

Either both of those things above are sexist and gratuitous and titillative or neither of them is. But this is what I mean by you being too close to it to have the broader perspective. It's not stated as an insult, rather a rather clinical statement. Because I think you'll find that the two images above are very much one and the same thing to most people rather than one being artistic and the other sexist - and would produce the same eyeroll or worse reaction that you'd rightly expect to get from the boobmarines.

You've also got to remember, my points here might argue with you but I'm not here to attack you. I'm a HF customer (though not as regular as we'd probably both like - but someone has to keep GW afloat, after all) My disagreement with you is really about the moral high ground as opposed to quality of sculpt, aesthetics, etc - because the boobmarines look ridiculous to me as well.

I'll have a closer look at the letters and PM you.

If the first thing you notice about something is the nudity, its bad art.
The reason the nudity jumps out so much on the Prodos porn, is because the sculpts have no other redeeming features, and I'm guessing they aren't supposed to.

If you don't notice that a nude is nude, you probably need an eye test before you worry about anything else!

My wife just saw the Football Kaelee model in my above post and asked "what the feth is that?"

Responding into the spinoff to keep things separate.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 BrookM wrote:
Kingdom Death is about body horror, not hentai...

Much of the body horror contains elements of rape. I wasn't calling KDM hentai, but rather saying that like with hentai there are many more issues with KDM than just the tits.

Man, I was over on Boardgamegeek arguing the differences between sexism and sexualization in the context of KDM, and then there were people talking about how they didn't see any sex in horror, let alone KDM. It was utterly baffling. I was like, "nudity and T&A and rape imagery!" and they were like "wut? pages?" and then "nope, don't see it" then I was like, "ladies, compromised positions, monsters putting things in them"... still nothing.

Argh!

Glad I got that off my chest. And thanks for being sane.






Automatically Appended Next Post:
In response to the prodos thing, yeah, I think a lot of it is that there's nothing redeeming. It feels like there was no attempt at anything other than a grab & smash T&A fest, and therefore offensive (besides stupid and lowest common denominator).

 Azazelx wrote:
Well, the thing there is that you're possibly in too deep to have a "normal" perspective on Kev's nudes vs Prodos' nudes. At least compared to someone who doesn't see them on a daily basis as part of your work. We all become somewhat innured to things in our own jobs/lives/circles that would be far from forgettably routine to others. Interesting that you say none of your top selling models are topless or nude - though they clearly sell well enough to be a pretty notable feature of the overall ranges - and the fact that you intercept some of Kev's nudes before they get clothed.

I think an objective observer (not one of Buzzsaw's extreme feminists, but someone reasonable, like me) could go through the HF range and make a decent judgement on which figures are there for prurient reasons and which aren't. And to retread old ground... this one is as much "look, BOOBS!" as the Prodos figures. It's just better sculpted.

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

I expect thatyou'll disagree, and then we'll simply have to agree to disagree, but I think it's a completely gratuitous figure and pose.

I just got through explaining why I'm not 'in too deep', so I think saying it again might be superfluous. tl;dr I had no dog in the race in past years and thought exactly the same.

As for FF Kalee, she's a variant, I think I mentioned in the other thread somewhere that she was requested as an amazon star player from the existing topless fantasy figure. Doesn't make much sense but she wasn't made that way (Although if someone wanted an Amazon team or player then it's more than possible we'd offer topless versions, it kinda comes with the myth),

(I would definitely have gone with Gayle for the argument, she's easily the closest figure to crossing the line, and I wouldn't argue if someone said she did)

Ditto for if you do not notice that the crappy sculpt of really stupid armor is a crappy sculpt of really stupid armor.

Prodos has made a crappy sculpt of really stupid armor is, I think the main point.

All else aside - the bikini marines are Just. Plain. Stoopid.

The Hasslfree miniatures have the redeeming value of being decent sculpts, even if you think that the subject is indecent.

The bikini marines have no such saving grace.

I will not call them 'porn' - because they aren't.

I will call the armor that they are wearing really stupid - because it is.

There are companies that make more pornographic models that are worse sculpted.

I do not buy from them, either.

I am, in point of fact, more annoyed with the stupid armor than the bikinis - the juxtaposition of heavy armor and an exposed gut... is just plain poor armor design.

I am, further, less offended by the Wargames Exclusive Nekkid Tau with Big Gun miniature - she just isn't wearing her armor, as opposed to wearing armor that will just plain get her killed.

There is no practical reason for the bikini marines to exist.

The Auld Grump

 Artemis Black wrote:

As for FF Kalee, she's a variant, I think I mentioned in the other thread somewhere that she was requested as an amazon star player from the existing topless fantasy figure. Doesn't make much sense but she wasn't made that way

Yep, I'm aware that she's a variant, but the figure is what it is.

(I would definitely have gone with Gayle for the argument, she's easily the closest figure to crossing the line, and I wouldn't argue if someone said she did)

You know your range better than I do. I'll go look her up.
Yep, she's well over that line. Just change the spear to a "proper" pole and you've got a stripper figure for that bit of urban scenery/diorama.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

Ditto for if you do not notice that the crappy sculpt of really stupid armor is a crappy sculpt of really stupid armor.

What?

Prodos has made a crappy sculpt of really stupid armor is, I think the main point.

Arty and I agree on that point.

All else aside - the bikini marines are Just. Plain. Stoopid.

That's a personal and aesthetic opinion. I agree with you, but that's just mine.

The Hasslfree miniatures have the redeeming value of being decent sculpts, even if you think that the subject is indecent.

Not sure if anyone here is claiming that they're "indecent"? Certainly no-one is claiming that they're not decent or better sculpts.

The bikini marines have no such saving grace.

Some of the Prodos models are better technical sculpts than others. The awfully-done boobs bring the others down. Like the winged one. The Daemonette-ish things are decent.

I will not call them 'porn' - because they aren't.

Again, I don't think anyone was calling any of them porn. That one guy started talking about porn, but he was using it as an example compared to the models, not actually calling any of the models porn.

I will call the armor that they are wearing really stupid - because it is.

There were only a few people saying it wasn't. And Prodos. It was funny every time I read it.

There are companies that make more pornographic models that are worse sculpted.

Sure.

I do not buy from them, either.

Okay.

I am, in point of fact, more annoyed with the stupid armor than the bikinis - the juxtaposition of heavy armor and an exposed gut... is just plain poor armor design.

Yes, I agree - though as I noted, it reminds me of one aspect of the Japanese Anime/Manga/Gaming aesthetic design. Shoehorned into not-40k.

I am, further, less offended by the Wargames Exclusive Nekkid Tau with Big Gun miniature - she just isn't wearing her armor, as opposed to wearing armor that will just plain get her killed.

I think that figure is particularly dopey as well. I'm hoping that WE will redo their AdMech models with a few more robes. No reply to that so far.

There is no practical reason for the bikini marines to exist.

Sure there is. Moneys!

The Auld Grump

Agreed.

I would argue that many of the sci fi designs especially of the Gothic horror variety do not have a reason of existence, but get a huge by because of "rule of cool" which is entirely subjective.

One could argue that in Prodos case the huge pauldrons are lightweight protection domes for the energy field that does not stop melee attacks hence the shields and armoured limbs.

The entire combat of their universe can have devolved in gladiatorial combat for all we care.

Point is a stupid paper napkin scribed explanation can be given for any silly design to give it "validation" and I have seen far stupider armour designs as artwork and character models mostly in CG games admittedly.

Is the design really so stupid? more stupid than a jet fighter with a shrine (with candles) on it or less? why does this offend more than say Football Kaelee they share the same level of "stupid design".

I would even argue that quality of craftmanship is not a redeeming value, one could just sigh and comment the talent wasted in such a sculpt.

Overall what is and isn't offensive, what is passable and what is not and what one would proudly show to others or not is subjective and from that comes the various attempts to make a grey subject black and white, there are many models as are other categories in line that are based on "sex sells" arguing that one is morally better than the other and hence it should be excluded from the category is in my opinion silly, all are in the same genre and cater to the same audience.

Personally I do not care much about Prodos game, it raised my interest on the disproportionate flack it got in comparison to virtually every other single project that is in the same genre and my main discussion was with Artemis Black on the morality on mudslinging a competitors product while his company produces models that are in the same genre.

I've got to say I'm pleasantly surprised this thread hasn't turned into an outright slanging match, even with this few posts. Can't say it'll last for another one or two pages, so here goes.

TheAuldGrump wrote:Ral Partha, way back when, had more than their fair share of bottomless male orcs, goblins, ghouls, and satyrs - and the models were not overly sexualized.

With wargaming still a largely nerdy-male hobby, I've little doubt that those weren't supposed to be sexualised. More 'uncivilised', I guess. If you do find someone selling sexualised naked ghouls and goblins, maybe take a couple of steps back.

I agree that there are different levels of tastefulness. (Difficult to pinpoint what that difference is between two nudes. Level of eroticness? Titillation?) Although, without wishing to misrepresent the big respect I have for Kev, I think something like Hasslefree's Artemis still finds a big portion of it's audience through the male gaze. More a mini to be looked at for it's curves than to be gamed with. More of a costumed model (or... uncostumed, as the case may be) than a warrior.
YMMV. I see it as a little like the painting of Ben Stiller's character in Dodgeball - kind of innocently presented as an artistic portrayal of an idealised human form, a fighter even, but... yeah.

Never one to back down from letting others argue for me, there's a trio of tumblrs I occasionally visit, here:

http://eschergirls.tumblr.com
http://repair-her-armor.tumblr.com
http://bikiniarmorbattledamage.tumblr.com

The latter two probably more relevant to this topic of undress; and the last one, as it says, is home to the excellent female armour bingo cards. Now, you might roll your eyes at the mere mention of tumblr. You might disagree with some of the arguments there. Or you might find the outrage heavy going, even if you agree with it. But if there's one thing I've taken away from them, it's the sheer prevalence and normalisation of the straight male gaze in nerd culture and art, sexualising everything from comics to video games to gaming miniatures. So much is just taken for granted, even little things, that're just there to say "hey you guys, this one's got boobs!" And there's so little to the contrary, in comparison.
It's why Prodos thought that ridiculous first version of their powered armour was okay to design and show off. Shieldwolf was mentioned - I'd hazard they think they're being big badasses by producing minis of tough fighting women. No chainmail bikinis here, no sir! Only... chainmail crop tops and mini skirts.

Not to say I'm not subject to 'gazing' myself, but it's not what I got into gaming for. Heck, I'll say it insults my intelligence to assume I'll leap at some mini or other product because it's flashing cleavage. But I don't think it's entirely up to me. To inject just a little agency into the discussion, I think it might be useful to see what women are producing (or commissioning, or stocking) for their own independent shops and ranges. Male sex fantasies? Bare midriff armour? Tasteful nudes?

The first two that spring to mind are Bad Squidoo and Victoria Miniatures. Mmyep.

Sorry to say that I can't think of any others. Are there any? Is it wrong to think that's sort of indicative of the situation, too?

I just checked, to make sure I hadn't forgotten anything, and not a single one of our top 10 selling minis is in a state of undress.

In fact the only 2 unclothed figures breaking the top 20 are because they were new releases in the last yr. They drop out of the top 20 if I change it to the last 6 months.

The majority of our top 20 best selling figures are fully clothed females.

We don't stick boobs on things as a selling point unless you take it literally


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azazelx wrote:

 Artemis Black wrote:

(I would definitely have gone with Gayle for the argument, she's easily the closest figure to crossing the line, and I wouldn't argue if someone said she did)

You know your range better than I do. I'll go look her up.
Yep, she's well over that line. Just change the spear to a "proper" pole and you've got a stripper figure for that bit of urban scenery/diorama.

Actually, my problem with the mini is the opposite. If it 'was' a pole I'd be fine with it, because it'd be a miniature of a pole dancer.

Like I said, I dislike concepts not miniatures.

I'm really appreciative that this discussion is being given a civil exploration.
I hope it can continue.

It is hard for me to comment on cheesecake vs tasteful vs etc when one of the companies raised is Hasslefree. They are easily one of my favourite minis companies, great people. Sally has been personally very supportive to me in my home life.

But I don't enjoy their nudes. They're often beautifully done. They're often realistically proportioned. They're a cut above.
But to me they are part of a larger flawed culture. That's not the fault of Kev, the buyers or the painters. I cannot say I have ill feelings toward anyone.
But when I am faced with a small naked woman, I'm reminded of the bigger picture. That gaming culture is gradually improving, but it's not an equal playing field. That sexualised women are still used to sell product. That women are not catered for as widely as guys. They're less welcome, often resented or the butt of jokes in the culture.

So no, for me it's not wholy about the minis, they're a tiny fraction of a wider discomfort. But I can't say they help.
I am not offended by them. I'm tired.

Joyboozer wrote:
If the first thing you notice about something is the nudity, its bad art.
The reason the nudity jumps out so much on the Prodos porn, is because the sculpts have no other redeeming features, and I'm guessing they aren't supposed to.

If the first thing you notice about something is the nudity, you're a stereotypical heterosexual male. Guys like looking at attractive naked women. Put a sculpture of an attractive naked woman in front of them, and they'll notice it's an attractive naked woman.

 AlexHolker wrote:

Joyboozer wrote:
If the first thing you notice about something is the nudity, its bad art.
The reason the nudity jumps out so much on the Prodos porn, is because the sculpts have no other redeeming features, and I'm guessing they aren't supposed to.

If the first thing you notice about something is the nudity, you're a stereotypical heterosexual male. Guys like looking at attractive naked women. Put a sculpture of an attractive naked woman in front of them, and they'll notice it's an attractive naked woman.

Yeah, I have to agree with Alex on this. As a male, if there is a naked woman in a room full of flowers, I'm pretty sure I'll notice the lady before picking out the three different colors of roses. Its just the way I'm wired.

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
I'm really appreciative that this discussion is being given a civil exploration.
I hope it can continue.

It is hard for me to comment on cheesecake vs tasteful vs etc when one of the companies raised is Hasslefree. They are easily one of my favourite minis companies, great people. Sally has been personally very supportive to me in my home life.

But I don't enjoy their nudes. They're often beautifully done. They're often realistically proportioned. They're a cut above.
But to me they are part of a larger flawed culture. That's not the fault of Kev, the buyers or the painters. I cannot say I have ill feelings toward anyone.
But when I am faced with a small naked woman, I'm reminded of the bigger picture. That gaming culture is gradually improving, but it's not an equal playing field. That sexualised women are still used to sell product. That women are not catered for as widely as guys. They're less welcome, often resented or the butt of jokes in the culture.

So no, for me it's not wholy about the minis, they're a tiny fraction of a wider discomfort. But I can't say they help.
I am not offended by them. I'm tired.

Hmm. I'm kinda loathe to reply because it'll take the slight tangent of yours and veer it further off course again, but I figure this is a run-off from the other thread so probably a bit more tolerant of tangents

Unrelated to miniatures, I disagree. I think, in fact, that thinking that way is almost as bad of a problem as the thing you are rightly railing against.

I don't find anything wrong with sexuality being used as a sales tool, female or male. I think that thinking of women as 'just' their sexuality is a problem, but simply thinking of and even using sexuality to sell something shouldn't be an issue. It's part of life, it's perfectly normal.

In real life the agency of the people involved is all-important. An attractive woman who realises that she can use the fact she's considered attractive to make money should be commended. It's a birth lottery in much the same way as a high IQ, or being tall and athletic etc. Part of using attractiveness to make money can easily involve sexuality, or nudity.

To bring it back to miniatures, this is almost exactly why I argue concept not 'how undressed is the mini'. We absolutely use existing concepts such as topless amazon warriors and naked greek fighters etc. to inject some sexuality into some miniatures. We use it in the same way we use power for the male miniatures. And in lesser cases we swap that, we have naked male figures (possibly more than any non-historical company) and we have muscled female miniatures. The reason that the first two categories outnumber the second two is, I think, the source of our disagreement? You don't like that, and I actively think it's ok.

I've said in the other thread that if you can't see the difference between, what are to me, a sexualised mini and a sexist one, then there's no point in arguing. And I'll hold my hands up to that being a bit of a cop out because it' is very difficult to argue the point without being way more word than I am even now Basically I saw the pornmarines on FB, mentioned in a chat room that I thought it was utterly ridiculous that a large company was releasing a game of such nonsense in this day and age, they linked me to this thread and I felt strongly enough about it to show up here (much like I felt strongly about the scale lying the lasttime). It really does take a fair bit to get me to invade a thread on a forum I don't regularly use and speak up. I would never have done that for anything we sell (If I saw an army of figures like Gayle then I probably would have, it's pre-me and I'm not discontinuing a 10yr old mini because of my personal views),

I'd also like to raise a point about something that always comes up in these sort of threads and that is the idea of "realistically proportioned". I see some people using it to decry against some of these pin up or sexy styled models. But what really is realistically proportioned?



These are the natural states of the female body. But its a drawing, is it real? Well... what about this?




I'd argue that many of the pin up body styles are a mix of 3 and 4 and 40 - 80.

Larger boobs followed by a thin waist and good hips. But going back to the first diagram an inverted triangle body style would lead of a much larger breast region. But then you have other who love the standard triangle body style one which emphases a larger buttock region.

These are all standard female body types. What I think people actually have problems with is the posing. There are some classic pin-up poses that get used. Thse usually involve accentuating the hip area either to the side or the butt sticking out further to the rear. Basically any pose that would become uncomfortable if actually attempted for a moment of time longer than five minutes. These poses are used to invoke a sexual interest if not actually arousal. However, these poses are not in themselves unrealistic. Just watch a pole dancer as they contort their body into these same positions. But its not just them. Its pretty much all profession dancers, or ice skaters, or pretty much any artistic dancing form. Heck ever watch professional Tango or Samba dancers. Or anyone really into yoga. Some of those positions are well.... dirty thought inducing to say the least.

Now, lets talk accessories. This is where the real line can be drawn... or can it? Maybe if you take your wargaming as serious business then floating armor or boob plate is completely unacceptable. But for others who take it as a get away to imagination land, there may not be any issues with it at all. And that is where it all becomes subjective and up to personal opinion. We are each trying to get something out of this hobby for ourselves and the direction that each individual takes is completely their own.

