hands_miranda wrote:


Here's a guy's art for redesigned sisters in a non-sexualized way :
http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k156/Terrible_Trygon/Sisters%20of%20Battle/BattleSisterDesign.jpg" border="0" />


Note how some level of femininity has been kept without actually sexualizing the figure. It's certainly possible to do so, it's just that due to how screwed up nerd and mini culture is, it isn't the more obvious choice.

If SoB actually looked like that I'd own an army.

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
No, there's no need to stop the airplane stories. Some of us like both airplanes and trains. But the airplane fans have to make room for train stories (not get rid of their airplane stories, mind you, or stop writing them) in the library.

So I have to ask, I think it is the most important question, what do you mean exactly by "making room"?

hands_miranda wrote:

And yeah, liking and collecting a bunch of sexualized female figs is treating women with disrespect. You shouldn't be objectifying people, especially those you have a relative power advantage over. It's the same reason why collecting a bunch of racially stereotyped means you aren't treating those racial groups with respect. For example, the infamous Curteys Han Chinese figures with their overblown racialized look.

How is having an object, or symbol, active disrespect to half the population?

What you may mean is that liking such things may show a tendency towards objectification, but models aren't people. It's always going to offend intelligent people when you tell them that what they like to look at means they a bad person.

You have two sides in this debate. One side is convinced that a cigar is nothing more than cigar. Another is convinced that every cigar everywhere is a representation of some horrible dark secret.

Guess what? You both are wrong.

Some guys like cheesecake models because they hate women. Some hate women in small part because they've seen too much cheesecake. Some guys and girls like cheesecake because they can separate how they treat people from what they like to look at.

If you remove sexy minis, does the world improve? Probably not. Maybe a tiny, tiny bit. Does it get less fun? Absolutely.

 lucasbuffalo wrote:
If SoB actually looked like that I'd own an army.

You must currently play Dark Angels.

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:

 Varrick wrote:

What hostilities? If we are talking about the feminist frequency nonsense, well most gaming communities rose up and called her a hero after the youtube and 4chan trolling. Personally i think shes a professional victim with the way she rode the youtube comments to massive backing, but the point stands that when pressed to confront sexism in gaming "communities"(youtube is not a gaming community nor is it one singular community) they didn't behave like the worst scum of the internet. Youtube did, 4chan did, but most gaming sites did not.

Yes, the Feminist Frequency "nonsense." Yes, online a lot of people did rise to her defense. And that was grand. But I'm not really sure what you're saying here. Are you implying that she had no reason to complain in the first place? Or that women in general are just making it up when we complain about harassment within game cultures?

No, im saying FF played victim to gaming press and made YouTube trolling into more than it actually was. The issue i took was that the feminist frequency controversy was grounded in the idea that gamers themselves are sexist, and gaming media ran with it. But what part do you think im saying the complaints are worthless in? Well i think her complaints about the YouTube comments are worthless & disingenuous. Mainly because they were used to slander gaming communities in press from the escapist to the Huntington post, all because someone on YouTube decided to take YouTube comments as a personal attack instead of trolling. Not to say its wrong to make such comments, but its just as bad to handle them the way she did.
Do i think it worthless to complain about threats? no, provided we are talking about legitimate threats on your life. Not YouTube trolls by some idiot with bad humor.
Do i think women cant complain about representation in media? no, but the way sarkeesian is doing it was just preaching to her audience, instead of trying to change anything.
The harassment exists, but not anywhere near to the extent some people think it is.

I would appreciate you not acting like im some woman-hating monster, i spend enough time browsing YouTube comments to know where "you think women are making it up" goes.

 Manchu wrote:

 lucasbuffalo wrote:
If SoB actually looked like that I'd own an army.

You must currently play Dark Angels.

I play everything BUT SoB actually, due to their absurd prices and ugly sculpts.

Obviously the model isn't perfect, but it does look pretty sweet to me! Mostly in the hair

Also, I am admittedly a sucker for home-made models. Anything amateur is just amplified in awesome to me as it's more artists getting out there and showing off their creative ability

 Manchu wrote:

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
I couldn't say other than that some (not all!) guys I've encountered seem threatened, almost.