 Vermis wrote:

It's why Prodos thought that ridiculous first version of their powered armour was okay to design and show off. Shieldwolf was mentioned - I'd hazard they think they're being big badasses by producing minis of tough fighting women. No chainmail bikinis here, no sir! Only... chainmail crop tops and mini skirts.

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

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

Not to say I'm not subject to 'gazing' myself, but it's not what I got into gaming for. Heck, I'll say it insults my intelligence to assume I'll leap at some mini or other product because it's flashing cleavage. But I don't think it's entirely up to me. To inject just a little agency into the discussion, I think it might be useful to see what women are producing (or commissioning, or stocking) for their own independent shops and ranges. Male sex fantasies? Bare midriff armour? Tasteful nudes?
The first two that spring to mind are Bad Squidoo and Victoria Miniatures. Mmyep.
Sorry to say that I can't think of any others. Are there any? Is it wrong to think that's sort of indicative of the situation, too?

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

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

https://www.facebook.com/grimskullminis/photos/pcb.584393465056987/584392921723708/?type=3
Wargame Exclusive seem to be the retail arm? of Grim Skull? Or something? perhaps they commission their sculpts from GS? There's some sort of affiliation between them, anwyay.

 Artemis Black wrote:

I've said in the other thread that if you can't see the difference between, what are to me, a sexualised mini and a sexist one, then there's no point in arguing.

See, that's fine. But which is which comes down to personal opinion. Because you're not the god of where exactly that line lies any more than I or anyone else in the world is, and frankly, the same model (image, etc) can be sexist and sexualised - they're not mutually exclusive concepts. Football Kaelee might be a conversion, or a custom job, and based off a different sculpt, no intent... whatever. Ultimately, that's all hurfblurf and the final product is what it is.

And in case there's any confusion, I don't dislike that model. I probably wouldn't buy it since there's other stuff I'd rather spend the funds on, but if it were given to me for free by someone I'd at least intend to eventually paint it.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
In response to the prodos thing, yeah, I think a lot of it is that there's nothing redeeming. It feels like there was no attempt at anything other than a grab & smash T&A fest, and therefore offensive (besides stupid and lowest common denominator).

I disagree with the Prodos miniatures not having any redeeming qualities. However, the second part of your statement is the only real reason I can see people being offended. I like (some of) the miniatures and I thought that was rather transparent as well.

I'm also not really ashamed or embarrassed by my hobbies and am not trying to uphold any great ideals with my pastimes. Friends, family, and strangers have rolled their eyes and openly mocked and belittled things I enjoy, and that's fine. It's their opinion on tabletop miniatures, D&D, video games, sci-fi, fantasy, the car I drive, etc. The subject matter is rather irrelevant to them and it rarely gets that far. Once someone observes that I'm playing a video game at all, it's usually a negative reaction (unless they play as well). So arguing that certain models (for whatever reason) demean us all and invalidate the hobby in the eyes of non-gamers is kind of a moot point, in my opinion.

Like Azazelx, I consider myself not to be easily offended, especially not by depictions of things. So maybe that kind of disqualifies me from commenting here.

 Azazelx wrote:

 Artemis Black wrote:

I've said in the other thread that if you can't see the difference between, what are to me, a sexualised mini and a sexist one, then there's no point in arguing.

See, that's fine. But which is which comes down to personal opinion. Because you're not the god of where exactly that line lies any more than I or anyone else in the world is, and frankly, the same model (image, etc) can be sexist and sexualised - they're not mutually exclusive concepts. Football Kaelee might be a conversion, or a custom job, and based off a different sculpt, no intent... whatever. Ultimately, that's all hurfblurf and the final product is what it is.

And in case there's any confusion, I don't dislike that model. I probably wouldn't buy it since there's other stuff I'd rather spend the funds on, but if it were given to me for free by someone I'd at least intend to eventually paint it.

Well there's no need to go down the 'that's only your opinion route, that way lies pointlessness. Of course it's only my opinion. I suppose I could get some kind of consensus but even that is iffy ground. I'm not going to write 'in my opinion' in front of everything The boobmarines are what I find sexist and I don't want them on a shelf in a hobby store, I would quite like it if they weren't available at all but that route gets a bit grey to me with regards to censorship etc. I said much the same about the recent Brother Vinni Indiegogo, he was less of a problem because he's basically a niche dealer. It's like not bothering to go out of your way to campaign against some daft japanese video game about simulated rape you can only buy through some dodgy website but then coming on strong if it turns up on the shelves of Blockbuster (I know they've gone bust, but I don't know which country you're from so I picked a universally recognisable name ).

And yes, Football Kalee is what she is, a fantasy football player for a team who's mythos includes fighting with bared breasts. It might be 'stupid', and the mythos may be heavily influenced by a male oriented society, but it is an actual thing. Like I said, you shoulda picked a different mini cos this is gonna remain my argument for it because that's what I see when I look at it, a mini based on a silly but recognisable concept. I have no argument for the other one, it's daft cheesecake and it's probably my least favourite mini concept we sell.

I'm going to reply here to a post there.

 Buzzsaw wrote:

I think its important to point out, I fundamentally disagree that it is appropriate to use the terms 'sexism' or 'bigotry' with regards to models.

In what way? Are you making a semantics argument? I think it's pretty clear that when we call a miniature sexist we do not mean that the inanimate object itself holds sexist opinions, but rather that the sculptor's work was in some way informed by a sexist intent or internalized prejudice. For example, the early RH minis were all knock-kneed and pigeon toed because the sculptor considered that an inherent quality in how a woman stands or poses. I'm not sure how you can look at something like that and not see the expression of a sexist perspective.

Are you saying you don't even find any sexist qualities in Brother Vinnie's Eastern European sex slave minis? I'm confused about your meaning.

That said, I must point out that my feelings are not the basis of my point: those "people [that] can't differentiate degrees" are feminists,

I'm talking to you and everyone else here about our opinions, not about the kinds of irrational edge cases we can all find on the internet. I'm not interested in the kinds of uncompromising idealists who end up taking the hard road to "Firefly is a TV show about rape normalization."

I've known plenty of feminists who can understand the difference between degrees--it is often necessary in order to make progress instead of sabotaging progress because it isn't total victory.

Incidentally, let's also be clear that you are agreeing with me that Hasslefree and Prodos are both in what you would broadly refer to as "the sexist camp". Which, needless to say, is a direct challenge to what Artemis Black is stating.

Yes. I agreed with your post except for the statement that there are no degrees in sexism. I don't believe I have responded directly to Artemis Black, although I was quite entertained by his throw-down with Prodos. I think he has a few cogent points despite his glass house. I suppose it is a matter of degrees.

I was going to go on a long, wordy bit about sexism, feminism, etc, etc, but let's be reasonable: I'm not going to convince you, and you're not going to convince me. It's nothing to do with this product, but a lifetimes worth of experiences, reasoning and moral/philosophical differences.

I find arguments are often more helpful in collating and improving my own understanding of a subject. Sometimes they force me to reevaluate.

So I'll avoid that and leave it at 'agree to dissagree' on the sexism, but I think we're both in agreement that the newer sculpts actually look pretty good, yes? I mean, some of this is good stuff;







These actually look pretty good. Which brings us to a question actually related to the thread (Gasp!): what are (excluding the kickstarter) people's experience with buying from Prodos in the USA?

They look good, although the Necronlady's pose is awkward, with action-packed Marvel Comics leg spacing and Perry Miniatures-style waiting-for-something-to-get-interesting arms. I guess she could be playing the game where she has to stand on the small squares because the big squares are lava..?

The Chaos Terminatrix looks good except for her shirt being all crumpled. It looks less like armor and more like laundry day.

 Jayden63 wrote:
But what really is realistically proportioned?

Gigantic tits are probably a bad place to start.

I have no issue at all with nudity and/or overt sexuality if, and in wargaming terms its a huge if, it fits with the context/concept of the model. I wouldn't expect a Celtic fanatic to be wearing pants nor would I expect a Necromundan Escher ganger to be frumpy. The problem with most female miniatures is that they fall within the sexualised camp for no good reason.

The female Caledonian Volunteer by Corvus Belli is a perfect example..

Compared with:

One of these things is not like the other.

Some people like 'cheesecake' but it seems to me that the default setting for female miniatures is 'tits out' and that is something that I find irritating and childish.

 Artemis Black wrote:

Well there's no need to go down the 'that's only your opinion route, that way lies pointlessness. Of course it's only my opinion. I suppose I could get some kind of consensus but even that is iffy ground. I'm not going to write 'in my opinion' in front of everything The boobmarines are what I find sexist and I don't want them on a shelf in a hobby store, I would quite like it if they weren't available at all but that route gets a bit grey to me with regards to censorship etc. I said much the same about the recent Brother Vinni Indiegogo, he was less of a problem because he's basically a niche dealer. It's like not bothering to go out of your way to campaign against some daft japanese video game about simulated rape you can only buy through some dodgy website but then coming on strong if it turns up on the shelves of Blockbuster (I know they've gone bust, but I don't know which country you're from so I picked a universally recognisable name ).

Well, ultimately that's where we're going to end up, since we agree in theory to some extent, but draw the line in different places. If we're each going to speak in absolutes as though we're the decider and arbiter, we'll be at confrontational loggerheads forever rather than simply agreeing to disagree - which I think is the best you and I are going to come to.

See, I don't care who stocks them - because the market will ultimately decide whether they're around in 2 year's time or not. Or to put it another way, this range might still be available direct from Prodos in 2 years, but I wouldn't be putting money on them being stocked in many retail (or online) outlets by then. Nature will run its course.

And yes, Football Kalee is what she is, a fantasy football player for a team who's mythos includes fighting with bared breasts. It might be 'stupid', and the mythos may be heavily influenced by a male oriented society, but it is an actual thing. Like I said, you shoulda picked a different mini cos this is gonna remain my argument for it because that's what I see when I look at it, a mini based on a silly but recognisable concept. I have no argument for the other one, it's daft cheesecake and it's probably my least favourite mini concept we sell.

I don't believe I called it stupid, but I think it's a fine example of a figure that is very easily viewed as just as sexist and gratuitous as the Prodos boobmarines. We can either agree to disagree on this as well, or we can back and forth headbutting one another on it until one of us gets bored (I'm pretty close already, TBH), because you shouldn't think that you're going to change my opinion on it by suggesting that I shoulda chosen a different figure, and I feel you've made your own perspective quite clear as well.

And, you know, some of the Prodos stuff can claim to be based off an actual thing/trope just as easily. Because it clearly is.

weeble1000 wrote:
The Space Crusade models and artwork that we are discussing are sexually objectifying. I do not think it is an issue of aesthetics. You can have a 'good' and a 'bad' drawing of sexually objectified female. The execution is immaterial.

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

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Jayden63 wrote:
But what really is realistically proportioned?

Gigantic tits are probably a bad place to start.

I have no issue at all with nudity and/or overt sexuality if, and in wargaming terms its a huge if, it fits with the context/concept of the model. I wouldn't expect a Celtic fanatic to be wearing pants nor would I expect a Necromundan Escher ganger to be frumpy. The problem with most female miniatures is that they fall within the sexualised camp for no good reason.

The female Caledonian Volunteer by Corvus Belli is a perfect example..

Compared with:

One of these things is not like the other.

Some people like 'cheesecake' but it seems to me that the default setting for female miniatures is 'tits out' and that is something that I find irritating and childish.

Oh oh oh! I can cherry pick too!



The models on the ends are female. Aside from some boob armour, they're not sexualised.



That guy with the missile launcher? Look close, there's boob armour. That's a female, not sexualised.



Left and center right? You got it.



Models on the ends? Uh huh.

Corvus Belli make a wide range of models. Some females are sexualised, some are absolutely not. Sexualised females are not Corvus Bellis 'default female'.

 -Loki- wrote:

Oh oh oh! I can cherry pick too!

I wasn't cherry picking, that was just the example that came instantly to mind as I was looking to make a Caledonian sectoral list a few years ago and frankly the above is one of the things that put me of.

Even so those linked female minis are still most definitely in the 'big tits' camp.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

Yes. I agreed with your post except for the statement that there are no degrees in sexism.

Only if you care to split straws, to somebody who does not care to make the distinction, there is none, same goes for redeeming values, there are if the observer cares to give them, both are entirely subjective.

To me, the Highlander girl is one of Corvus Belli's deliberately sexy comedy figures, like the cat girl medic. Most of their female figures are sensibly equipped.

The old style Odalisques are deliberately sexualised, because part of their role supposedly is to seduce enemies (this makes no sense in skirmish combat, of course, but what the hell... Look up the derivation of the word odalisque for background.)

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:

Oh oh oh! I can cherry pick too!

I wasn't cherry picking, that was just the example that came instantly to mind as I was looking to make a Caledonian sectoral list a few years ago and frankly the above is one of the things that put me of.

Even so those linked female minis are still most definitely in the 'big tits' camp.

Sorry, but it was cherry picking. You picked one sexualised sculpt, and said it was the default way of doing females.

You can't even see the boob armour on the Jannisarys and Govads unless you're looking for them. The others, yes, they're large, but none of them are sexualised. They're in combat poses, wearing the same gear as their male counterparts. They just happen to have boob armour, which without them, they'd just look like the males. While that is what female soldiers look like in real life, at 28mm you don't have the luxury of having a face detailed enough to look female - they'd just look like skinny men. Slightly exaggerated things like boob armour and non practical hair are easy ways to show that a model is female without going into the ridiculously sexualised.

Not saying that CB don't do sexualised females, just arguing your idea that it's the default option.

 -Loki- wrote:
The others, yes, they're large, but none of them are sexualised.

Obvious tits (and these are meant to be obvious) are always sexualised.

 -Loki- wrote:
Not saying that CB don't do sexualised females, just arguing your idea that it's the default option.

Its the default for the industry as a whole. There are of course exceptions, Victoria miniatures for example.

The majority of women look much like men in armour as can be seen below.





Women are issued specially fitted Osprey so the bottom picture is in all likelyhood 'female' armour. I have seen hundreds, if not thousands, of women in armour and they look indistinguishable from men (aside from their gait/stance). I don't think I have ever seen anyone in armour with obvious breasts, its hard enough when they are simply in uniform.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:
The others, yes, they're large, but none of them are sexualised.

Obvious tits (and these are meant to be obvious) are always sexualised.

Have to disagree, but I guess that's the point of the thread? They're sexualised if they're overtly sexual - made to look sexy. Simply being big is not that. The model you chose was sexualised - kilt was changed to a short skirt (with additional bare ass on the back), short crop top showing cleavage and bare midriff. It was designed to evoke sexual feelings.

Lumps on the chest of combat armour is badly designed, but it's not designed to look sexy.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:
Not saying that CB don't do sexualised females, just arguing your idea that it's the default option.

Its the default for the industry as a whole. There are of course exceptions, Victoria miniatures for example.

Would have been nice if you said your comment was about the industy as a whole? Because your whole post read like 'here's a sexualised model by CB. It's the default', which implies your attributing that 'default' to CB.

 -Loki- wrote:

Would have been nice if you said your comment was about the industy as a whole?

It would also be nice if you didn't instantly jump to conclusions.

 -Loki- wrote:

Lumps on the chest of combat armour is badly designed, but it's not designed to look sexy.

Even when they are perfectly breast shaped?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

The old style Odalisques are deliberately sexualised, because part of their role supposedly is to seduce enemies (this makes no sense in skirmish combat, of course, but what the hell... Look up the derivation of the word odalisque for background.)

In their background they are mercenary guard force, mostly about guarding "harems" and VIPs their outfit is indeed deliberately sexualised because of their post (sexy bodyguards, status symbol and security force tied in together), in the fluff they do not "seduce" enemies with their looks, they use pheromone chemicals to achieve the disorienting effect they have.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:

Would have been nice if you said your comment was about the industy as a whole?

It would also be nice if you didn't instantly jump to conclusions.

It's the internet. All we can do is read your text. If you don't type it how you mean, we don't know what you meant.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:

Lumps on the chest of combat armour is badly designed, but it's not designed to look sexy.

Even when they are perfectly breast shaped?

Not sure what other shapes they could do if they trying to make them visually female? The idea isn't to make them sexual, it's to simply show that they're female. Again - you can't show a model is female at 28mm scale without making a few exaggerations. Making those exaggerations may be concerning gender, but they aren't inherintly sexual.

What makes them sexual is when you start moving into areas that people find eye catchingly attractive, things designed to evoke sexual feeling - revealing clothes, skin-tight clothes, sexual posing. A woman simply having breasts, even large breasts, is simply a woman having the body shape of a female. Those models had breasts, yes. But they were in complete combat gear, the exact gear the males had. They were in combat poses - reloading guns, firing guns, giving combat hand signals. Nothing about them was designed to make you think of them as sexual objects, just as soldiers who appear to be female.

 -Loki- wrote:

Not sure what other shapes they could do if they trying to make them visually female?

How about basically the same as the men? They already have female heads and are of slighter stature which makes them obviously female, there is no need to go any further.

Quite frankly most women don't have breasts large enough to be seen through anything but the most skintight of armours.

Since you brought the design aesthetics and reality in.

In reality a female in combat gear should be almost the same with a male, armour, combat gear webbing and all other stuff, pose and volume been the only giveaways, in reality again our toy soldiers are incredibly small and meant to be seen from quite far away.

Female miniatures may as well not exist because at this scale such minute differences are almost non existent, miniature companies solve this by stylization and giving emphasis on specific aspects of what differentiate male and female in aesthetics.

Victoria is one of the manufacturers that strive to have decent female models out, even her models have such exaggeration in her recent tanebreg (sp?) guard the female models clearly show they have breasts under a uniform that should make then invisible, is it bad? (or do all the tanebreg females have huge breasts?) no not really, its a design choice.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:

Not sure what other shapes they could do if they trying to make them visually female?

How about basically the same as the men? They already have female heads and are of slighter stature which makes them obviously female, there is no need to go any further.

And then they look like skinny men. Long hair? Guys have that too. My fiancees brother has hair like that female Naffatun. Most people aren't good enough painters to get femininity across without exaggerated aspects on the model itself.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
Quite frankly most women don't have breasts large enough to be seen through anything but the most skintight of armours.

Most men don't look like this either. Exaggerations is done in the miniature industry to show things because of the scale. The fact that these guys are on choppers, in leathers, with huge guns is enough to show that they're aggressive. But exaggerating their physicality shows aggression, because otherwise at 28mm they would just look like weedy guys on bikes.



In the same way that, like the above where to highlight aggressiveness the physicality was exaggerated when there was already enough to show they were aggressive, people will, by habit, see a model as male without some exaggerated features to make them visibly female. Hair isn't enough because, especially these days, hair styles are fairly unisex. Some women have buzzcuts, some guys have styled long hair. Skinnier stature is likewise not enough - some guys these days can still shop in the kids section of a clothes store (a friend of mine does and he's 30), some women, even when fit, have a large body type that compares with men. Check the handy charts a page back.

 -Loki- wrote:

And then they look like skinny men.

Nothing more needs to be said.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:

And then they look like skinny men.

Spoiler:

Nothing more needs to be said.

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

When Psychotic Storm says "Female miniatures may as well not exist because at this scale such minute differences are almost non existent, miniature companies solve this by stylization and giving emphasis on specific aspects of what differentiate male and female in aesthetics" he is objectively correct.

Someone posted links to tumblers earlier, and one of them had a great example of this phenomenon at living scale: it featured a picture of Captain Phasma from The Force Awakens, and described it as 'a perfect example of female armor done right'. Which is... a little odd, given, well;


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



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

Both men and women want to buy Female miniatures, often for entirely differing reasons. A strict adherence to 'realism' would mean the functional disappearance of female miniatures.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
In all honesty, other then the unhelmeted one in the front, none of those 'read' as obviously female to me.

They all do to me, the ones at the back are more ambiguous though.

I'm not against sexualised/over exaggerated female miniatures but only if they fit the context and only if they are 'functional' models i.e. not wearing chainmail bikinis. Anything else just looks childish and cheap.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
In all honesty, other then the unhelmeted one in the front, none of those 'read' as obviously female to me.

They all do to me, the ones at the back are more ambiguous though.

For me, its pretty much their bare arms that give the strongest impression of female to me. They are slightly slender than what I'd expect male arms to be sculpted. However, having said that in real person proportion, I weigh 160 lbs and have slender arms myself. The only way my arms look male is that they are hairy as feth. But then again, hairy arms, legs, etc is pretty much impossible to sculpt at that scale and requires skill with the paint brush to come across.

 Dentry wrote:

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
In response to the prodos thing, yeah, I think a lot of it is that there's nothing redeeming. It feels like there was no attempt at anything other than a grab & smash T&A fest, and therefore offensive (besides stupid and lowest common denominator).

I disagree with the Prodos miniatures not having any redeeming qualities. However, the second part of your statement is the only real reason I can see people being offended. I like (some of) the miniatures and I thought that was rather transparent as well.

I meant conceptually redeeming. Yeah, a few of those sculpts are perfectly fine from a technical perspective.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
In all honesty, other then the unhelmeted one in the front, none of those 'read' as obviously female to me.

They all do to me, the ones at the back are more ambiguous though.

I'm not against sexualised/over exaggerated female miniatures but only if they fit the context and only if they are 'functional' models i.e. not wearing chainmail bikinis. Anything else just looks childish and cheap.

Not to be too confrontational, but your opinion about what is "childish and cheap" and a dollar will get me a cup of coffee. You provided an example to support the idea that everyone can see something and come to the same opinion, that no one could help but see X. But I don't see X, and so your point fails.

Having failed with your point about universal understanding, you're now simply denigrating things that you don't like. Well, that's not an argument. I reiterate: what do I care about your opinion regarding "childish and cheap"?

The problem with your argument, such as it is, is that you are arguing against diversity: you want a veto over products that you don't like, and you justify this veto with the claim that everyone sees things the same way. Well, we don't. Which means that diversity in products is the best option, which in turn means that that the market is going to have products that you don't like, but that other people do.

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

 Artemis Black wrote:


Hmm. I'm kinda loathe to reply because it'll take the slight tangent of yours and veer it further off course again, but I figure this is a run-off from the other thread so probably a bit more tolerant of tangents

I'm genuinely sorry for the length and diversionary manner of that post. I attempted to clarify rather than snapshoot.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
but your opinion about what is "childish and cheap" and a dollar will get me a cup of coffee.

As would anyone's opinion about anything.

 Buttery Commissar wrote:

Spoiler:

...Railing is... quite a strong word. I am tired. I am very very tired.
I'm not speaking on behalf of an imagined slight; it's a thing I have witnessed and often experienced... I can't say that I speak for anyone but my close friends. I certainly don't speak for anyone in a commercial position or creative position.

It becomes a maelstrom of trying to work out which material you give a free pass to, which you avoid, which you could actively invest energy into being personally upset over. You can of course, relax entirely. Forget about all of it and enjoy yourself thoroughly.
But there will be something, be it a figure you'd love to own until you see the helium spheres, an alarmingly graphic comment when you thought we'd been quietly progressing, or an entire product line, that brings back the question of whether we're kidding ourselves.

The physical miniatures are just bits of material, not evil incarnate. But just a tiny piece of a larger thing.
To try and give a sense... Perhaps you're at Salute, cash in hand and someone shoulder checks you away from a stall because "I didn't realise you were here to buy something."
Perhaps your friend joined a painting group, and someone kindly tells them "That's a good effort for a girl."
Or perhaps she's sat at a gaming table mid-game, having painted that army, and a well meaning referee asks her what army her boyfriend plays and when he's coming back to the table.
There's this continual background awareness that women are indeed playing in someone else's garden. And you cannot unload both barrels into any one of these things.
None of them are singularly to blame. None of them are malicious. Likewise a miniature sculptor isn't aiming to hurt anyone with boobplate.

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

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

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

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

I did say there was one exception: "you're at Salute, cash in hand and someone shoulder checks you away from a stall because...", see, the 'because' doesn't matter, because this isn't an expression of ignorance. This is, under the law, a battery. This is not something plausibly explained by ignorance, or even by misogyny: this is someone doing something objectively wrong (and note that it is so regardless of the sex of the person being hit) and offering a silly justification. That's the kind of behavior that should be punished... and would be, under the law.

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

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

Since someone mentioned cCorvus Beli and decided to cherry pick certain models - allow me to show you what a good range of female models should encompass

Some are put into sexual poses:



And most are not:



Now to answer the op's question - I do not mind nudity. Would I buy a model that is nude - nah - because t doesn't fit my style of play. I can see why certain people might get upset if miniatures are posed sexually but it seems like they are just upset to be upset. Who cares is a miniature is posed sexually or nude - it's someone's cup of tea so don't muck it. I could also understand how some may scoff and push their glasses closer to their face and say "but that type of armour is impractical" - DUH - that is the point.

At the end of the day mileage may vary - and what you may seem "offensive or distasteful" might be someone else awesome.

Maybe I'm just fed up with PC culture and what not but who really cares.

Now if you are talking about the actual sculpts being awful a well then that's a different story

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
In all honesty, other then the unhelmeted one in the front, none of those 'read' as obviously female to me.

They all do to me, the ones at the back are more ambiguous though.

I'm not against sexualised/over exaggerated female miniatures but only if they fit the context and only if they are 'functional' models i.e. not wearing chainmail bikinis. Anything else just looks childish and cheap.

They read more as female because they don't read as men. They do have a slightly cinched waist , which is something that it is unlikely a female soldier would. so they do already have a nod towards non-realism, but mostly they aren't musclebound which is the male miniature equivalent of boobs,

If you put those back 2 on a table and talked about them as if they were male minis I wouldn't bat an eyelid. Front three it's the slighter stature and headgear.



This mini is perceived as female mostly because it's not the normal exaggerated male. Nothing overtly marks it as female, it could be a slender male with soft features but at such a small scale you would naturally just assume it's a woman for small reasons, one of which is 'he's not a big bulky male'.

 AlexHolker wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
The Space Crusade models and artwork that we are discussing are sexually objectifying. I do not think it is an issue of aesthetics. You can have a 'good' and a 'bad' drawing of sexually objectified female. The execution is immaterial.

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

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

 Buttery Commissar wrote:

 Artemis Black wrote:


Hmm. I'm kinda loathe to reply because it'll take the slight tangent of yours and veer it further off course again, but I figure this is a run-off from the other thread so probably a bit more tolerant of tangents

Spoiler:

 Artemis Black wrote:


Hmm. I'm kinda loathe to reply because it'll take the slight tangent of yours and veer it further off course again, but I figure this is a run-off from the other thread so probably a bit more tolerant of tangents

Aye, I accept while the topic title here is inviting a wider discourse, the content seems somewhat focused on continuation of a discussion in the Prodos thread.
I was not trying to redirect the discussion, but I thought the topic may widen slightly to encompass more areas. I'll accept that may very well be wrong, there.

Unrelated to miniatures, I disagree. I think, in fact, that thinking that way is almost as bad of a problem as the thing you are rightly railing against.

Railing is... quite a strong word. I am tired. I am very very tired.
I'm not speaking on behalf of an imagined slight; it's a thing I have witnessed and often experienced... I can't say that I speak for anyone but my close friends. I certainly don't speak for anyone in a commercial position or creative position.

It becomes a maelstrom of trying to work out which material you give a free pass to, which you avoid, which you could actively invest energy into being personally upset over. You can of course, relax entirely. Forget about all of it and enjoy yourself thoroughly.
But there will be something, be it a figure you'd love to own until you see the helium spheres, an alarmingly graphic comment when you thought we'd been quietly progressing, or an entire product line, that brings back the question of whether we're kidding ourselves.

The physical miniatures are just bits of material, not evil incarnate. But just a tiny piece of a larger thing.
To try and give a sense... Perhaps you're at Salute, cash in hand and someone shoulder checks you away from a stall because "I didn't realise you were here to buy something."
Perhaps your friend joined a painting group, and someone kindly tells them "That's a good effort for a girl."
Or perhaps she's sat at a gaming table mid-game, having painted that army, and a well meaning referee asks her what army her boyfriend plays and when he's coming back to the table.
There's this continual background awareness that women are indeed playing in someone else's garden. And you cannot unload both barrels into any one of these things.
None of them are singularly to blame. None of them are malicious. Likewise a miniature sculptor isn't aiming to hurt anyone with boobplate.

This makes you query the validity of your own sadness. Voicing sadness hurts other people, puts them on the defensive about what they quite rightly enjoy.
If you aren't an outspoken person who wants to be heard, or aggressive... You seemingly have the choice of accepting tits happen, or putting yourself in a bubble where you are brought painfully down to earth on occasion.

A good part of you is conflicted, and just wants to play.
I don't want to take people's toys away, I'm not judging those who like them. But things sometimes make me on a level, very uncomfortable, and I am no longer remotely sure what a viable, constructive response is.

On a single figure, the answer is likely to look away. But how frequently, and how many people need to feel that way before it is something worth discussing? Collective discomfort vs one person's "butthurt"...

I don't find anything wrong with sexuality being used as a sales tool, female or male. I think that thinking of women as 'just' their sexuality is a problem, but simply thinking of and even using sexuality to sell something shouldn't be an issue. It's part of life, it's perfectly normal.

Yes. Sex is a tool, and has been even before we knew commercially how to use it as such. To stifle that is censorship and not something I am in favour of. There is beauty and message in sex. There is humour. There's sometimes just raw imagery.

But I do regard it as a lazy tool at certain times. That many places will slip into a habit and use it in place of talent or creative thought. and that's where I would raise objection.
I don't think, "Oh no! A boob!"
I quite often think, "Why is that boob here at the moment?" Maybe I want to know about the content of the thing it is selling me. In certain cases, it is not clear.

To bring it back to miniatures, this is almost exactly why I argue concept not 'how undressed is the mini'. We absolutely use existing concepts such as topless amazon warriors and naked greek fighters etc. to inject some sexuality into some miniatures. We use it in the same way we use power for the male miniatures. And in lesser cases we swap that, we have naked male figures (possibly more than any non-historical company) and we have muscled female miniatures. The reason that the first two categories outnumber the second two is, I think, the source of our disagreement? You don't like that, and I actively think it's ok.

I am unsure, honestly. I feel that it's fair possibly, that I just didn't provide you with enough information.
Perhaps because I can't. I hope that my rather unwieldy explanation above gives some insight that it's not a case of "All nudity in the hobby is bad", but that "I have lost scope of what nudity even bothers me at this point." because I am adrift in a sea of tits and rights and wrongs.
I don't want to hurt people. If we took "nude minis" out if the sentence and replaced it with "taste" then telling people they are right or wrong for enjoying or selling them is abhorrent.

But I do feel most naked figures passively contribute to a larger whole that makes me deeply uncertain. I'm not looking for personal validity in my hobby (a beam of light is not going to hit my army case and light up a quest marker telling me I've arrived). I'm looking for signs that it's a place to invest time into on an equal basis for myself and all of my friends.

Removal of nudity in minis isn't going to grant that. Clothing boobs isn't going to stop anything. Nor is it right.
But I have no idea personally, what will.

I'm genuinely sorry for the length and diversionary manner of that post. I attempted to clarify rather than snapshoot.

It's fine.

I think the thing not to forget it, no matter whether it was previously fair or not, women 'are' currently playing in someone else's garden, as you say.

This is what happens when things start to change, it's neither realistic or, I think, fair to expect everyone to go from A to Z in one fell swoop. I don't believe that wargamers are any more or less sexist or misogynistic than society in general. 'Maybe' a little, as we are one of the hobbies, I believe, that tend to draw the more socially awkward members of society but not enough to be so notable.

It is perfectly fine to express surprise that someone is a woman on a forum and sometimes that'll come out in an awkward manner. It is obviously not ok to say to a woman in person 'that's good for a woman', I mean that's not ok about 'anything' It's also 'kind of' fine to assume that when a couple walks up to you at a trade show the man is the one interested and the woman is the one being dragged about because 9 times out of 10 that's true and again, sometimes that can come across as rude during that 1 time out of 10 you're wrong. So obviously the correct choice is not o do that, but it's an 'understandable' thing to make the mistake.

That kind of thing will change by itself. The more women who come into the hobby via the various way they are, the more people won't make that mistake naturally, without being forced or told to. When you have a go at someone for that it's a natural tendency for lots of people to dig in, and the extreme of that is like the guy in the other thread wibbling about Social Jusice Warriors.

I'm lucky enough to be quite young for someone in my position, I mean I'm still 40 so I'm no spring chicken, but the average age of men running wargaming businesses is almost certainly higher than that. I've also spent a lot of my life running an actual shop and actively trying to change, in a personal way, how the hobby is seen. I treated children more like adults, I never made jokes about wargaming or treated it like a nerdy hobby of people in basements etc, the kids who came into the shop didn't need that and the odd girl who came in 'definitely' didn't need that. That's not the case for everyone. When you've spent 30 years selling to 99% males (or playing games with 100% males) you can probably be afford some leeway for a bit while, hopefully, the hobby continues to become more inclusive

Our FB fans, trade show customers and customers in general, I think, skew younger and more female than most companies. And I think our attitude towards minis and what we say in public etc. help that 'but' it's still a sausage fest

It'll change, slowly but surely.

fidel wrote:
Since someone mentioned cCorvus Beli and decided to cherry pick certain models

I cherry picked nothing, it does seem that people who like CB are unusually sensitive though.

 Artemis Black wrote:


It's fine.

I think the thing not to forget it, no matter whether it was previously fair or not, women 'are' currently playing in someone else's garden, as you say.

*snip*

It'll change, slowly but surely.

I think perhaps the point of the other side of the argument is precisely that one is unable to forget that females are outsiders in the contexts described. Arguing that it is unrealistic and unfair to expect people to treat each other equally because "that's the way things are" seems like a cop out. Attitudes certainly don't change "by themselves" but only within relation to change in the greater context in which they are formed.

 eohall wrote:

 Artemis Black wrote:


It's fine.

I think the thing not to forget it, no matter whether it was previously fair or not, women 'are' currently playing in someone else's garden, as you say.

*snip*

It'll change, slowly but surely.

I think perhaps the point of the other side of the argument is precisely that one is unable to forget that females are outsiders in the contexts described. Arguing that it is unrealistic and unfair to expect people to treat each other equally because "that's the way things are" seems like a cop out. Attitudes certainly don't change "by themselves" but only within relation to change in the greater context in which they are formed.

I didn't say what you said, I said it's unrealstic to expect things to change overnight. Some people will move faster than others, some people didn't need to move at all I think overly complaining that some guy who has spent 30yrs watching dragged-along wives roll their eyes or pull their husbands sleeve to suddenly lose all of that habit 'is' unfair. He'll lose it as the situation dictates, he'll be wrong once, then again, then more often and then he'll, hopefully, change his behaviour naturally.

Having a go at him because he ignored the woman the first couple of times, or said something that came across but wasn't meant to be condescending to her, is just pointless and far more likely to lead to a worse result. People really don't learn lessons well that are shouted at them.

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 Buttery Commissar wrote:

Spoiler:

...Railing is... quite a strong word. I am tired. I am very very tired.
I'm not speaking on behalf of an imagined slight; it's a thing I have witnessed and often experienced... I can't say that I speak for anyone but my close friends. I certainly don't speak for anyone in a commercial position or creative position.

It becomes a maelstrom of trying to work out which material you give a free pass to, which you avoid, which you could actively invest energy into being personally upset over. You can of course, relax entirely. Forget about all of it and enjoy yourself thoroughly.
But there will be something, be it a figure you'd love to own until you see the helium spheres, an alarmingly graphic comment when you thought we'd been quietly progressing, or an entire product line, that brings back the question of whether we're kidding ourselves.