I quite agree and I encourage you to very carefully consider why that might be. Hostility is often met with hostility. You are presenting these "feminist" critiques as (1) correct and (2) friendly. But they are actually hostile and rather presumptuous.

Who are 'these feminists?', isn't any woman with a passing interest in gaming or painting models involved here? Not just the vocal minority. Of course you'll encounter the angry and vitriolic among them and of course they'll be the loudest voices.. That's pretty much any viewpoint anywhere at any time.

 Manchu wrote:

They seek to change something only for the sake of accommodating something outside of it. This all sounds unseemly when we dress it up as gender wars. Let's take some of the charge out of it by using an example: Let's say I write stories about airplanes that some of my friends like to read. One of my other friends also wants to read them but says they need to be about trains because he doesn't like airplanes. Further, he notes that all of these airplane stories are part of a wider agenda to undermine rail travel. This is what I mean by hostile and presumptuous.

Your example is not an emotionally charged issue, the subject of the discussion is. Of course things come under pressure to change as society and it's expectations change around it. Women are becoming more and more involved in traditionally male fringe interests and as more become interested, of course they will apply their own wishes and desires on those interests. The hobby does not exist in a vacuum. I can assure you I get raised eyebrow and sigh from Mrs S when I open dakka and it's the Kingdom Death 'impregnation monster' or Brother Vinni's 'Ukrainian Slave Girl', but she's not some rabid hater at all and even bought me the CMON 'Army Brat' for a Valentine's present.

 Manchu wrote:

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
No, there's no need to stop the airplane stories. Some of us like both airplanes and trains. But the airplane fans have to make room for train stories (not get rid of their airplane stories, mind you, or stop writing them) in the library.

So I have to ask, I think it is the most important question, what do you mean exactly by "making room"?

Well I think "making room" would be not feeling so defensive when the train fans want some train stories. Realizing that these things are not mutually exclusive and that they can exist within the same realm happily. Maybe acknowledging that there is in fact, an issue with the exclusion of train stories to begin with.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Who are 'these feminists?'

They write for mags and blogs called things like "Bitch."

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Your example is not an emotionally charged issue, the subject of the discussion is.

Yes, and I think that charge tends to distract.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Brother Vinni's 'Ukrainian Slave Girl'

That model was all kinds of fethed up.

 Manchu wrote:

hands_miranda wrote:
The point of plurality is that you have to throw out the old ideas that were set up to hinder the equality of people.

No, that is not what plurality is about. Plurality is about disparate elements existing together without violent conflict.

Way to miss the point. You can't have a peaceful coexistent between groups without the realization by the oppressive group and restitution. This means men understanding how what we've done is hurtful to women and giving up that balance of the power to the wronged group. Yes, things do end up worse for us in the balance, because the whole thing is zero sum and we had too much control to begin with.

Men like wargaming. Men like boobs.

 lucasbuffalo wrote:
Just remember the important thing: Freedom of creative expression is unimportant in art when it hurts feelings.

Ugh, no one's saying people don't have a right to sexy nerd minis. What we're saying is that the hobby is skewed toward an over-representation of men. The implied school of though being that women aren't good enough to fight space daemons. Is it intentional? Probably not, but this is what resonates.

FFS I just want female guardsmen.

BTW, on the subject of the term "feminist." The level of ignorance over the word here is pretty strange. Many of you seem to think of feminists as "they" when in fact if you believe women deserve to vote and have equal rights as you under the law, you are in actuality *gasp* a feminist!

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
No, there's no need to stop the airplane stories. Some of us like both airplanes and trains. But the airplane fans have to make room for train stories (not get rid of their airplane stories, mind you, or stop writing them) in the library.

So I have to ask, I think it is the most important question, what do you mean exactly by "making room"?

Well I think "making room" would be not feeling so defensive when the train fans want some train stories. Realizing that these things are not mutually exclusive and that they can exist within the same realm happily. Maybe acknowledging that there is in fact, an issue with the exclusion of train stories to begin with.

I don't think anyone here has an issue with more "train stories" popping up. I for one, would be happy to throw money at a kickstarter with them (as I did for the last Train Story kickstarter). My problem is when those who enjoy "airplane stories" are told that they are morally corrupt bastards and should feel bad about it.

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
Well I think "making room" would be not feeling so defensive when the train fans want some train stories.