The physical miniatures are just bits of material, not evil incarnate. But just a tiny piece of a larger thing.
To try and give a sense... Perhaps you're at Salute, cash in hand and someone shoulder checks you away from a stall because "I didn't realise you were here to buy something."
Perhaps your friend joined a painting group, and someone kindly tells them "That's a good effort for a girl."
Or perhaps she's sat at a gaming table mid-game, having painted that army, and a well meaning referee asks her what army her boyfriend plays and when he's coming back to the table.
There's this continual background awareness that women are indeed playing in someone else's garden. And you cannot unload both barrels into any one of these things.
None of them are singularly to blame. None of them are malicious. Likewise a miniature sculptor isn't aiming to hurt anyone with boobplate.

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

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

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

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

I did say there was one exception: "you're at Salute, cash in hand and someone shoulder checks you away from a stall because...", see, the 'because' doesn't matter, because this isn't an expression of ignorance. This is, under the law, a battery. This is not something plausibly explained by ignorance, or even by misogyny: this is someone doing something objectively wrong (and note that it is so regardless of the sex of the person being hit) and offering a silly justification. That's the kind of behavior that should be punished... and would be, under the law.

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

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

Have an exalt, good sir. Well said.

 Artemis Black wrote:


I didn't say what you said, I said it's unrealstic to expect things to change overnight.

That is certainly literally true, but outside of semantics I'm not sure what the significance of this sentiment is. People's opinions, biases, and reactions often don't change in the course of 24 hours, of course. I just don't think anyone is arguing that the timetable for change is the particular issue.

 Artemis Black wrote:

Some people will move faster than others, some people didn't need to move at all I think overly complaining that some guy who has spent 30yrs watching dragged-along wives roll their eyes or pull their husbands sleeve to suddenly lose all of that habit 'is' unfair. He'll lose it as the situation dictates, he'll be wrong once, then again, then more often and then he'll, hopefully, change his behaviour naturally.

Having a go at him because he ignored the woman the first couple of times, or said something that came across but wasn't meant to be condescending to her, is just pointless and far more likely to lead to a worse result. People really don't learn lessons well that are shouted at them.

You describe a prejudice based on learned experience. Prejudice in and of itself is, as you illustrate here, normal and in many senses adaptive. I only argue that in this (hypothetical? I've lost track) situation where someone's learned prejudicial response turns out to be in error, it isn't incumbent on the other party to modify their own response. Telling the prejudiced party that they are in error is not "having a go" unless the fact of the held prejudice is somehow injurious or insulting to the holder. If that is true, then it follows that they themselves realize that said prejudice is problematic.

 eohall wrote:

 Artemis Black wrote:


I didn't say what you said, I said it's unrealstic to expect things to change overnight.

That is certainly literally true, but outside of semantics I'm not sure what the significance of this sentiment is. People's opinions, biases, and reactions often don't change in the course of 24 hours, of course. I just don't think anyone is arguing that the timetable for change is the particular issue.

The semantical difference is that learned behaviour, whether we now consider it wrong or not, is not easy to change and the longer it's been learned the harder it is. It's basically the reason we make joke about old people being racist. (This is just an example, my nan's passed on). I might not 'like' that my grandmother says stuff like 'darkie' or expreses an opinion that mixed race marriages shouldn't happen, and I will certainly say something to her about it each time 'but' I will treat her differently than a 25yr old saying the same thing. Their formative years were at a different time and they don't have 50yrs of habit to lose.

It's not a great deal of help to someone who's suffering from it 'now' but an overrreaction can lead to a worse result, you can ingrain prejudice or create an 'anti' group etc.

 eohall wrote:

 Artemis Black wrote:

Some people will move faster than others, some people didn't need to move at all I think overly complaining that some guy who has spent 30yrs watching dragged-along wives roll their eyes or pull their husbands sleeve to suddenly lose all of that habit 'is' unfair. He'll lose it as the situation dictates, he'll be wrong once, then again, then more often and then he'll, hopefully, change his behaviour naturally.

Having a go at him because he ignored the woman the first couple of times, or said something that came across but wasn't meant to be condescending to her, is just pointless and far more likely to lead to a worse result. People really don't learn lessons well that are shouted at them.

You describe a prejudice based on learned experience. Prejudice in and of itself is, as you illustrate here, normal and in many senses adaptive. I only argue that in this (hypothetical? I've lost track) situation where someone's learned prejudicial response turns out to be in error, it isn't incumbent on the other party to modify their own response. Telling the prejudiced party that they are in error is not "having a go" unless the fact of the held prejudice is somehow injurious or insulting to the holder. If that is true, then it follows that they themselves realize that said prejudice is problematic.

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

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

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

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

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 Buttery Commissar wrote:

Spoiler:

...Railing is... quite a strong word. I am tired. I am very very tired.
I'm not speaking on behalf of an imagined slight; it's a thing I have witnessed and often experienced... I can't say that I speak for anyone but my close friends. I certainly don't speak for anyone in a commercial position or creative position.

It becomes a maelstrom of trying to work out which material you give a free pass to, which you avoid, which you could actively invest energy into being personally upset over. You can of course, relax entirely. Forget about all of it and enjoy yourself thoroughly.
But there will be something, be it a figure you'd love to own until you see the helium spheres, an alarmingly graphic comment when you thought we'd been quietly progressing, or an entire product line, that brings back the question of whether we're kidding ourselves.

The physical miniatures are just bits of material, not evil incarnate. But just a tiny piece of a larger thing.
To try and give a sense... Perhaps you're at Salute, cash in hand and someone shoulder checks you away from a stall because "I didn't realise you were here to buy something."
Perhaps your friend joined a painting group, and someone kindly tells them "That's a good effort for a girl."
Or perhaps she's sat at a gaming table mid-game, having painted that army, and a well meaning referee asks her what army her boyfriend plays and when he's coming back to the table.
There's this continual background awareness that women are indeed playing in someone else's garden. And you cannot unload both barrels into any one of these things.
None of them are singularly to blame. None of them are malicious. Likewise a miniature sculptor isn't aiming to hurt anyone with boobplate.

Spoiler:

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

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

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

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

I did say there was one exception: "you're at Salute, cash in hand and someone shoulder checks you away from a stall because...", see, the 'because' doesn't matter, because this isn't an expression of ignorance. This is, under the law, a battery. This is not something plausibly explained by ignorance, or even by misogyny: this is someone doing something objectively wrong (and note that it is so regardless of the sex of the person being hit) and offering a silly justification. That's the kind of behavior that should be punished... and would be, under the law.

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

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

I do like this approach. But it does require an amount of control and detachment that with the best will in the world, not everybody is capable of immediately.
It's been touched upon in other topics: Why do people (seemingly) allow themselves to be put in uncomfortable or distressing positions when blindsided? It's not something you can train for. Learn from and anticipate... yes. Always be on the ball and react appropriately? I wish so.

I'd like to hope it's clear (and if not, here I am) that I'm uncertain and receptive to giving things a fair thought. I list those examples because they were gender specific, not because those are the stand out memories.
I also listed unintentional slights. Not one of those things was intended to hurt someone.


Arty, guys, my point wasn't to shame someone treating another person in that way, or to ask anyone to justify/explain it. It was to put yourself in the boots of someone knocked out of a happy moment by that experience. I didn't mean to cause an issue.

If I may re-use an example, albeit a clumsy one:
Imagine if you alone joined a baking class, and it was made up of nothing but veteran, retired mothers and their kids, who smiled and nodded sympathetically and kept taking your bowl off you to stir it for you.
If you complain, they'll tell you to stop fussing and ruining it for everyone else. If you don't, you have to put up with the feeling of being barely tolerated and smiled at.


That's not a foolproof example by any means. I'm trying to demonstrate being out of depth, not make a wider point.

 Artemis Black wrote:


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

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

 Artemis Black wrote:

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

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

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

 Artemis Black wrote:

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

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

I can relate to an extend, when I joined wargaming at the age of 10 I was the odd thing in a sea of adults who didn't really liked me to be there but I gave them no excuse to not be there.

I feel we carve our path some easier, some more difficult, but we do change the world and those around us as slowly but surely, there are many stereotypes, misconceptions and tunnel vision that each of us individually can change by willpower and persistence.

 Azazelx wrote:

I'm mostly done with the discussion myself

One more go, then I'm off too.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Buzzsaw wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

 eohall wrote:

 Artemis Black wrote:


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

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

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

 eohall wrote:

 Artemis Black wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 eohall wrote:

 Artemis Black wrote:

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

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

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

 Buzzsaw wrote:

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Buttery Commissar wrote:

 Artemis Black wrote:

Hmm. I'm kinda loathe to reply because it'll take the slight tangent of yours and veer it further off course again, but I figure this is a run-off from the other thread so probably a bit more tolerant of tangents

Aye, I accept while the topic title here is inviting a wider discourse, the content seems somewhat focused on continuation of a discussion in the Prodos thread.
I was not trying to redirect the discussion, but I thought the topic may widen slightly to encompass more areas. I'll accept that may very well be wrong, there.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Buzzsaw wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 eohall wrote:

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

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

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

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

 Vermis wrote:

 Azazelx wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlexHolker wrote:

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

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

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



If yes, why?

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

Spoiler:

If yes, why?

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

 Artemis Black wrote:

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

********

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

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

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

 Artemis Black wrote:


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

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

 Artemis Black wrote:

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

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

 eohall wrote:

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

********

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

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

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

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

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

 eohall wrote:

 Artemis Black wrote:


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

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

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

 eohall wrote:

 Artemis Black wrote:

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

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

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

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

 Azazelx wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Buzzsaw wrote:

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

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

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

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

Spoiler:

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

Edit: For those not familiar with LEO gear

 Artemis Black wrote:

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

Spoiler:

If yes, why?

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

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



(Spoilers for size.)


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



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



But it's not something obvious at a glance. Though as Artemis said, it's definitely doable.

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

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

Spoiler:

If yes, why?

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

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

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

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


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

When viewed together the exaggeration is even more prominent.

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

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

You could just do regular armour, adjusted slightly.

That leo vest is different but not boob plate.

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

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

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

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

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

 Buzzsaw wrote:

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

Spoiler:

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

Edit: For those not familiar with LEO gear

Spoiler:

Female Point Blank brand vest,


Male version,

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

 Buzzsaw wrote:

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

Spoiler:

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

Edit: For those not familiar with LEO gear

Spoiler:

Female Point Blank brand vest,


Male version,

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

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

Only a theory there, mind.

Dingdingding, BC is on to something.

Make female miniatures indistinguishable from male miniatures?

 Dentry wrote:
Make female miniatures indistinguishable from male miniatures?

I think that's one solution however in a fantasy game it would be quite bland no?

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

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

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

migooo wrote:

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

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

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

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

I read the entire thread looking to see if someone had made this point, and if no one had I was going to myself. As it stands though I can simply agree with it and provide it some backing.

I thing a strong correlation can be drawn between what's being discussed in this thread and video games, as many fantasy video games portray women in similar likeness. Armor which is visibly sexualized to non-existent (the ever touted plate-mail thong and bra combo) as well as sexualized posture; females who seem to do a shockingly good job of flaunting their T&A as they fight.

There is, understandably, a strong resistance to this sort of thing in the modern day and with good reason. The fact that a statement like "The less clothing a woman wears the more powerful she is," can be taken literally is a blow against nerd culture, not a strength in its favor.

Let's take a look at one of the most well-known and popular fantasy franchises out there, Warcraft. Specifically World of Warcraft.

For those of you who may not play the game or may not have for some years, there's current a system in the game called Transmogrification (transmog for short). Basically this is a purely aesthetic tool which allows you to swap your armor's appearance or weapon's appearance with that of other weapons and armor of the same type (leather, cloth, mail, plate). It's a simple but appreciated system which has a surprisingly large impact on the game. Most of the population participates and there's a large culture around selling / farming items entirely for this purpose.

Now as most of you will know WoW is a fairly old game, it's been going for over a decade now. The layers of age can be visibly seen in the aesthetic design of characters and clothing present.

In earlier incarnations of WoW, most noticeably the first expansion pack and "vanilla" wow, the stereotypical female fantasy gear was relatively common. Leggings, body-suits, thongs / bikinis / panties, more exposed arms, bared midriffs, and of course cleavage and boob-windows galore. In more recent years the game has drifted dramatically in the opposite directions. Covering up female characters which previously had fairly exposed bodies with more clothes and designing only one or two items (if that) per expansion pack which have anything beyond some cleavage. It's actually hard to find armor made in more recent years which will do something as simple as expose the arms of a female model.

What might be surprising is that this has been met with displeasure from a moderate amount of the playerbase, both verbally and in the sense that most transmogs are from very dated eras of the game.

You see a large portion of the player base of both genders find the artistic direction of current gear to be very.. Bland. The usual complaint is that everyone looks like they're walking around in various shades of grey plate-mail armor with a few ugly rocks glued on for aesthetic purposes. There's a rather vocal complaint about the lack of aesthetic choice for years now, and how 99% of all risque armor options to use for transmog are ancient and look it with regards to pixel count / resolution.

It's not just men who are saying this either, there are quite a few women who prefer to transmog their characters into skimpy armor; or at the very least who prefer to have the option to do so on occasion. I personally have a fair number of female friends in game who have bemoaned to me the lack of slinky armor options from recent years, and have stated that they really enjoy some of the scantily clad sets they can put together from the game's original incarnation.

I realize that may all seem like a bit of a tangent, so let me try and tie this back into the subject at hand. Basically I have two points I'm trying to hammer home.

Firstly, it's equally wrong to try and stamp out any and all 'porny' miniatures or designs simply because you dislike them. Whilst making the heavily sexualized and barely clad female no longer the standard representation of women in our hobby is a good goal and something we should all be in agreement towards, the utter eradication of that sort of thing is no better. Simply because you personally find something offensive or in poor taste does not make you entitled to stamp out all of a specific thing which some people enjoy. Other people giving a feth about you being offended is a luxury, not a right.

Secondly (and in my opinion more importantly) this isn't a men vs women thing. As indicated by my example, some women actually enjoy scantily clad and sexualized females in their fantasy. I know less females interested in miniatures than I do interested in video games (I actually know less people in general interested in miniatures, but that's kind of the norm) but I do still know some. And I can think of two off who have out-and-out told me that they really enjoy some of the highly sexualized female models they've run across for various reasons, and are not in the least bit offended by them.

Whilst such women are probably not the norm they certianly do exist, so the argument about how these sort of models are alienating all women from our hobby falls flat out the gate.

This discussion has been very civil and well handled by most parties, so a firm round of applause for everyone who's been able to keep their head so far. However I feel a bit less attention to gender lines and a bit acknowledgement that enjoying the occasional titillating model (of either gender) doesn't make someone the scum of the earth who's holding back the hobby.. Well, I think that would make it even better.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

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

If I saw the models you Victorian models you originally linked at the far side of the table (or even halfway across the table) for your standard 40k game, I'd have absolutely no idea that they were female. I doubt I'd even notice if they were in my deployment zone to be perfectly honest, with perhaps the sole exception of the one lacking a helmet.

Actually, speaking of.

You make no mention of how horrible it is that one of the women is without a helmet at all, so I take it you've no problem with the whole "Helmets are hardly heroic" trope and how it plays into so many miniature designs, yes?

Well the boob-sculpted armors on models which are otherwise not overtly sexualized or displaying anything else to blatantly announce "Woman!" is the exact same thing. It simply announces gender rather than their rank, but it's the same thought process and intention.

 morganfreeman wrote:

You make no mention of how horrible it is that one of the women is without a helmet at all

Given that I have recently painted up some Victoria miniatures male guardsmen almost entirely in soft caps (perhaps made out of flakweave...) I didn't think that it was relevant.

I don't have (much) of an issue with 'cheescake' miniatures in the same way that I don't have (much) of an issue of inappropriately scantily clad women in cheap horror films, its fine in moderation but it will never look sophisticated and it should be the exception rather than the norm, wargaming is already quite deep in the tragic nerd hinterlands and this kind of thing hardly helps.

Hopefully this is something that will correct itself given time, there does seem to be a drive towards more realistic representations in recent years at least.

 morganfreeman wrote:
If I saw the models you Victorian models you originally linked at the far side of the table (or even halfway across the table) for your standard 40k game, I'd have absolutely no idea that they were female. I doubt I'd even notice if they were in my deployment zone to be perfectly honest,.

Maybe I am just very good at recognising women.

The more hardline feminists consider any objectification of the female, sexist and misogyny.
So any sexy, and nude female miniatures by that definition are wrong.
And then there is the whole morality thing that is subjective.
Everyone has different standards on what is ok or not, i find this discussion interesting as where it stands on the scale of things.

Personally i have no problem with it, when it is in fantasy and SF settings.
I like my historical wargames to be represented correctly, (like WGF WW2 russians have females in their squad).
In fantasy and SF games there is more leeway, "boobplate" is just an easy way to differentiate between female and male models.
But the largest market in miniatures are males, so yes, cheesecake galore.

It really comes down to personal taste, if you like the sexualized over the top miniatures, the more slightly sexy female figures.
Or the more realistic.

The only problem i have is that some people feel the need to lecture others on what is proper or not.

Maybe they change the Prodos space crusaders (that started this whole discussion) name to gwar the board game at some character models then those over the top miniatures
will fit the theme.

It's nice that people are talking about both sides, but overall, the industry/hobby is dominated with sexualized depictions.

Theoretically it's okay, as people have discussed. However, as the Prodos and many other miniature games have shown, in practice things are far from even.

Likewise, the reason why nudity and such influences sales numbers may be due to the fact that this is a very niche hobby dominated by males. Which is okay, except that just because a hobby is male dominated, does not mean that it was and always will be, or even should be. If anything, nudity and sexualization being such a sales booster indicates that our industry has done a poor job of appealing to and enticing other kinds of gamers that don't buy based on that criteria.

Likewise, it's not enough just to say that this sexy model was designed and sculpted by a woman, because the reality is that woman is likely being employed by a male dominated studio and not so subtly influenced to sculpt for a particular kind of male.

It's less that there is no market, but rather a failure of establishing a market in the first place. There really is a market out there, but with so much of the industry dominated by off putting depictions, well it's no wonder that this untapped market would rather go and play board or video games than bother with toy soldiers.