But remember the circumstances: I'm writing the airplane stories for my friends who like airplanes. Wouldn't you agree it's presumptuous for my friend who likes trains and not airplanes to insist that I abandon my supposed anti-rail agenda and start writing train stories? Perhaps neither I nor my firends who like the airplane stories are interested in trains stories. None of us are saying there's no room for trains. We're saying that we have no obligation to provide much less to in any degree stop enjoying our airplanes.

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
Realizing that these things are not mutually exclusive and that they can exist within the same realm happily.

Again, isn't it presumptuous to expect that I need to include trains in my airplane stories just because someone who doesn't care for airplanes likes trains?

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
Maybe acknowledging that there is in fact, an issue with the exclusion of train stories to begin with.

This "exclusion" is kind of a myth, though isn't it? I mean, couldn't the people who like trains maybe write about them themselves? Or, if they aren't great writers, couldn't they maybe do a Kickstarter to hire someone to write the stories they like? So this comes back to Buzzsaw's point about this being about grievance rather than substance. J.R.R. Tolkien once said that he wrote stories that he liked because no one else did. Can you imagine if he just wrote a blog critiquing the "anti-fantasy" tendancies of modern fiction. /yawn.

 Varrick wrote:

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:

 Varrick wrote:

What hostilities? If we are talking about the feminist frequency nonsense, well most gaming communities rose up and called her a hero after the youtube and 4chan trolling. Personally i think shes a professional victim with the way she rode the youtube comments to massive backing, but the point stands that when pressed to confront sexism in gaming "communities"(youtube is not a gaming community nor is it one singular community) they didn't behave like the worst scum of the internet. Youtube did, 4chan did, but most gaming sites did not.

Yes, the Feminist Frequency "nonsense." Yes, online a lot of people did rise to her defense. And that was grand. But I'm not really sure what you're saying here. Are you implying that she had no reason to complain in the first place? Or that women in general are just making it up when we complain about harassment within game cultures?

No, im saying FF played victim to gaming press and made YouTube trolling into more than it actually was. The issue i took was that the feminist frequency controversy was grounded in the idea that gamers themselves are sexist, and gaming media ran with it. But what part do you think im saying the complaints are worthless in? Well i think her complaints about the YouTube comments are worthless & disingenuous. Mainly because they were used to slander gaming communities in press from the escapist to the Huntington post, all because someone on YouTube decided to take YouTube comments as a personal attack instead of trolling. Not to say its wrong to make such comments, but its just as bad to handle them the way she did.
Do i think it worthless to complain about threats? no, provided we are talking about legitimate threats on your life. Not YouTube trolls by some idiot with bad humor.
Do i think women cant complain about representation in media? no, but the way sarkeesian is doing it was just preaching to her audience, instead of trying to change anything.
The harassment exists, but not anywhere near to the extent some people think it is.

I would appreciate you not acting like im some woman-hating monster, i spend enough time browsing YouTube comments to know where "you think women are making it up" goes.

You're talking about a game that made rape a joke. She and every women out there is the victim of that trivialization. Hell, men are hurt by it to, since it helps create the false narrative that they have to be a predator to get anywhere. Telling someone off for making that kind of game is no different than shaming a minstrel show out of existence for being racist.

 lucasbuffalo wrote:

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
No, there's no need to stop the airplane stories. Some of us like both airplanes and trains. But the airplane fans have to make room for train stories (not get rid of their airplane stories, mind you, or stop writing them) in the library.

So I have to ask, I think it is the most important question, what do you mean exactly by "making room"?

Well I think "making room" would be not feeling so defensive when the train fans want some train stories. Realizing that these things are not mutually exclusive and that they can exist within the same realm happily. Maybe acknowledging that there is in fact, an issue with the exclusion of train stories to begin with.

I don't think anyone here has an issue with more "train stories" popping up. I for one, would be happy to throw money at a kickstarter with them (as I did for the last Train Story kickstarter). My problem is when those who enjoy "airplane stories" are told that they are morally corrupt bastards and should feel bad about it.

Well yeah. I'm not advocating being so hostile, but it would be a good thing for the airplane people to maybe acknowledge that some of them have been massive pricks.

 Las wrote:
FFS I just want female guardsmen.