What is so different in board games and video games? lots of sexualized females there too

The difference is that video games and even board games have been moving to diversify, and they have reaped the benefits of a larger market.

Meanwhile, miniature games are becoming more and more niche.

You bring up "hardcore feminists" but no one is really asking for the removal of all sexuality removed from gaming. But, many are just tired of seeing it pointlessly everywhere, and poorly done at that. Prodos' stuff wasn't just a particularly good example, but it was also just one in a long line of really one sided depictions.

Likewise, those "hardcore feminists" are a niche type of people of a larger very legitimate issue. One shouldn't go disparaging niches in a forum dedicated to a hobby that is very niche itself. I bet you that at some point you have turned your nose up at someone in this hobby that you considered just plain weird and not all together, but that very same person is used by other people to disparage our entire hobby. So it's best not to start the finger pointing because it accomplishes nothing.

 Vertrucio wrote:
Meanwhile, miniature games are becoming more and more niche.

I don't think our hobby will ever NOT be niche. Not everyone wants to build miniatures and paint them. That's a barrier to entry that video games don't have.

I would argue that "hardcore feminists" are extremists and not a niche representation of a wider problem.

Computer games, I would say they are not entirely moving to diversification, there are no serious 3A titles marketed for female customers, female gamers are mostly gravitated towards puzzle/ casual games which are unsurprisingly asexual and the biggest female dominated market is on hidden object games, a niche segment really overlooked by most players and studios but the only one who has produced the best female characters (yes, as surprisingly as it may sound hidden object games have evolved to have relatively complex stories), same goes with boardgames, if we take the asexual games out (usually euro and "kids" games) the rest are quite interesting mix.

Now the CG industry is more active in their research on how to include female players in their target audience, but this is done in an industry wide view, it is like saying the tabletop games industry (boardgames, RPGs, cardgames, wargames, whatever else I might have forgotten) tries to widen its target audience and to be fair it does, wargames alone might be equivalent is saying shooters (and 3A in particular) try to make them more appealing to female audience this is not happening.


Should it happen? is it possible to happen? are female buyers such a small a niche that it is not worth pursuing? are the ones that would buy anyway the ones who don't care about (or like) the sexualised female models? would an industry wide change to modesty really open the gates to wargaming for female players? is this really the barrier to entry?

I honestly do not know any of the answers to the above questions (ok I am positive that having more players regardless of their gender is great), I follow any serious discussion the CG industry does for widening its appeal to the female audience I disagree with many ideas, I find a few immature and a few worth wondering about, but my gut feeling is that people who say that females do not like war, ectr ectr and are repelled by the theme alone are wrong.

There are no "extreme feminists" in this thread, bringing them up does nothing but derail the discussion and possibly provide a strawman if you want one. I've seen the same point brought up before but I've yet to see these feminists on dakka. Better to argue against actual real people.

 Vertrucio wrote:
It's nice that people are talking about both sides, but overall, the industry/hobby is dominated with sexualized depictions.

Theoretically it's okay, as people have discussed. However, as the Prodos and many other miniature games have shown, in practice things are far from even.

Likewise, the reason why nudity and such influences sales numbers may be due to the fact that this is a very niche hobby dominated by males. Which is okay, except that just because a hobby is male dominated, does not mean that it was and always will be, or even should be. If anything, nudity and sexualization being such a sales booster indicates that our industry has done a poor job of appealing to and enticing other kinds of gamers that don't buy based on that criteria.

Likewise, it's not enough just to say that this sexy model was designed and sculpted by a woman, because the reality is that woman is likely being employed by a male dominated studio and not so subtly influenced to sculpt for a particular kind of male.

It's less that there is no market, but rather a failure of establishing a market in the first place. There really is a market out there, but with so much of the industry dominated by off putting depictions, well it's no wonder that this untapped market would rather go and play board or video games than bother with toy soldiers.

Overall, the miniature wargame industry is dominated by realistic depictions of historical male solders, for the reason that it's extremely rare for women to wage war. Fantasy and SF are the provinces of modern mixed gender warfare.

The chainmail bikini is a long-standing and now somewhat laughable trope of fantasy. I think we've moved beyond that, and a lot of people like to see more 'realistic' depictions of female fighters. However, for such figures to be identifiably female in the form of a small metal or plastic figure a bare inch tall, the characteristics need to be exaggerated a bit. It's difficult to see the finer female bone structure of the jaw in a face that is only about 4mm across. So the pose and body proportions have to be identifiable. That means a visible bustline, narrow waist and wider hips, and to some extent what in S Korea is called the 'S curve', the exagerrated body line of bust and buttocks. This comes partly from the pose.

Yes, there are cheesecake minis. Yes, there are more realistic female minis. This is a good thing because it allows people to choose what they want in their armies... or in their display cases; not everyone buys minis for games.

If cheesecake sells more, that's because the market is still overwhelmingly male.... or female who enjoys that sort of thing. (A friend of mine's wife wants to get a Leia bikini, because she's got the bod and wants to flaunt it at the costume competition and dance at the local con. She also likes to paint and display cheesecake minis. So it's not exclusively a male thing.)

So long as more realistic minis are available for those who want them, having cheesecake available as well is not the end of the world.

Vulcan wrote:If cheesecake sells more, that's because the market is still overwhelmingly male.... or female who enjoys that sort of thing. (A friend of mine's wife wants to get a Leia bikini, because she's got the bod and wants to flaunt it at the costume competition and dance at the local con. She also likes to paint and display cheesecake minis. So it's not exclusively a male thing.)

It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if even among female customers the sexualised female stuff is more popular than the conservative female stuff. I'm not saying it IS, just it wouldn't surprise me at all.

Silent Puffin? wrote:wargaming is already quite deep in the tragic nerd hinterlands and this kind of thing hardly helps.

Wargaming is always going to be in the nerd hinterlands. If you're willing to pay hundreds of dollars on little toy soldiers, spend hundreds of hours painting those little toy soldiers then put those little toy soldiers on a table and go "pew pew pew my toy soldier just shot your toy soldier", you MIGHT just be a nerd Wargaming is a quirky form of escapism and quirky forms of escapism tend to attract nerds more than the mainstream.

Vertrucio wrote:Meanwhile, miniature games are becoming more and more niche.

Say what? Wargaming is always going to be niche, but "more and more" niche? What's your evidence? I don't think that is true at all. I'd say wargaming is broader now than it ever has been in my wargaming history. It's still very niche, but I certainly don't believe it's getting MORE niche, I'd say less niche.

I think you are overestimating how niche wargaming is. For one thing, Warhammer 40,000 has become quite well known among gamers and sci fi nerds from the video games, board games and BL NYT bestselling series. Also, modelling is a fairly typical hobby, usually involving aircraft, tanks or Star Wars, and I have seen people get into plastic tabletop wargame ranges through that. Please stop pretending that this is some unheard of, back-alleys-of-the-internet hobby that appeals only to chuds and dorks.

Not everyone in the hobby is spending hundreds of dollars or hundreds of hours.

 Vertrucio wrote:

Likewise, the reason why nudity and such influences sales numbers may be due to the fact that this is a very niche hobby dominated by males. Which is okay, except that just because a hobby is male dominated, does not mean that it was and always will be, or even should be. If anything, nudity and sexualization being such a sales booster indicates that our industry has done a poor job of appealing to and enticing other kinds of gamers that don't buy based on that criteria.

There's probably more women into table top miniatures games than you think.

But as Vertrucio brings up, it behooves all of us, producers and consumers both, to be thinking about market expansion. When the market expands, everyone benefits. We have been seeing some serious market expansion, and I think it is fair to say that we are seeing more women enter the hobby, which is awesome! With market expansion comes a greater diversity of products, faster releases, higher product quality, lower prices, and larger player bases. We get to see more of what we want and we get greater access to it.

People can make whatever products they want to. It's a free country. But we can choose which products we support, and which we don't. And when we make those decisions, it is worth considering how this niche market is perceived in the wider world, because that unequivocally has an impact on how, where, and to what degree the market expands.

If women do in fact represent a relatively untapped demographic, we should absolutely be considering why. How are the products we support perceived by this demographic? Is there something we can do about that?

Yes, absolutely, there are things we can do.

We can support products that help move the market in the direction we want to see it move. Do you want to see more believable female miniatures? Buy them. Tell producers why you are buying them. Tell producers who don't produce those products that you want them to see them.

And if there are products you want to see less of, say so. I don't think we need a separate thread for this discussion. I think this discussion should be had IN the threads about specific products because this is a product-driven issue.

I support the products I want to have, the ones that inspire me, life's too short to bother supporting products that I think may possibly appeal to someone else. I don't even know what the hell it is that will appeal to a wider audience and I'm not going to try and guess

I think it's of limited value looking at wargames and trying to exact change at that level. I think it's of more use to look at kids and ask why isn't there a more diverse range of kids growing up in to adults who sculpt a more diverse range of models and become wargamers who want to buy a more diverse range of models.

You know why there aren't more women into war gaming? Look at how the parents and communities of young girls treat them and you'll get your answer. I'm sure we've progressed a lot from 20, 30, 40 years ago, but it's still not great.

I was into gaming because my friends were into gaming. It was easy to get together when we were kids. My fiancee was into gaming as well as a kid but since none of her female friends were gamers, it was harder for her to have gaming as a hobby. Of course, this was decades ago but I don't think the paradigm has changed too much except everyone's a mobile gamer now but certain games, like FPS , wargaming etc still remain male dominated because it seems to appeal to males more

The reason why wargaming appeals more to men is that there is a massive cultural force going back thousands of years that designates war as an activity for men, and playing at war as an activity for boys.

This may change. Lots of other things, like voting, nursing, or going to university, were always seen as male activities, and over the past 150 years have changed enormously.

I think plenty of people are overreacting on those Prodos "sexy" products.

What I saw first in these miniatures is a funny joke of twisting GW's main range. Space Marines with boobs. Sure, it's not an elaborated joke, quite a crude one. I still had a good laugh.

Is that really a bother if they sell those? We're talking about quite a niche market. The reason true feminists didn't talk about it on their blogs is mainly because it doesn't concern the majority of men - it's a niche in the niche, seriously, stop believing us miniature collectors are such a huge percentage of the world population and that all of us are the target market for those specific models. These kind of miniatures aren't bought so that you put them on your shelves right in front of your entrance, so that everyone coming to your house is seeing them. It's mostly for your own pleasure only, a "private" collection or to play with your friends sharing your tastes.

As to why it sells, well...it's just a fantasy. So of course nude girls with guns are a part of it for some people. Does that mean those who bought them are mysogins and/or think women are just good to cook and submit to men in everyday life? No. Because you have to make the difference between fantasy and reality. True, some people are unable to do that...but don't blame the silent majority just for the minority who is failing.

So, it's better to calm down and let those enjoying that kind of fantasy buy them in peace. You know they will still do even if you keep writing offended articles on this meaningless forum.

 Sarouan wrote:
So, it's better to calm down and let those enjoying that kind of fantasy buy them in peace.

Criticising models, even very harsh criticism, does not prevent others from buying them, nor does it imply any anger.

'Calm down' is not a logical response.

I am severely disappointed that this thread, while it has been spawned from the Prodos Space crusade project, goes back to it and not discuss the general topic that it is intended to discuss.

The Space crusade project got a disproportionate backlash (in comparison to virtually everything else similar) in my opinion because Prodos has generated bad blood with their kickstarter fulfillment some in warzone a lot with AVP and because it is released with a name some hold "sacred" because a hasbro released a game with that name 25 years ago and for many of us, myself included, was the introduction to wargaming, tertiary its because it tries to be a 40k T&A aesthetic.

The best thing this product did so far is spawn this thread which under the OP initial guidance is to discuss the general feel about the depiction and aesthetics of nudity, sexuality, cheesecake ectr ectr and gender representation really on the miniatures of our hobby and as a side branch of this discussion the inclusion of female gamers in our hobby, in all aspects of it.

Can we concentrate on this and not on the "Space Crusade" project?

 Ashiraya wrote:

Criticising models, even very harsh criticism, does not prevent others from buying them, nor does it imply any anger.

'Calm down' is not a logical response.

Then there is no point criticising something if it is for naught. And since the people who do critics are human, it's obvious they can be tainted by feelings - like anger at seeing something totally not to their own tastes.

"Calm down" is always a logical responce to filter these subjective feelings, and going back to facts - or to your own senses, depends.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

The best thing this product did so far is spawn this thread which under the OP initial guidance is to discuss the general feel about the depiction and aesthetics of nudity, sexuality, cheesecake ectr ectr and gender representation really on the miniatures of our hobby and as a side branch of this discussion the inclusion of female gamers in our hobby, in all aspects of it.

So you focus on "female gamers". Buying a miniature doesn't mean you automatically use it for gaming - it may just be for painting or even mere collection/display. I know I will never use my collection of Kantai Collection anime figures in my games...well, I could if I really wanted it, but that's not the reason I bought them. It wasn't for painting as well, since they are already prepainted. It's just because I find them cute and for the pleasure of owning them for my personnal collection (yes, it's a pleasure in itself ).

Being male or female doesn't really matter here, it's just about the appeal of a miniature. I'm sorry to take the Space Crusade project again as an example, but when I read other people saying these models are "crappy sculpts", I just shake my head while sighing. Objectively, they're not bad sculpts...it's just some people take their tastes as universal and if they dislike it, then everyone else MUST dislike them as well.

Quite a "natural" reaction here on dakka. It's still stupid nonetheless.

This whole debate is artificial. We're talking about a fantasy. Miniatures may be made for cash intent or not, but the buyer first sees if a miniatures is to his personal tastes or not. Most of the time, he just doesn't care about all the reasons told in this topic - for him, it's just a nice miniature that would be perfect for his own collection. It's just that.

But then, if you want to keep overreacting about what is merely a fantasy, not reality, I guess you have too much free time. Better to fight a better cause at the roots elsewhere, not the end line.

What I mean is that miniatures are personnal. You don't see these nude miniatures on public display that much - well, maybe except on stores, but it's natural to show what you are selling. Most of the time, it's on your shelves in your room or somewhere your guests don't see at first. Most of the time, people still have good common sense and don't display things that may "shock" people visiting them. It's like hiding your nude pictures in your bedroom just in case your parents wouldn't see them.

What you do in your private life is private. And I don't think owning/buying nude/sexy 28 mm miniatures does make you a mysoginist. Like owning soldier miniatures/playing wargames isn't making you a war apologist.

Or else, you could say those owning a Hitler painted miniature just above their collection of german armies from WWII are in fact fascists and justify WWII crimes by Germany.

It's all the same for sexy miniatures, really. Just a fantasy, nothing more, nothing less. For most of the people, at least..

 Mymearan wrote:
There are no "extreme feminists" in this thread, bringing them up does nothing but derail the discussion and possibly provide a strawman if you want one. I've seen the same point brought up before but I've yet to see these feminists on dakka. Better to argue against actual real people.

I'm inclined to agree. While Dakka does turn a blind eye to certain people for certain standpoints even if they insult you ( not in this thread mind ). The fact people can decent here unlike on other forums or Reddit is actually good.

I was actually banned on one sub for being Neutral after which was forced to take a side simply because i did not follow a determined narrative .

Now I recognize one or two names from BOLS here.

The big more aggressive feminists on BOLS who also frequent other forms are not here at least I'm not aware of them, though if they are here they are far more quiet about stuff than on other forums.

I do believe Games are in danger from this kind of thing. I can point out tweets where a certain controversial Feminist threatened 343 with bad reviews for money which she got.

Comics are so devoid of there origins now. fantastic ones Such as Battle Chasers, Crimson, Fathom, and Soulfire would not exist today because of fear. Even Witchblade is going because they don't get publicity because of the narratives people spin. Artists Like Jim Balant, J Scott Campbell probably wont be doing more than token covers and that is a shame. the same will happen to Mini / board games if it is not resisted.

I can't help feeling that you are jumping from one point to another to reach a conclusion that isn't necessarily justified either factually or morally.

The debate is as artificial or as interesting as you want to make it and what you want to get from it.

I am not sure if you understood my post correctly, you can filter the thread and understand what my viewpoint on the subject is.

I am personally interested in the few key points the discussion touched

What are the barriers of entry for females tot he hobby, if there are really any?

Is the notion that this is a male activity really true?

How does the aesthetics of female models as presented by the various companies affect the potential female attendance to the hobby if at all?

Are some key elements of the miniatures considered "sexualisation" really that or a logical design choice to show the gender diversity on tiny models intended to be visible from a meter or so away?

Would a more "puritanical" or "realistic" depiction of female models achieve an increase of female players? would it cause an impact on sales for various companies? if so would the potential increase in customers worth the decrease in sales?

Can there be realistic depiction of female models and those models be identifiable as female?

weeble1000 wrote:

 Vertrucio wrote:

Likewise, the reason why nudity and such influences sales numbers may be due to the fact that this is a very niche hobby dominated by males. Which is okay, except that just because a hobby is male dominated, does not mean that it was and always will be, or even should be. If anything, nudity and sexualization being such a sales booster indicates that our industry has done a poor job of appealing to and enticing other kinds of gamers that don't buy based on that criteria.

There's probably more women into table top miniatures games than you think.

But as Vertrucio brings up, it behooves all of us, producers and consumers both, to be thinking about market expansion. When the market expands, everyone benefits. We have been seeing some serious market expansion, and I think it is fair to say that we are seeing more women enter the hobby, which is awesome! With market expansion comes a greater diversity of products, faster releases, higher product quality, lower prices, and larger player bases. We get to see more of what we want and we get greater access to it.

People can make whatever products they want to. It's a free country. But we can choose which products we support, and which we don't. And when we make those decisions, it is worth considering how this niche market is perceived in the wider world, because that unequivocally has an impact on how, where, and to what degree the market expands.

If women do in fact represent a relatively untapped demographic, we should absolutely be considering why. How are the products we support perceived by this demographic? Is there something we can do about that?

Yes, absolutely, there are things we can do.

We can support products that help move the market in the direction we want to see it move. Do you want to see more believable female miniatures? Buy them. Tell producers why you are buying them. Tell producers who don't produce those products that you want them to see them.