If realistically proportioned female IG would be virtually identical to male ones then ... you already have them! At most, you could just get some conversion heads, right?

 Manchu wrote:

 Las wrote:
FFS I just want female guardsmen.

If realistically proportioned female IG would be virtually identical to male ones then ... you already have them! At most, you could just get some conversion heads, right?

Point being that there's no reason I should have to search for extra heads. What if I want to play in GW sanctioned tourneys? Why can't GW themselves provide this?

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
I'm not advocating being so hostile,

Thanks for that -- I really do appreciate it because that is the issue. When you come in swinging, you're going to catch some back. Unfortunately, there's also this:

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
but it would be a good thing for the airplane people to maybe acknowledge that some of them have been massive pricks.

I mean, even putting aside the issue of hostility here, what would that even solve? Some kind of vindication? Because it's not getting the train fan any closer to train stories. At that point, it's not at all about planes and trains anymore. And that's exactly why the hostility ramps up and up. It's really an offensive position.

hands_miranda wrote:

And yeah, liking and collecting a bunch of sexualized female figs is treating women with disrespect.

Please tell me which female models are sexualized and which ones are modestly dressed. Please tell me what I can purchase, paint, and use in an army so that I'm not treating women with disrespect.

Could you make a checklist or something? I don't want my hobby to infringe upon the delicate sensibilities of others.

Oh, right. never mind. That's complete bs. This is just another "If your hobby doesn't match my sensibilities/ideals/beliefs, then you're not only hobbying wrong, but you're a bad person." arguments.

No thanks.

Your argument holds exactly as much water as "If you play orks, then you're racist against eskimos."

 Las wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Las wrote:
FFS I just want female guardsmen.

If realistically proportioned female IG would be virtually identical to male ones then ... you already have them! At most, you could just get some conversion heads, right?

Point being that there's no reason I should have to search for extra heads. What if I want to play in GW sanctioned tourneys? Why can't GW themselves provide this?

You want to take it up with the High Lords of Terra. They're bang out of order.

 Las wrote:
Point being that there's no reason I should have to search for extra heads. What if I want to play in GW sanctioned tourneys? Why can't GW themselves provide this?

Well, first off, I think you could play in GW-sanctioned tournies if all you replaced was a model's head. As to why GW has no obligation to provide you with the models you personally would prefer -- well, because their obligation is to sell to as many folks as possible rather than to some subset of that population. It's not some massive anti-woman conspiracy. It's the same reason GW doesn't provide me with the Savlar Chem Dogs I so desperately want to collect.

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
No, there's no need to stop the airplane stories. Some of us like both airplanes and trains. But the airplane fans have to make room for train stories (not get rid of their airplane stories, mind you, or stop writing them) in the library.

So I have to ask, I think it is the most important question, what do you mean exactly by "making room"?

Well I think "making room" would be not feeling so defensive when the train fans want some train stories. Realizing that these things are not mutually exclusive and that they can exist within the same realm happily. Maybe acknowledging that there is in fact, an issue with the exclusion of train stories to begin with.

The problem is, we're simply not, at the level of an international community, where you seem to think we are. To quote something I posted earlier in the thread;

 Buzzsaw wrote:
...

This is not meant as an attack: Why don't you do something about it?

I'm not being facetious: you obviously have a very specific idea of what you would like, so why don't you do what Adam Poots did. Poots isn't an artist, he's a creator, he hires a concept artist (most famously Lokman Lam), and then hires talented sculptors like Jon Troy Nickel to translate the 2D work into 3D.

All Adam has is the vision and the will to bring these things together: his artists are on one side of the world, his casting houses on the other. If you are truly dissatisfied with what exists, and you believe there is a desire for these miniatures out there, why not follow his example? Get some ideas sketched out, take your proposal to the people, to kickstarter!

This isn't japery: I've often considered a similar scheme (with different focus), I just don't have such a coherent issue, as I'm satiated by the things that are coming to market right now. You don't appear to be.

What's the worst that can happen? You only end up like JunkRobot? A little company making the miniatures they really want to make?

We're not at the point of having to stop making one thing to get another: thanks to plunging prices of production, digital design and the ease of international manufacturing, if you have an idea, the costs to bring it to market are tiny compared to what they once were. The costs to set up a kickstarter and a fledgling business are probably less then most Dakka posters have spent on models.