And if there are products you want to see less of, say so. I don't think we need a separate thread for this discussion. I think this discussion should be had IN the threads about specific products because this is a product-driven issue.

I see More female players of regular boardgames than ones that are miniature based. I read the same thing about untapped demographics in White Wolf meetings even though White wolf sales was roughly 40 female 60 male sales and players. RPG games have tanked look at Forgotten realms and the Spellplague and D&D 4e I honestly don't know if Wotc D&D games can recover.

Instead of trusting your fan base, you gamble and pander and not one of these has worked long term. DC has had 3 reinventions in the last 10 years, im thinking Marvel has had several also


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I can't help feeling that you are jumping from one point to another to reach a conclusion that isn't necessarily justified either factually or morally.

im trying to provide analogies between nieche markets, oh so now im not moral because i wont toe the line?.. please.... I dont care what peoples Idiological standpoint is as long as it doesn't dictate to me how i should paint plastic figures and play D&D... then im allowed to be annoyed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
The debate is as artificial or as interesting as you want to make it and what you want to get from it.

I am not sure if you understood my post correctly, you can filter the thread and understand what my viewpoint on the subject is.

I am personally interested in the few key points the discussion touched

What are the barriers of entry for females tot he hobby, if there are really any?

Is the notion that this is a male activity really true?

How does the aesthetics of female models as presented by the various companies affect the potential female attendance to the hobby if at all?

Are some key elements of the miniatures considered "sexualisation" really that or a logical design choice to show the gender diversity on tiny models intended to be visible from a meter or so away?



Would a more "puritanical" or "realistic" depiction of female models achieve an increase of female players? would it cause an impact on sales for various companies? if so would the potential increase in customers worth the decrease in sales?

Can there be realistic depiction of female models and those models be identifiable as female?

I guess the smell to number one?, though any group of men can be jerks

it depends what you mean by this we have different athletic events because of physical limitations but in this regard possibly only appearance of games and ill give you some models should probably be left at home.

we dont know how the appearance of figures effects people we would need research which im all for communication not automatically decide because muh feelings

some figures are sexualized ill agree however its hard to not exaggerate things for female figures even Vics figures ( probably the most realistic ) are not 100% how female soldiers look as there is very little difernce

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

What are the barriers of entry for females tot he hobby, if there are really any?

First, you should define what you are calling as "the hobby". Because it can mean many things depending on who is using it. If it's by GW canons, then it's quite specific; 'buidling, painting and playing with GW miniatures". In that case, we don't really have to bother with sexy/nude female miniatures, because they're quite very few in GW stores.

To me, games with miniatures are just a small part of the huge miniature market. There are plenty of miniatures sold by other people that have nothing to do with gaming, not even talking about wargames. A huge part of the miniature market is about collections/displays. Some have to be built/painted, others come fully built/painted in the box.

If it's just about painting/building/collection, being a male or female gamer has nothing to do with it, since it doesn't matter. Painting/building/collecting miniatures is something very personnal and private. Sure, you can do it with your friends, but most of the time, that's something you do by yourself, for your own pleasure. So your gender has absolutely nothing to do in that case. The sole question remaining is to know if a miniature is to your tastes or not, and if it is enough for you to buy it.

True, you can say that nude girls with guns are usually more appealing to male people - but that's not universal at all, since we're talking about personnal tastes.

About the size of some "assets", it really depends from severals factors; the scale of the game, being meant for collection, if it is intended to be alone or in an unit, the artistic line, the artwork, the personnal touch of the sculptor, and so on. It's not just about "big boobs lolz".

I do not consider GW anything more or anything less than just another company in the wargaming hobby that includes under its umbrella 3(4) different hobbies, modeling and painting, playing and "historical research" fluff really either fantastical or truly historical (and collecting).

Since Dakka is a forum primarily for wargaming I am assuming any mention I do for hobby means the wargaming hobby.

I will agree that there are people who just do parts of the hobby and its not a bad thing and if for example you do only the modeling part it stops been wargaming and becomes just modeling and if you just collect it becomes something else.

But in this thread I am thinking about the wargames are a unified whole.

migooo wrote:


Comics are so devoid of there origins now. fantastic ones Such as Battle Chasers, Crimson, Fathom, and Soulfire would not exist today because of fear. Even Witchblade is going because they don't get publicity because of the narratives people spin. Artists Like Jim Balant, J Scott Campbell probably wont be doing more than token covers and that is a shame. the same will happen to Mini / board games if it is not resisted.

I'm struggling a bit here. These titles from the 1990s have failed because people have rejected their depictions of women (or men? I'm not really familiar enough with them), and that public sentiment is something that needs to be challenged? I wonder then what constitutes a genuine expression of people's evolving preferences, and what constitutes shadowy manipulations by an all-powerful PC minority?

 eohall wrote:

migooo wrote:


Comics are so devoid of there origins now. fantastic ones Such as Battle Chasers, Crimson, Fathom, and Soulfire would not exist today because of fear. Even Witchblade is going because they don't get publicity because of the narratives people spin. Artists Like Jim Balant, J Scott Campbell probably wont be doing more than token covers and that is a shame. the same will happen to Mini / board games if it is not resisted.

I'm struggling a bit here. These titles from the 1990s have failed because people have rejected their depictions of women (or men? I'm not really familiar enough with them), and that public sentiment is something that needs to be challenged? I wonder then what constitutes a genuine expression of people's evolving preferences, and what constitutes shadowy manipulations by an all-powerful PC minority?

Comics had a lot of problems in the 90s I never denied that. Aspen was created due to Arguments between Turner and others as was Wildstorm ( Joe mad, Campbell, Hartnell had problems with publishers) im saying now these titles wouldnt exist in today's climates.


Also these titles sold (battle chasers sold out) the problems were with issue delays and publishing nothing to do with what you are implying (Joe mad just didn't produce content and eventually went on to do Artwork for darksiders)


Aspen comics still make soulfire and fathom

 Sarouan wrote:


Then there is no point criticising something if it is for naught. And since the people who do critics are human, it's obvious they can be tainted by feelings - like anger at seeing something totally not to their own tastes.

"Calm down" is always a logical responce to filter these subjective feelings, and going back to facts - or to your own senses, depends.

No, it is not a logical response. I could tell you to calm down and stop criticising my post, but that would not be logical, would it? You criticising my post won't stop me from making more like it either, but that doesn't mean I will tell you that your criticism is for naught. To me it may be, but it probably isn't to you.

'Calm down' is a condescending response in which you try to imply the opposition as arguing from emotion and yourself as the paragon of logic and reason. If someone is arguing in ALL CAPS!!!! then sure, but that has not happened. People have just expressed displeasure.

Also, 'anger at seeing something totally not to their own tastes.'? This is a wargaming forum, not the Ku Klux Klan. Outside of the occasional troll, people do not get angry just because we're not an echo chamber.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

But in this thread I am thinking about the wargames are a unified whole.

So it's all bout building an army in the intention to play it with a friend on a board, all right. Then I believe you agree it's very specific.

To me, sexy miniatures are made with a target public in mind - or just the envy of the sculptor himself. It's quite obvious some of these miniatures aren't intended to everyone. Like the sexy part of Brother Vinni's website.

But that is for miniatures made so with the intention of being really sexy. You also have to take the scale into account.

For example, in 6 mm scale, the infantry models are so small it's impossible to tell the difference between a male and a female if you don't exagerate some proportions. It's also the same for weapons as well.

Thus, when someone is trying to make a Sister of Battle like range of models, you can have results like this;



Was the intention here to make sexualized boob armors? Maybe a part of this is true, but the other is also a question of being able to tell from a fair distance that those are indeed female warriors.

But the change in proportions can also be a question of artistic line, like the famous "Heroic Scale" from GW, where all weapons are ridiculously huge with hands bigger than their face or armor so thin you would never believe there is a man/woman inside. But they look cooler that way, even if it's not realistic. The same can be said for Privateer Press models - and some female parts are often exaggerated in that particular scale because...well, like the weapons and hands.

However, there are also miniatures that show females in a more realistic way, like Victoria miniatures. It's just not the same artistic line or...same target market. It just depends of your personnal tastes; if you like realist proportions or you'd rather go a more "fantasy" approach. It's especially true for fantasy or SF miniatures, when you don't need to follow History's reality.

I can't deny there is sometimes some sexism in the intentions of sculptors/miniature producers. And it's true sex always sells. But I don't think the world is all white and black in that matter and mostly, intentions are given to sculptors when they never had them.

When I saw the Sisterhood models I thought they were rather good, apart from the exagerrated boobs. They are dynamic and have good variety of poses, but rather spoiled IMO by the ballon boobs wodged on to the front of the figures. I thought they were 15mm.

Then I realised the pics are blow-ups of 6mm scale figures. Obviously in 6mm scale, even an exagerrated boob is still just a tiny pip on the chest. Without seeing them painted, from all angles, it's hard to say for sure but they probably paint up nicely and don't look so blatant.
.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Then I realised the pics are blow-ups of 6mm scale figures. Obviously in 6mm scale, even an exagerrated boob is still just a tiny pip on the chest. Without seeing them painted, from all angles, it's hard to say for sure but they probably paint up nicely and don't look so blatant.

See for yourself. It's not the same unit, but boobs are still here. If you manage to get close enough to see them.

By the way, these aren't mine. I took a picture from a 6 mm wargame forum.



The smaller the scale, the bigger the details. Otherwise, you just can't tell the difference.

Sure, you can Forge the Narrative saying it's a woman inside that closed exo-armour. But it's not the same thing.

I was going to say my eyesight isn't good enough to see the tiny big black boobs but I realised it might not sound quite the thing.

Yes, probably they would look better if done in a more angular fashion, like armour plates rather than blobs slapped on the front. But 6mm figures are so tiny, is are these mini Not Sisters a danger to the moral development of the young people?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I was going to say my eyesight isn't good enough to see the tiny big black boobs but I realised it might not sound quite the thing.

Yes, probably they would look better if done in a more angular fashion, like armour plates rather than blobs slapped on the front. But 6mm figures are so tiny, is are these mini Not Sisters a danger to the moral development of the young people?

Some people certainly believe it.

I can't help comparing the situation to how you'd deal with an all women armored tank division.

Are you going to put breasts on the tanks, or accept that plausible armor design won't feature that sort of thing?

Maybe not their moral development, but it's certainly detrimental to the visual development of young and old alike to try and see anything specific on those models!

I keep writing up a question as regards women being offended by naked miniatures but I keep forming it badly so I'll try to do it in simple sentences:

1) Is the gaming market (board, card, miniatures, etc.) as a whole increasing in size? My hunch is that it is.
2) Is miniature gaming increasing at a comparable rate? My belief is that it is not, though some of that is because I think board games are blowing up while miniatures are just increasing.
3) What portion of the increase is female in either category? I suspect that a good chunk of women are getting into more and more games, but very few into miniatures

And finally:

4) If there is a disparity between 1&2 or 3a&3b, why?

I don't think the answer to that last one, and I do believe there is a disparity, can be attributed to the fact that some models have large boobs. Many of the women I show models to seem drawn to that facet (I will readily concede my friends are not normal, otherwise they wouldn't be friends with me! ), and use it as others have described; when a model is of indeterminate gender facially they immediately look at the chest. For clarity, not all of them are gamers where that'd be "normal" either, so I think that much of it mirrors society as a whole. Is that idea that a model is naked or provocative enough to "scare" someone away?

Stated in another context, I can certainly understand why someone would not appreciate the depiction of their group as something other than human. For example, a rifle range target with a Star of David on it is naturally going to make anyone of the Jewish faith very, very uncomfortable if not outright terrified and rightfully so. Would that make said person never want to go near a gun/hunting/marksmanship club, or would it make them not want associate with that particular group of gun owners? Certainly if someone was only interested in a cursory fashion it would send them running for the hills, but what I'm less convinced of is that it would dampen actual enthusiasm for a topic unless that was the behavior of multiple different groups. At that point it's not so much the object as it is the people. Not having those targets wouldn't fix the fact that the people engaging in the hobby in the local area are terrible people; they would find some new manifestation of maladjusted nonsense to scare off others if they didn't have the object currently being highlighted.

Which touches on another topic; is the problem the models and their depictions of human nudity or the perception of those who enjoy them by the general public?

Sining wrote:
I was into gaming because my friends were into gaming. It was easy to get together when we were kids. My fiancee was into gaming as well as a kid but since none of her female friends were gamers, it was harder for her to have gaming as a hobby. Of course, this was decades ago but I don't think the paradigm has changed too much except everyone's a mobile gamer now but certain games, like FPS , wargaming etc still remain male dominated because it seems to appeal to males more

I know more women who are serious board gamers than men. Space Hulk was a hit with them. So was X-Wing. The transition to tabletop is pretty easy these days.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 solkan wrote:


Are you going to put breasts on the tanks, or accept that plausible armor design won't feature that sort of thing?

Of course not, silly. You put a delicate jaw and high, narrow forehead on the tank. If you're Mantic, that is.

 solkan wrote:
I can't help comparing the situation to how you'd deal with an all women armored tank division.

Are you going to put breasts on the tanks, or accept that plausible armor design won't feature that sort of thing?

well you might have the odd tank commander poking her head up

Does it really matter guys? I mean they're plastic/metal miniatures. Who cares if they were clothing, power armour, or no garments whatsoever. As, long as the person using them likes that model for the tabletop hobby, I don't see the point in discussing this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Sarouan wrote:


Then there is no point criticising something if it is for naught. And since the people who do critics are human, it's obvious they can be tainted by feelings - like anger at seeing something totally not to their own tastes.

"Calm down" is always a logical responce to filter these subjective feelings, and going back to facts - or to your own senses, depends.

No, it is not a logical response. I could tell you to calm down and stop criticising my post, but that would not be logical, would it? You criticising my post won't stop me from making more like it either, but that doesn't mean I will tell you that your criticism is for naught. To me it may be, but it probably isn't to you.

'Calm down' is a condescending response in which you try to imply the opposition as arguing from emotion and yourself as the paragon of logic and reason. If someone is arguing in ALL CAPS!!!! then sure, but that has not happened. People have just expressed displeasure.

Also, 'anger at seeing something totally not to their own tastes.'? This is a wargaming forum, not the Ku Klux Klan. Outside of the occasional troll, people do not get angry just because we're not an echo chamber.

Why does it matter if a model is showing her hooters or if one id showing his donger. They are plastic/metal miniatures that represent mostly sci-fi and fantasy settings. They are fictional and do not matter at all.

 Abanshee wrote:
Does it really matter guys? I mean they're plastic/metal miniatures. Who cares if they were clothing, power armour, or no garments whatsoever. As, long as the person using them likes that model for the tabletop hobby, I don't see the point in discussing this.

Well, then why are you posting here? Obviously, a lot of people do care, see several pages of discussion.

 treslibras wrote:

 Abanshee wrote:
Does it really matter guys? I mean they're plastic/metal miniatures. Who cares if they were clothing, power armour, or no garments whatsoever. As, long as the person using them likes that model for the tabletop hobby, I don't see the point in discussing this.

Well, then why are you posting here? Obviously, a lot of people do care, see several pages of discussion.

Because, its a forum. A forum is made for interacting ya-know.

Anyway, why do you care if a model is made wearing less clothing and displaying more body.

 Abanshee wrote:

 treslibras wrote:

 Abanshee wrote:
Does it really matter guys? I mean they're plastic/metal miniatures. Who cares if they were clothing, power armour, or no garments whatsoever. As, long as the person using them likes that model for the tabletop hobby, I don't see the point in discussing this.

Well, then why are you posting here? Obviously, a lot of people do care, see several pages of discussion.

Because, its a forum. A forum is made for interacting ya-know.

Anyway, why do you care if a model is made wearing less clothing and displaying more body.

Read the thread and answer your own question. Or go to the News & Rumors forum and read the Prodos thread that started this discussion and then answer your own question. You aren't being clever, dude.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

Sining wrote:
I was into gaming because my friends were into gaming. It was easy to get together when we were kids. My fiancee was into gaming as well as a kid but since none of her female friends were gamers, it was harder for her to have gaming as a hobby. Of course, this was decades ago but I don't think the paradigm has changed too much except everyone's a mobile gamer now but certain games, like FPS , wargaming etc still remain male dominated because it seems to appeal to males more

I know more women who are serious board gamers than men. Space Hulk was a hit with them. So was X-Wing. The transition to tabletop is pretty easy these days.

And I know more men who board game than women. It's all anecdotal in our cases but in general, over here at least, more men do board games than women at most of the LGS I've frequented.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 Abanshee wrote:

 treslibras wrote:

 Abanshee wrote:
Does it really matter guys? I mean they're plastic/metal miniatures. Who cares if they were clothing, power armour, or no garments whatsoever. As, long as the person using them likes that model for the tabletop hobby, I don't see the point in discussing this.

Well, then why are you posting here? Obviously, a lot of people do care, see several pages of discussion.

Because, its a forum. A forum is made for interacting ya-know.

Anyway, why do you care if a model is made wearing less clothing and displaying more body.

Read the thread and answer your own question. Or go to the News & Rumors forum and read the Prodos thread that started this discussion and then answer your own question. You aren't being clever, dude.

So, you guys are displeased about scantily clad models. Okay, getting upset over models that have revealing clothing is kinda weird. Their plastic boobs and butts. Plus their not real.

So's Hollywood but people still care about that! /rimshot

Ha-ha... Ha!

Okay, lame joke aside, the point is that people want more models they like and some want less of models they dislike. There's nothing wrong with someone saying they like or dislike Prodos' Space Crusade line and stating why they feel that way. In fact, according to Prodos themselves, voicing such things is what's resulting in the creation of the PG13 version in addition to the originals.

Nothing has been lost and more has been gained. I'd call it a win for the majority. Of course, this wont necessarily please someone that wants the original (and maybe even the PG13 version) not to exist. But there's value in the discourse itself because it makes us more aware of the views of people not ourselves and in the case of Space Crusade opens up the product to people that would otherwise not have been interested.