We've seen the results: companies that are trying to produce respectful female minis make six-figures on kickstarter. The limitations now aren't "who can do it", it's "who has a vision".

 Davylove21 wrote:

 Las wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Las wrote:
FFS I just want female guardsmen.

If realistically proportioned female IG would be virtually identical to male ones then ... you already have them! At most, you could just get some conversion heads, right?

Point being that there's no reason I should have to search for extra heads. What if I want to play in GW sanctioned tourneys? Why can't GW themselves provide this?

You want to take it up with the High Lords of Terra. They're bang out of order.

http://gauntsghostspedia.wikia.com/wiki/Tona_Criid

 Manchu wrote:

 Las wrote:
Point being that there's no reason I should have to search for extra heads. What if I want to play in GW sanctioned tourneys? Why can't GW themselves provide this?

Well, first off, I think you could play in GW-sanctioned tournies if all you replaced was a model's head. As to why GW has no obligation to provide you with the models you personally would prefer -- well, because they're obligation is to sell to as many folks as possible rather than to some subset of that population. It's not some massive anti-woman conspiracy. It's the same reason GW doesn't provide me with the Savlar Chem Dogs I so desperately want to collect.

I'm not saying its a conspiracy, man. I just want their line to more coincide with the lore, whats so hard to understand about that? There's no reason to be so defensive and take things to massive extremes.

 Manchu wrote:

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
But I think it's not a bad idea to discuss the issues of hostility towards 'feminism' within gaming culture in a more broad sense.

So what do you think causes this hostility?

The self entitlement some of these feminists have even though men and women are pretty equal in today's western society; they think they can go into a male dominated hobby and expect sensorship just because they find things that men like offensive. Sure it would be nice to have games for women and a female gaming community, but instead of building a female gaming community and showing the games companies that they would like more inclusion in the industry, many 'feminists' decide to bash on the games intended for men, which results in them getting no sympathy or support and hostility from the gaming community.

[Note] I put feminism in quotation marks because modern day feminism is not about equality between women and men, it's about self entitlement and greed.

 Manchu wrote:

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
Well I think "making room" would be not feeling so defensive when the train fans want some train stories.

But remember the circumstances: I'm writing the airplane stories for my friends who like airplanes. Wouldn't you agree it's presumptuous for my friend who likes trains and not airplanes to insist that I abandon my supposed anti-rail agenda and start writing train stories? Perhaps neither I nor my firends who like the airplane stories are interested in trains stories. None of us are saying there's no room for trains. We're saying that we have no obligation to provide much less to in any degree stop enjoying our airplanes.

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
Realizing that these things are not mutually exclusive and that they can exist within the same realm happily.

Again, isn't it presumptuous to expect that I need to include trains in my airplane stories just because someone who doesn't care for airplanes likes trains?

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
Maybe acknowledging that there is in fact, an issue with the exclusion of train stories to begin with.

This "exclusion" is kind of a myth, though isn't it? I mean, couldn't the people who like trains maybe write about them themselves? Or, if they aren't great writers, couldn't they maybe do a Kickstarter to hire someone to write the stories they like? So this comes back to Buzzsaw's point about this being about grievance rather than substance. J.R.R. Tolkien once said that he wrote stories that he liked because no one else did. Can you imagine if he just wrote a blog critiquing the "anti-fantasy" tendancies of modern fiction. /yawn.

I think our airplanes and trains thing is starting to break down a little for me. Here's what it comes down to for a lot of women. They want to get involved in a gaming/nerdy hobby. But they have a look and see it dominated by tropes, images, and participants that make a lot of us cringe. This includes big-boob panty ninjas, rape jokes, and entirely one dimensional representations of female characters. I don't think the solution is to say to those women "Well, go make your own game/comic/mini, these are ours." I think a better approach would be "This is an awesome hobby and we want you to feel welcome in it too, so we'll make it less weird for you by adding things that appeal to you, but we're still going to keep our big-boob panty ninjas."

I, and a lot of other women would say "Cool. Just drop the rape jokes and ask some of your guys to stop telling us to show our tits."

This is just my opinion. Your milage may vary.

 lucasbuffalo wrote:

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
No, there's no need to stop the airplane stories. Some of us like both airplanes and trains. But the airplane fans have to make room for train stories (not get rid of their airplane stories, mind you, or stop writing them) in the library.

So I have to ask, I think it is the most important question, what do you mean exactly by "making room"?

Well I think "making room" would be not feeling so defensive when the train fans want some train stories. Realizing that these things are not mutually exclusive and that they can exist within the same realm happily. Maybe acknowledging that there is in fact, an issue with the exclusion of train stories to begin with.

I don't think anyone here has an issue with more "train stories" popping up. I for one, would be happy to throw money at a kickstarter with them (as I did for the last Train Story kickstarter). My problem is when those who enjoy "airplane stories" are told that they are morally corrupt bastards and should feel bad about it.

Considering that the "airplane stories" don't exist in a vacuum but instead actively help make "airplane victimization" more common and less punished? Yeah, I'd suggest that it creates a problem.

Also, the train vs. airplane analogy doesn't work because those are actual objects and thus you don't need to worry about a power differential between them. Men and women have a power differential between them that is seen in the way women are treated economically, socially, and legally. This is the same story as every other disadvantaged group, the difference being that there are enough women out there to actually create a meaningful and effective opposition. Which is why to some level feminism has had a bunch more success than say racial or sexual identity civil rights.

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:


I think our airplanes and trains thing is starting to break down a little for me. Here's what it comes down to for a lot of women. They want to get involved in a gaming/nerdy hobby. But they have a look and see it dominated by tropes, images, and participants that make a lot of us cringe. This includes big-boob panty ninjas, rape jokes, and entirely one dimensional representations of female characters. I don't think the solution is to say to those women "Well, go make your own game/comic/mini, these are ours." I think a better approach would be "This is an awesome hobby and we want you to feel welcome in it too, so we'll make it less weird for you by adding things that appeal to you, but we're still going to keep our big-boob panty ninjas."

I, and a lot of other women would say "Cool. Just drop the rape jokes and ask some of your guys to stop telling us to show our tits."

This is just my opinion. Your milage may vary.

This is an excellent post.

 MetalOxide wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
But I think it's not a bad idea to discuss the issues of hostility towards feminism within gaming culture in a more broad sense.

So what do you think causes this hostility?

The self entitlement some of these feminists have even though men and women are pretty equal in today's western society; they think they can go into a male dominated hobby and expect sensorship just because they find things that men like offensive. Sure it would be nice to have games for women and a female gaming community, but instead of building a female gaming community and showing the games companies that they would like more inclusion in the industry, many feminists decide to bash on the games intended for men, which results in them getting no sympathy or support and hostility from the gaming community.

But let me ask you - why is it male dominated? Is it ok that it's male dominated? Why shouldn't women feel welcome in exploring a new hobby? I don't think I'm alone in saying that I don't want a separate "women's gaming community" or "women's games."

 Las wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Las wrote:
Point being that there's no reason I should have to search for extra heads. What if I want to play in GW sanctioned tourneys? Why can't GW themselves provide this?

Well, first off, I think you could play in GW-sanctioned tournies if all you replaced was a model's head. As to why GW has no obligation to provide you with the models you personally would prefer -- well, because they're obligation is to sell to as many folks as possible rather than to some subset of that population. It's not some massive anti-woman conspiracy. It's the same reason GW doesn't provide me with the Savlar Chem Dogs I so desperately want to collect.

I'm not saying its a conspiracy, man. I just want their line to more coincide with the lore, whats so hard to understand about that? There's no reason to be so defensive and take things to massive extremes.

Take things to massive extremes? That seems ... a bit extreme itself, honestly. I wasn't taking anything to a massive extreme nor was I being defensive. I just don't think it's mysterious why GW sells mostly male sculpts. I think it's for the exact same reason that they only offer a very few of the many regiments that make up the Guard. I mean, if it was true to the lore as you say then the IG line would easily be the most diverse and require the most models of any of the 40k armies.

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:

 MetalOxide wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
But I think it's not a bad idea to discuss the issues of hostility towards feminism within gaming culture in a more broad sense.

So what do you think causes this hostility?