Personally, I'm in the why-not-both camp on the sexy vs not-sexy debate. But I understand there are people that feel things have been too sexy for too long! and want more sensible models.

 solkan wrote:
Are you going to put breasts on the tanks, or accept that plausible armor design won't feature that sort of thing?

In hindsight, Googling "Rhino with breasts" with safesearch: off was a mistake

 Vertrucio wrote:
The difference is that video games and even board games have been moving to diversify, and they have reaped the benefits of a larger market.

Meanwhile, miniature games are becoming more and more niche.

You bring up "hardcore feminists" but no one is really asking for the removal of all sexuality removed from gaming. But, many are just tired of seeing it pointlessly everywhere, and poorly done at that. Prodos' stuff wasn't just a particularly good example, but it was also just one in a long line of really one sided depictions.

Likewise, those "hardcore feminists" are a niche type of people of a larger very legitimate issue. One shouldn't go disparaging niches in a forum dedicated to a hobby that is very niche itself. I bet you that at some point you have turned your nose up at someone in this hobby that you considered just plain weird and not all together, but that very same person is used by other people to disparage our entire hobby. So it's best not to start the finger pointing because it accomplishes nothing.

Yeah... videogames aren't doing all that great. There's niche and indie stuff of all descriptions of course, but we have those in Miniatures as well.

NSFW
https://youtu.be/7wnTunPrQJo

And somewhat related to the first video, but mostly focused on focus groups.
ALSO NSFW
https://youtu.be/rXlcaV5FOmw

 Dentry wrote:

Nothing has been lost and more has been gained. I'd call it a win for the majority.

It will be if the sales for PG13 justify the extra cost of their creation, stocking, distributing ectr. if they sell better or worse than the originals it will be an interesting market research, I wonder if they will release such data.

 Abanshee wrote:

So, you guys are displeased about scantily clad models. Okay, getting upset over models that have revealing clothing is kinda weird. Their plastic boobs and butts. Plus their not real.

You have 29 posts on this forum. You've used three of them within a few hours of each other in this calm and mature thread - trolling it - clearly without having bothered to read any of it, let alone the thread that spawned it. You also spelled "they're" incorrectly. Twice. Welcome to ignore, kiddo.

 Azazelx wrote:

 Abanshee wrote:

So, you guys are displeased about scantily clad models. Okay, getting upset over models that have revealing clothing is kinda weird. Their plastic boobs and butts. Plus their not real.

You have 29 posts on this forum. You've used three of them within a few hours of each other in this calm and mature thread - trolling it - clearly without having bothered to read any of it, let alone the thread that spawned it. You also spelled "they're" incorrectly. Twice. Welcome to ignore, kiddo.

[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - ALPHARIUS]. I asked you guys a legitimate question. As, to why you guys were so upset about tits on a model. You avoided the question by calling me a troll and telling me to read the origin [MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - ALPHARIUS]. Stop avoiding the question and answer it.

I kinda like the cheesecake models, but they don't really fit the rest of my grimdark 40k forces. Mebbe I'll start a Kill Team that looks like one of those "guns n' girls" calendars.

 Abanshee wrote:

 Azazelx wrote:

 Abanshee wrote:

So, you guys are displeased about scantily clad models. Okay, getting upset over models that have revealing clothing is kinda weird. Their plastic boobs and butts. Plus their not real.

You have 29 posts on this forum. You've used three of them within a few hours of each other in this calm and mature thread - trolling it - clearly without having bothered to read any of it, let alone the thread that spawned it. You also spelled "they're" incorrectly. Twice. Welcome to ignore, kiddo.

[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - ALPHARIUS]. I asked you guys a legitimate question. As, to why you guys were so upset about tits on a model. You avoided the question by calling me a troll and telling me to read the origin [MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - ALPHARIUS]. Stop avoiding the question and answer it.

I'd tell you that it's about political or social discourse and the way our ways of communicating with each other shapes society, but considering you're clearly not interested in constructive debate (c.f. the two ad hominem attacks you just did) that might be a waste. You're going to have to work awfully hard to prove your premise that representation in fictional settings is entirely irrelevant though, considering all fictional media is created by someone that exists in a specific social context.

 Abanshee wrote:

 Azazelx wrote:

 Abanshee wrote:

So, you guys are displeased about scantily clad models. Okay, getting upset over models that have revealing clothing is kinda weird. Their plastic boobs and butts. Plus their not real.

You have 29 posts on this forum. You've used three of them within a few hours of each other in this calm and mature thread - trolling it - clearly without having bothered to read any of it, let alone the thread that spawned it. You also spelled "they're" incorrectly. Twice. Welcome to ignore, kiddo.

[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - ALPHARIUS]. I asked you guys a legitimate question. As, to why you guys were so upset about tits on a model. You avoided the question by calling me a troll and telling me to read the origin [MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - ALPHARIUS]. Stop avoiding the question and answer it.

Many people consider things like cheesecake art in any form say for example Sisters of battle cater to certain tropes.

( dominatrix, Nuns, high heels, and corsets )


While these save for The Repentia and the penitent engine female pilot no visible amount of cleavage people may consider them little more than an extension of the Naughty Nun fantasy.


This is something that can be interpreted as a barrier to female players or painters/ modelers. A more plain armour set say for example Bianne of Tarth type armour, ( no visible 'Boob plate' ) would be better in any sort of female army or figures thus negating said barrier for any concerned .


More naked figures are seen as little more than teenage masturbatory items and make painters / modeller/ players who use them will see any female person as little more than an object because of this. In the words of probably the most visible feminist of recent times who spoke at the UN

" The more you think you aren't affected. The more you are actually affected"

Alright, this thread is dead i'm going back to priming my Dark Angels.

I was in a country where female Soldiers were and are on the front lines. During my time there.... let's just say that I saw a person in and out of uniform. And considering her job she was extremely nice.

The equipment functions very similar to a sports bra where there is no discernable differences when field gear is equipped.


Save from the voice but that's hardly going to appear on figure .


It does take time to reply you know... and I thought I had no patience

migooo wrote:
I was in a country where female Soldiers were and are on the front lines. During my time there.... let's just say that I saw a person in and out of uniform. And considering her job she was extremely nice.

Let's just say it functions very similar to a sports bra where there is no discernable differences when field gear is equipped.


Save from the voice but that's hardly going to appear on figure .


It does take time to reply you know... and I thought I had no patience

That last bit was kind of rude either way DA must get paint on the ASAP.

 Abanshee wrote:

migooo wrote:
I was in a country where female Soldiers were and are on the front lines. During my time there.... let's just say that I saw a person in and out of uniform. And considering her job she was extremely nice.

Let's just say it functions very similar to a sports bra where there is no discernable differences when field gear is equipped.


Save from the voice but that's hardly going to appear on figure .


It does take time to reply you know... and I thought I had no patience

That last bit was kind of rude either way DA must get paint on the ASAP.

Rude? Not my intention apologies

migooo wrote:

 Abanshee wrote:

migooo wrote:
I was in a country where female Soldiers were and are on the front lines. During my time there.... let's just say that I saw a person in and out of uniform. And considering her job she was extremely nice.

Let's just say it functions very similar to a sports bra where there is no discernable differences when field gear is equipped.


Save from the voice but that's hardly going to appear on figure .


It does take time to reply you know... and I thought I had no patience

That last bit was kind of rude either way DA must get paint on the ASAP.

Rude? Not my intention apologies

I'm sorry for assuming it was that way.

What is all this about? Some female miniatures?
Really people, if you do not like them then do not use them. Simple.

 master of ordinance wrote:
What is all this about? Some female miniatures?
Really people, if you do not like them then do not use them. Simple.

I will keep this quote handy for every damn time you say IG are in a bad spot or something.

Because for myself at least, it's not that I dislike female models, I just consider them to be 'in a bad spot.'

I don't get why you guys care about miniatures at all. Or possessions at all. Or culture. Or anything. It is all a lie. True meaning comes only from within.


Therefore stop making me feel bad for buying tasteless crap.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
What is all this about? Some female miniatures?
Really people, if you do not like them then do not use them. Simple.

I will keep this quote handy for every damn time you say IG are in a bad spot or something.

Because for myself at least, it's not that I dislike female models, I just consider them to be 'in a bad spot.'

Two different things:

Number 1 is a massive collection of models which the owner of has spent a small fortune on, collected and lovingly painted and themed their force only to have the developers and rules writers of the game said miniatures are for essentially invalidate them.

Number 2 is a single model. Or style of model. Anyone has the choice to buy it or not. Anyone has the choice to look at it or not.

See the difference? One is the screwing over of a massive collection that a person has spent years and vast amounts collecting, the other is a miniature that one can choose to own and/or look at or not.

I believe there's room for both "cheesecake" and realistic figures, but only if you have the choice. One problem is, though there may be options out there (like the oft-mentioned Victoria miniatures), your average casual player won't see them. All the conversion bits and counts-as in the world won't help if someone walking into the game store to learn about the game doesn't have such an option. In fact, for most games, you'd be hard-pressed to find any female fighters at all, aside from maybe a token all-female unit or a boobplate-sporting leader, and GW is one of the worst offenders.

Like it or not GW is, in many, if not most places, the face of miniature gaming. From the point of view of a new gamer walking into a games workshop, you'll be hard pressed to find even one female model, let alone have the luxury of engaging in the cheesecake/realistic debate. The worst part is, it's there but they're so inconsistent you can hardly tell. A great deal of their factions are all-male fighting forces (SM, CSM, Orks (though you could argue Orks are really genderless)), but even in cases where it would make sense to have female models(IG/AM, Tau, Mechanicus) they often just don't bother, even when 50% of all Fire Warriors or Cadian Guardsmen should be female since basically everyone is born a soldier in those cultures. I wonder in cases like those, is it laziness? or do miniatures companies have the same issue that video games often do, where execs vote down female characters because they "don't sell" creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I don't think there would be nearly as much complaints about sexualized models, if there were a few ranges of commonly available, tastefully dressed and sufficiently armored out in the market (and by that I mean, out in the stores where people are playing). I think it would also go a long way towards lessening the notion that wargaming is a male-exclusive hobby. Unfortunately, it takes time to grow the market and draw in a new demographic of people, and in the current nothing-matters-but-the-next-quarter economy, few want to take the risks that would require.

PsychoticStorm wrote:

 Dentry wrote:

Nothing has been lost and more has been gained. I'd call it a win for the majority.

It will be if the sales for PG13 justify the extra cost of their creation, stocking, distributing ectr. if they sell better or worse than the originals it will be an interesting market research, I wonder if they will release such data.

True. Prodos could certainly suffer for it if sales don't pull through.

BobtheInquisitor wrote:I don't get why you guys care about miniatures at all. Or possessions at all. Or culture. Or anything. It is all a lie. True meaning comes only from within.


Therefore stop making me feel bad for buying tasteless crap.

Happiness is zero sum.

The videos linked may explain some reasons, bias and misconceptions, about what the target audience is int he heads of the executives and the fear of not identifying with the female representations and other such stupidity.

I do not think one should see GW as the main representative, they are huge, but not the only visible thing anymore.

I still am not convinced that "realistically depicted" female models is the thing that prevented female gamers to play, or that it will attract them, in large numbers, I am also skeptical on the market force, reaper has already admitted less cloth more sales, CB has mentioned several times that the cheesecake models sell tremendously good.

Should we have both? duh of course, choice never hurted anybody, but who will take the market risk in daring it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Abanshee wrote:

 Azazelx wrote:

 Abanshee wrote:

So, you guys are displeased about scantily clad models. Okay, getting upset over models that have revealing clothing is kinda weird. Their plastic boobs and butts. Plus their not real.

You have 29 posts on this forum. You've used three of them within a few hours of each other in this calm and mature thread - trolling it - clearly without having bothered to read any of it, let alone the thread that spawned it. You also spelled "they're" incorrectly. Twice. Welcome to ignore, kiddo.

[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - ALPHARIUS]. I asked you guys a legitimate question. As, to why you guys were so upset about tits on a model. You avoided the question by calling me a troll and telling me to read the origin [MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - ALPHARIUS]. Stop avoiding the question and answer it.

I would say your entire post says one thing, "I have not read the thread and assume what it is about from the title" go read it, see were each poster stands what this thread is really all about and then come and comment.

You want an answer to the question, I am not, what made you think so? not reading the thread perhaps?

 Rainyday wrote:
I believe there's room for both "cheesecake" and realistic figures, but only if you have the choice. One problem is, though there may be options out there (like the oft-mentioned Victoria miniatures), your average casual player won't see them. All the conversion bits and counts-as in the world won't help if someone walking into the game store to learn about the game doesn't have such an option. In fact, for most games, you'd be hard-pressed to find any female fighters at all, aside from maybe a token all-female unit or a boobplate-sporting leader, and GW is one of the worst offenders.

Like it or not GW is, in many, if not most places, the face of miniature gaming. From the point of view of a new gamer walking into a games workshop, you'll be hard pressed to find even one female model, let alone have the luxury of engaging in the cheesecake/realistic debate. The worst part is, it's there but they're so inconsistent you can hardly tell. A great deal of their factions are all-male fighting forces (SM, CSM, Orks (though you could argue Orks are really genderless)), but even in cases where it would make sense to have female models(IG/AM, Tau, Mechanicus) they often just don't bother, even when 50% of all Fire Warriors or Cadian Guardsmen should be female since basically everyone is born a soldier in those cultures. I wonder in cases like those, is it laziness? or do miniatures companies have the same issue that video games often do, where execs vote down female characters because they "don't sell" creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I don't think there would be nearly as much complaints about sexualized models, if there were a few ranges of commonly available, tastefully dressed and sufficiently armored out in the market (and by that I mean, out in the stores where people are playing). I think it would also go a long way towards lessening the notion that wargaming is a male-exclusive hobby. Unfortunately, it takes time to grow the market and draw in a new demographic of people, and in the current nothing-matters-but-the-next-quarter economy, few want to take the risks that would require.

This post is really good! Thanks.

It's a weird discussion, right, because the Prodos miniatures are sort of... irrelevant? If I was playing 40k or something and a male opponent was using those miniatures as their army then I'd probably be really uncomfortable unless I knew them very well. As a niche game, though, I don't really have a problem with it? It might weird me out if a bunch of guys I didn't know well were playing it at a store or club or something, but its existence doesn't really bother me. What does bother me is when female models are badly represented in games that I do want to play, like Warmachine or Infinity, or don't exist at all, like in GW's games.

And hey, maybe I'd even have fun with the Prodos miniatures myself in the right context. I guess that's part of it - I feel like the Prodos miniatures understand what context they're going for, and that's easy to respect. Some other games seem to think the time to sexualise female characters is "always," not thinking that maybe when you are making a game that has male characters who are modeled to be powerful and cool then maybe you should make the female ones powerful and cool too rather than "sexy."

 master of ordinance wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
What is all this about? Some female miniatures?
Really people, if you do not like them then do not use them. Simple.

I will keep this quote handy for every damn time you say IG are in a bad spot or something.

Because for myself at least, it's not that I dislike female models, I just consider them to be 'in a bad spot.'

Two different things:

Number 1 is a massive collection of models which the owner of has spent a small fortune on, collected and lovingly painted and themed their force only to have the developers and rules writers of the game said miniatures are for essentially invalidate them.

Number 2 is a single model. Or style of model. Anyone has the choice to buy it or not. Anyone has the choice to look at it or not.

See the difference? One is the screwing over of a massive collection that a person has spent years and vast amounts collecting, the other is a miniature that one can choose to own and/or look at or not.

They are not immune to criticism just because they are liked.

 Rainyday wrote:
I believe there's room for both "cheesecake" and realistic figures, but only if you have the choice. One problem is, though there may be options out there (like the oft-mentioned Victoria miniatures), your average casual player won't see them. All the conversion bits and counts-as in the world won't help if someone walking into the game store to learn about the game doesn't have such an option. In fact, for most games, you'd be hard-pressed to find any female fighters at all, aside from maybe a token all-female unit or a boobplate-sporting leader, and GW is one of the worst offenders.

Like it or not GW is, in many, if not most places, the face of miniature gaming. From the point of view of a new gamer walking into a games workshop, you'll be hard pressed to find even one female model, let alone have the luxury of engaging in the cheesecake/realistic debate. The worst part is, it's there but they're so inconsistent you can hardly tell. A great deal of their factions are all-male fighting forces (SM, CSM, Orks (though you could argue Orks are really genderless)), but even in cases where it would make sense to have female models(IG/AM, Tau, Mechanicus) they often just don't bother, even when 50% of all Fire Warriors or Cadian Guardsmen should be female since basically everyone is born a soldier in those cultures. I wonder in cases like those, is it laziness? or do miniatures companies have the same issue that video games often do, where execs vote down female characters because they "don't sell" creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I don't think there would be nearly as much complaints about sexualized models, if there were a few ranges of commonly available, tastefully dressed and sufficiently armored out in the market (and by that I mean, out in the stores where people are playing). I think it would also go a long way towards lessening the notion that wargaming is a male-exclusive hobby. Unfortunately, it takes time to grow the market and draw in a new demographic of people, and in the current nothing-matters-but-the-next-quarter economy, few want to take the risks that would require.

Though it's probably worth keeping in mind that if you walk in on a random WHFB or 40k game you're more likely to see female models on the table than if you walked in on your average historic wargame.

Also don't female Tau Fire Warriors just look exactly the same as male Tau Fire Warriors? I thought it was only those weirdo fans that drew pictures of female Tau with big boobs and bums Aren't the actual female Tau very similar in appearance to male Tau?

Cadians are probably the big discrepancy, in the fluff they should have females but the physical models don't. But that said, the Cadian models in general are pretty crap. They're so bulky that a female Cadian would either look like a male Cadian to match the bulkiness of the existing models, or you'd have to make them rather svelte in which case they'd clash with the existing models. I think if you made female Cadians you'd have to redo the entire line of Cadians if you didn't want them looking silly, which I don't see GW doing.

Personally I don't really care that females are under represented in war games because females have always been under represented in war historically and I'm not really convinced that having better female representation in models would result in a more diverse group of gamers anyway.