The self entitlement some of these feminists have even though men and women are pretty equal in today's western society; they think they can go into a male dominated hobby and expect sensorship just because they find things that men like offensive. Sure it would be nice to have games for women and a female gaming community, but instead of building a female gaming community and showing the games companies that they would like more inclusion in the industry, many feminists decide to bash on the games intended for men, which results in them getting no sympathy or support and hostility from the gaming community.

But let me ask you - why is it male dominated? Is it ok that it's male dominated? Why shouldn't women feel welcome in exploring a new hobby? I don't think I'm alone in saying that I don't want a separate "women's gaming community" or "women's games."

They are welcome to "explore" a new hobby, and just like anyone else, they might find things they don't like which keep them from partaking in that hobby

 MetalOxide wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
But I think it's not a bad idea to discuss the issues of hostility towards feminism within gaming culture in a more broad sense.

So what do you think causes this hostility?

The self entitlement some of these feminists have even though men and women are pretty equal in today's western society; they think they can go into a male dominated hobby and expect sensorship just because they find things that men like offensive. Sure it would be nice to have games for women and a female gaming community, but instead of building a female gaming community and showing the games companies that they would like more inclusion in the industry, many feminists decide to bash on the games intended for men, which results in them getting no sympathy or support and hostility from the gaming community.

Part of the equality is being able to point to something and say 'that is no longer appropriate'. That's a part of the newfound freedoms of women, ethnic minorities and so on, they get to look at something and deem it not acceptable, it's part of why GW don't put their pygmies on sale any more.

hands_miranda wrote:

 Varrick wrote:

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:

 Varrick wrote:

What hostilities? If we are talking about the feminist frequency nonsense, well most gaming communities rose up and called her a hero after the youtube and 4chan trolling. Personally i think shes a professional victim with the way she rode the youtube comments to massive backing, but the point stands that when pressed to confront sexism in gaming "communities"(youtube is not a gaming community nor is it one singular community) they didn't behave like the worst scum of the internet. Youtube did, 4chan did, but most gaming sites did not.

Yes, the Feminist Frequency "nonsense." Yes, online a lot of people did rise to her defense. And that was grand. But I'm not really sure what you're saying here. Are you implying that she had no reason to complain in the first place? Or that women in general are just making it up when we complain about harassment within game cultures?

No, im saying FF played victim to gaming press and made YouTube trolling into more than it actually was. The issue i took was that the feminist frequency controversy was grounded in the idea that gamers themselves are sexist, and gaming media ran with it. But what part do you think im saying the complaints are worthless in? Well i think her complaints about the YouTube comments are worthless & disingenuous. Mainly because they were used to slander gaming communities in press from the escapist to the Huntington post, all because someone on YouTube decided to take YouTube comments as a personal attack instead of trolling. Not to say its wrong to make such comments, but its just as bad to handle them the way she did.
Do i think it worthless to complain about threats? no, provided we are talking about legitimate threats on your life. Not YouTube trolls by some idiot with bad humor.
Do i think women cant complain about representation in media? no, but the way sarkeesian is doing it was just preaching to her audience, instead of trying to change anything.
The harassment exists, but not anywhere near to the extent some people think it is.

I would appreciate you not acting like im some woman-hating monster, i spend enough time browsing YouTube comments to know where "you think women are making it up" goes.

You're talking about a game that made rape a joke. She and every women out there is the victim of that trivialization. Hell, men are hurt by it to, since it helps create the false narrative that they have to be a predator to get anywhere. Telling someone off for making that kind of game is no different than shaming a minstrel show out of existence for being racist.

You're talking to someone that thinks nothing is off limits in comedy. Not to say YouTube comments are comedy to anyone but the poster. But this wasnt telling off you tube commentators, it was telling off gamers for what YouTube commentators said.

 MetalOxide wrote:

The self entitlement some of these feminists have even though men and women are pretty equal in today's western society; they think they can go into a male dominated hobby and expect sensorship just because they find things that men like offensive. Sure it would be nice to have games for women and a female gaming community, but instead of building a female gaming community and showing the games companies that they would like more inclusion in the industry, many feminists decide to bash on the games intended for men, which results in them getting no sympathy or support and hostility from the gaming community.