There is a place for the tasteless, the over top, i like rocky horror picture, old Troma movies, Japanese Guro movies.
Controversial movies etcetera. I sometimes don't understand why people feel the need to go on the moral high ground and preach that something wrong.
There is so much violence and porn on the internet that a few plastic and/or metal boobs will not corrupt any kids/grown ups.

And as the media/movies still cast sexy males and females in unrealistic representations then a little titillation in a niche hobby will not be an issue IMHO.


Off course agree the quality of some of those casts can be criticized.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
What is all this about? Some female miniatures?
Really people, if you do not like them then do not use them. Simple.

I will keep this quote handy for every damn time you say IG are in a bad spot or something.

Because for myself at least, it's not that I dislike female models, I just consider them to be 'in a bad spot.'

Two different things:

Number 1 is a massive collection of models which the owner of has spent a small fortune on, collected and lovingly painted and themed their force only to have the developers and rules writers of the game said miniatures are for essentially invalidate them.

Number 2 is a single model. Or style of model. Anyone has the choice to buy it or not. Anyone has the choice to look at it or not.

See the difference? One is the screwing over of a massive collection that a person has spent years and vast amounts collecting, the other is a miniature that one can choose to own and/or look at or not.

They are not immune to criticism just because they are liked.

....maybe you quoted the wrong post, I'm not seeing how your statement follows in any way from what you quoted

 Rainyday wrote:
I believe there's room for both "cheesecake" and realistic figures, but only if you have the choice. One problem is, though there may be options out there (like the oft-mentioned Victoria miniatures), your average casual player won't see them. All the conversion bits and counts-as in the world won't help if someone walking into the game store to learn about the game doesn't have such an option. In fact, for most games, you'd be hard-pressed to find any female fighters at all, aside from maybe a token all-female unit or a boobplate-sporting leader, and GW is one of the worst offenders.

Actually, I think if anyone walks into a standard gaming shop (especially a GW shop since they discourage using non-GW products) they wouldn't see any of the alternative cheese cake models from these other companies. I personally have never seen an alternative party figure outside of a private collection or garage game. Most don't actually make it to a public gaming store. So your pretty much stuck seeing the basic gaming lines and the models that they come with. Yes they are for sale, yes people buy them, some people may actually buy a lot of them, but how many actually make it into forces that get brought to a public place?


I'd also like to take a moment to bitch slap whomever first said this (I noticed the poster was quoting someone else, but failed to say who said the following, so this isn't against the dakka member)

More naked figures are seen as little more than teenage masturbatory items and make painters / modeller/ players who use them will see any female person as little more than an object because of this. In the words of probably the most visible feminist of recent times who spoke at the UN

" The more you think you aren't affected. The more you are actually affected"

The naked form is beautiful and should be celebrated not hidden or shamed. Maybe, just maybe with greater exposure, better appreciation for what it represents, and above all remove the taboo factor of natures most natural state, then it wouldn't be an issue anywhere in the first place.

As an adult the tantalizing allure of alcohol completely disappeared once I actually had access to it. I probably have $200 dollars worth of liquor in my cabinet and that will probably last me a year given how often I actually make a drink. I can pretty much say the same thing about nudity.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
What is all this about? Some female miniatures?
Really people, if you do not like them then do not use them. Simple.

I will keep this quote handy for every damn time you say IG are in a bad spot or something.

Because for myself at least, it's not that I dislike female models, I just consider them to be 'in a bad spot.'

Two different things:

Number 1 is a massive collection of models which the owner of has spent a small fortune on, collected and lovingly painted and themed their force only to have the developers and rules writers of the game said miniatures are for essentially invalidate them.

Number 2 is a single model. Or style of model. Anyone has the choice to buy it or not. Anyone has the choice to look at it or not.

See the difference? One is the screwing over of a massive collection that a person has spent years and vast amounts collecting, the other is a miniature that one can choose to own and/or look at or not.

They are not immune to criticism just because they are liked.

....maybe you quoted the wrong post, I'm not seeing how your statement follows in any way from what you quoted

The problem is that she actually likely doesn't have as much a choice to look at them, or rather in this hobby, to be constantly bombarded by imagery of oversexualized females.

Do a thought experiment for me and in your mind replace every instance where you see a sexualized female miniature, or overly buff male miniature, with an image of a sexy effeminate male, or some other form of very uncomfortable sexual imagery. You can probably handle imagining it a few times, but now imagine it being absolutely everywhere. Imagine not being able to walk down the street, or go to your favorite internet forum without being bombarded with it. Imagine GW replacing all IG males with males in panties posed not like they were going to fight, but were readying themselves to be ravaged by the enemy, and that imagery is everywhere you go.

At that point, you don't have as much choice as you think. Likewise, you might try to say that she can just choose not to buy instead, but what if you love the hobby in the same way that you love playing IG? You certainly complain about losing your army to anti-consumer practices, so why don't you quit IG and quit GW games entirely? Why don't you?

And there is the issue. It's because if you thought about it, you don't have as much choice as you'd think. Or rather, the other choice would be to abandon something you love. In your case it's your Imperial Guard--oh sorry, I mean Astra Millitarum. In her case, and for other women gamers, its a choice between putting up with these depictions or abandoning a hobby they love.

It's one of the reasons why I took the time and money to commission decent female soldiers, and am actually taking the time to sculpt those female soldiers in such a way where I don't need to make it obvious and cliched that they're female. It's because I like choice. While I enjoy T&A as much as any other male, I don't need it in my life 24/7, I've got a variety of interests so I find it annoying that my most beloved hobby is so fixated on it. I can barely imagine what it's like to be a woman in this hobby having to deal with it.

 Vertrucio wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
What is all this about? Some female miniatures?
Really people, if you do not like them then do not use them. Simple.

I will keep this quote handy for every damn time you say IG are in a bad spot or something.

Because for myself at least, it's not that I dislike female models, I just consider them to be 'in a bad spot.'

Two different things:

Number 1 is a massive collection of models which the owner of has spent a small fortune on, collected and lovingly painted and themed their force only to have the developers and rules writers of the game said miniatures are for essentially invalidate them.

Number 2 is a single model. Or style of model. Anyone has the choice to buy it or not. Anyone has the choice to look at it or not.

See the difference? One is the screwing over of a massive collection that a person has spent years and vast amounts collecting, the other is a miniature that one can choose to own and/or look at or not.

They are not immune to criticism just because they are liked.

....maybe you quoted the wrong post, I'm not seeing how your statement follows in any way from what you quoted

The problem is that she actually likely doesn't have as much a choice to look at them, or rather in this hobby, to be constantly bombarded by imagery of oversexualized females.

Do a thought experiment for me and in your mind replace every instance where you see a sexualized female miniature, or overly buff male miniature, with an image of a sexy effeminate male, or some other form of very uncomfortable sexual imagery. You can probably handle imagining it a few times, but now imagine it being absolutely everywhere. Imagine not being able to walk down the street, or go to your favorite internet forum without being bombarded with it. Imagine GW replacing all IG males with males in panties posed not like they were going to fight, but were readying themselves to be ravaged by the enemy, and that imagery is everywhere you go.

At that point, you don't have as much choice as you think. Likewise, you might try to say that she can just choose not to buy instead, but what if you love the hobby in the same way that you love playing IG? You certainly complain about losing your army to anti-consumer practices, so why don't you quit IG and quit GW games entirely? Why don't you?

And there is the issue. It's because if you thought about it, you don't have as much choice as you'd think. Or rather, the other choice would be to abandon something you love. In your case it's your Imperial Guard--oh sorry, I mean Astra Millitarum. In her case, and for other women gamers, its a choice between putting up with these depictions or abandoning a hobby they love.

It's one of the reasons why I took the time and money to commission decent female soldiers, and am actually taking the time to sculpt those female soldiers in such a way where I don't need to make it obvious and cliched that they're female. It's because I like choice. While I enjoy T&A as much as any other male, I don't need it in my life 24/7, I've got a variety of interests so I find it annoying that my most beloved hobby is so fixated on it. I can barely imagine what it's like to be a woman in this hobby having to deal with it.

I'm not entirely sure why you're replying to my post?

Is this just a string of of "quote person but don't actually respond to what they've said and instead bring up something completely unrelated"? It sure feels like it... I reply to someone saying what they said doesn't follow from what they quoted.... then someone quotes me with a wall of text that has nothing to do with what I said.

It's a big thread, misquoting happens. But it also doesn't help to reply quote again with even less to add to the discussion.

If you do the easy math and look up 1-2 quotes, my statements make more sense, and I stand by them.

 Abanshee wrote:

Correcting muh spelling. God, your insufferable. I asked you guys a legitimate question. As, to why you guys were so upset about tits on a model. You avoided the question by calling me a troll and telling me to read the origin (which I have frigging slow). Stop avoiding the question and answer it.

You don't get to demand anything. Now go away.

 Vertrucio wrote:
It's one of the reasons why I took the time and money to commission decent female soldiers, and am actually taking the time to sculpt those female soldiers in such a way where I don't need to make it obvious and cliched that they're female. It's because I like choice. While I enjoy T&A as much as any other male, I don't need it in my life 24/7, I've got a variety of interests so I find it annoying that my most beloved hobby is so fixated on it. I can barely imagine what it's like to be a woman in this hobby having to deal with it.

That's good, actually. But I'm curious what you mean when you say the female soldiers wont be "obvious and cliched." What will be the difference? I'm assuming the most telling thing will probably be a slight size reduction (maybe a variation on armor plating) and the models will be sold in mixed units, no purely female / male packs.

 Vertrucio wrote:
It's a big thread, misquoting happens. But it also doesn't help to reply quote again with even less to add to the discussion.

If you do the easy math and look up 1-2 quotes, my statements make more sense, and I stand by them.

So who were you replying to? My previous post? Or someone else?

It's just when someone replies to me directly I usually like to try and reply, and if it's a misquote I try and correct so it doesn't cause confusion and/or people don't think I've said things I didn't.

 Vertrucio wrote:

It's one of the reasons why I took the time and money to commission decent female soldiers, and am actually taking the time to sculpt those female soldiers in such a way where I don't need to make it obvious and cliched that they're female. It's because I like choice. While I enjoy T&A as much as any other male, I don't need it in my life 24/7, I've got a variety of interests so I find it annoying that my most beloved hobby is so fixated on it. I can barely imagine what it's like to be a woman in this hobby having to deal with it.

That is all nice and interesting in an artwork, I will be interested to see how you will realize it in a miniatures form and manage to deliver something that looks like a female from a meter away.

Does it have to? Usually we do not design models to look specifically male from a meter away. A Marine looks male because he has much wider shoulders than hips, for instance, but from a meter away it's difficult to compare the ratio, and aside from that his massive armour is quite androgynous. Shouldn't we get rid of most of the armour plating so that it's obvious that it's male? It must be obviously male, otherwise you may as well collect a female army.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
....maybe you quoted the wrong post, I'm not seeing how your statement follows in any way from what you quoted

See this:

 Ashiraya wrote:
Does it have to? Usually we do not design models to look specifically male from a meter away. A Marine looks male because he has much wider shoulders than hips, for instance, but from a meter away it's difficult to compare the ratio, and aside from that his massive armour is quite androgynous. Shouldn't we get rid of most of the armour plating so that it's obvious that it's male? It must be obviously male, otherwise you may as well collect a female army.

Why yes, of course it does, the whole point of making female models if to have a representation of female characters in a setting, if they do not look like it then why bother, they may all be male for what it is worth (the default assumption for a combat environment).

And this is a thing discussed on many of the pages that have passed, if you want to make a representation of something, it must look like the thing you intent to represent under the conditions it is indented to be used.

A "realistically depicted" female warrior in 28-32mm scale is almost identical to the male one some differentiation must happen for the sculpt to look what it is supposed to represent, even Victoria's female guards have elements that are not "realistic depictions" of female warriors to differentiate them from the male counterparts and I am sure nobody has (or should have) anything bad to say about them.

I then put that default assumption into question. This is a hobby, not real life.

 Ashiraya wrote:
I then put that default assumption into question. This is a hobby, not real life.

It's a real-life hobby!

We should totally move away from the defacto all-male fighting forces since, as you point out, this is not real life. By that same token, models not being realistic shouldn't be that big of an issue, right?

I would love Games Workshop to make all Astra Militarum, Eldar, Dark Eldar, etc kits to be of mixed gender units. With the exception of Space Marines, Orks, Sisters, Tyranids, and Necrons which have lore or are genderless.

 Ashiraya wrote:
I then put that default assumption into question. This is a hobby, not real life.

I don't understand your point.

IRL it's difficult to tell male from female soldiers because the bulk of armour and equipment covers up the sexual dimorphism and secondary sex
characteristics. Unless you are pretty close to them.

However in a game, if you make all the soldiers look the same, they will be assumed to be men because historically, warfare is almost exclusively the province of men.

This means that if you want to include female soldier figures they need to be differentiated from the male soldier figures. This can be done by exaggerating various aspects of body form and pose without turning them into miniature porn dolls.

Statuesue Miniature's female resistance fighters do a good job of this.

All this isn't really a point at issue. The real question is to what degree the mass of female figures used in games should be made to look like porn dolls (the chainmail bikini, etc.) because some people like that.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The real question is to what degree the mass of female figures used in games should be made to look like porn dolls (the chainmail bikini, etc.) because some people like that.

As much the designers want them to look like porn dolls and people want to buy models that look like porn dolls. If there's an excess of them I think there's more benefit looking outwardly at society in general to find answers and solutions.

 Kilkrazy wrote:


I don't understand your point.

I assert that we shouldn't need to go in with the assumption that an androgynous soldier is male, because this is fiction, not real life.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


I don't understand your point.

I assert that we shouldn't need to go in with the assumption that an androgynous soldier is male, because this is fiction, not real life.

Shouldn't "need" to, but do for many rather obvious reasons.

Only a fraction of all CEOs are female, but when I hear 'CEO' I do not think 'male'.

What about when you look at pictures of CEOs?

If I see a picture of a CEO androgynous enough to leave the answer in doubt, I'll ask or make a guess.

Luckily CEOs rarely wear power armor.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Only a fraction of all CEOs are female, but when I hear 'CEO' I do not think 'male'.

The % of females is only part of the reason (and I believe the % of female CEO's is still significantly higher than the % of females in front line combat roles, especially when you consider it over a century or so to include the 2 world wars).

Like I said before, I think the important thing is to establish space for those indistinguishable models to be either gender, whether that's through fiction materials (so maybe you read a book about Stormcast Eternals that has a bunch of Stormcast who are women in it and they look the same as the rest of them) or through particular examples of the models (the stereotypical example here is the helmetless figures). Then when you have established that space, it's clear that all your generic armoured models could be men or women.

Of course, that requires you to not also build units of troops where all the soldiers appear to be male. For example, the Epirian Contractors unit would ruin our hypothetical other units by suggesting that all-male units are the default. This is pretty common in fantasy wargames I think? You have some units where you can't tell the gender of the soldiers because of their heavy armour, but they'll be alongside lightly-armoured (or lightly-clothed) troops where their gender is more apparent, and it suggests that all the armoured troops are men too.

It'd probably help to have more diverse concept drawings, too. If you establish through the drawings that, yeah, women who don't have ponytails exist in the setting, then that could help make models more credible.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Also don't female Tau Fire Warriors just look exactly the same as male Tau Fire Warriors? I thought it was only those weirdo fans that drew pictures of female Tau with big boobs and bums Aren't the actual female Tau very similar in appearance to male Tau?

The evidence is sparse, basically everything we have on Tau biology is from a few pages of Xenology which leaves room for some doubt. The only Tau we've ever seen shirtless are a few male ethereals who look like bodybuilder types. I will admit, the Tau line have gotten better lately. I'm pretty sure every model that came with bare head choices in the last release had a female head. However, even in the fluff 9/10 named characters are male (I can only recall Shadowsun and Torchstar, and Torchstar doesn't even have a unique model) and we have 0 female ethereals, even though they keep coming out with new sculpts.

 Jayden63 wrote:
Actually, I think if anyone walks into a standard gaming shop (especially a GW shop since they discourage using non-GW products) they wouldn't see any of the alternative cheese cake models from these other companies. I personally have never seen an alternative party figure outside of a private collection or garage game. Most don't actually make it to a public gaming store. So your pretty much stuck seeing the basic gaming lines and the models that they come with. Yes they are for sale, yes people buy them, some people may actually buy a lot of them, but how many actually make it into forces that get brought to a public place?

I think that's another facet of this issue, and I agree with you. Even in independent game stores, you're not likely to see anything outside of GW, PP, FFG, and maybe CB or Reaper depending on the local community, all of which have predominantly tame models, or at least, the ones that aren't are rarely sold in stores (When's the last time you saw SoB in an actual store?). For the most part, cheesecake models are not meant for gaming. Take Kingdom Death, for example. Kingdom Death has numerous suggestive female models, but you're probably never going to see them in a game store. Even if someone was to bring Monster, the Kingdom Death board game, into a game store and play, the most risque thing you'd see are the loincloth-clad starting survivors (and I'd argue none of them are particularly gratuitous). The KD pin-up models and their more controversial monsters that people like to pick at, don't have a use or a place in the game, and as delicate resin figures, they're unlikely to see play on a tabletop. In comparison, something like Prodos's Space Crusade (in its initial form) is much more noticeable, since, as an ostensibly self-contained board game, those models are intended to see play, rather than simply being collectors pieces.

 Ashiraya wrote:
I then put that default assumption into question. This is a hobby, not real life.

Personally, I want miniatures to have recognizable features from a foot away. From a meter away, they might as well be tokens for all the detail I can see. But, as I care about modeling and fluff instead of the gaming aspect, I am doing it wrong.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

This means that if you want to include female soldier figures they need to be differentiated from the male soldier figures.

Only in very small ways, more feminine faces etc if at all, after all details like that would be very noticeable to someone who is painting the specific models so they will know that it is feminine and that is largely all that matters. I simply don't understand why people would want female miniatures to be differentiated largely by their breast size, except for the usual reasons of course.

No one would expect to see women in Historical games (except in very specific instances) but why would that be the case in Sci Fi games? Many such games explicitly state in their fluff that women are combatants and have miniature ranges to match.