No one's bashing on the games, it's quite clear from the women in this thread that they have a real love and passion for the hobby. The issue is that they feel like outsiders and instead of looking for ways to alleviate this problem, your insecurities are driving you to ignore the way they feel and dismiss it as intrusion into something that isn't really yours to govern. We should be looking to make the gaming community as awesome as possible and personally I think having more women in the hobby would be wicked. Unless you're some dork with a fear of females I don't see what the problem is. No one says you have to get rid of your mini porn, just recognize the viewpoints of others, regardless of gender.

 Manchu wrote:

 Las wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Las wrote:
Point being that there's no reason I should have to search for extra heads. What if I want to play in GW sanctioned tourneys? Why can't GW themselves provide this?

Well, first off, I think you could play in GW-sanctioned tournies if all you replaced was a model's head. As to why GW has no obligation to provide you with the models you personally would prefer -- well, because they're obligation is to sell to as many folks as possible rather than to some subset of that population. It's not some massive anti-woman conspiracy. It's the same reason GW doesn't provide me with the Savlar Chem Dogs I so desperately want to collect.

I'm not saying its a conspiracy, man. I just want their line to more coincide with the lore, whats so hard to understand about that? There's no reason to be so defensive and take things to massive extremes.

Take things to massive extremes? That seems ... a bit extreme itself, honestly. I wasn't taking anything to a massive extreme nor was I being defensive. I just don't think it's mysterious why GW sells mostly male sculpts. I think it's for the exact same reason that they only offer a very few of the many regiments that make up the Guard. I mean, if it was true to the lore as you say then the IG line would easily be the most diverse and require the most models of any of the 40k armies.

Insinuating that I think there's 'anti-woman conspiracy' is pretty extreme. Most guard books I've read have included female characters. It's not that wild to include a head or two.

 lucasbuffalo wrote:


They are welcome to "explore" a new hobby, and just like anyone else, they might find things they don't like which keep them from partaking in that hobby

The issue is that there is literally zero reason as to why this misrepresentation needs to continue.

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
...

I think our airplanes and trains thing is starting to break down a little for me. Here's what it comes down to for a lot of women. They want to get involved in a gaming/nerdy hobby. But they have a look and see it dominated by tropes, images, and participants that make a lot of us cringe. This includes big-boob panty ninjas, rape jokes, and entirely one dimensional representations of female characters. I don't think the solution is to say to those women "Well, go make your own game/comic/mini, these are ours." I think a better approach would be "This is an awesome hobby and we want you to feel welcome in it too, so we'll make it less weird for you by adding things that appeal to you, but we're still going to keep our big-boob panty ninjas."

I, and a lot of other women would say "Cool. Just drop the rape jokes and ask some of your guys to stop telling us to show our tits."

This is just my opinion. Your milage may vary.

The problem here is that (and this echoes your earlier point), you're asking people to exercise control over people that... we don't know. That we don't associate with. To rebuke behavior that we would already rebuke.

This is the element of grievance I mentioned earlier: the things said to you by uncouth people were said because they are uncouth people.

When I say people who find fault with the existing models should make their own, it's because the best things come from people following their vision, exploring their gifts and passions. Miniatures sculpted by committee, or to satisfy some vaguely defined market segment will always disappoint. Miniatures, like those in KD, that are made by passionate people following their passion, become art.

And we could all do with more art.

 MetalOxide wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
But I think it's not a bad idea to discuss the issues of hostility towards feminism within gaming culture in a more broad sense.

So what do you think causes this hostility?

The self entitlement some of these feminists have even though men and women are pretty equal in today's western society; they think they can go into a male dominated hobby and expect sensorship just because they find things that men like offensive. Sure it would be nice to have games for women and a female gaming community, but instead of building a female gaming community and showing the games companies that they would like more inclusion in the industry, many feminists decide to bash on the games intended for men, which results in them getting no sympathy or support and hostility from the gaming community.

Listen to yourself for a second. A women coming in and breaking up the old boy's club is the definition of what happens when male privilege starts to be broken up. It's a good thing, not a bad one. Men don't get to have their objectified metal women to place on the shelf and "safe space" to tell rape jokes any more racists get to have a "safe space" to tell their racist jokes and enjoy Birth of a Nation. Sorry it hurts your ego so much to have to actually treat the women you deal with on a daily basis as equals and not the flesh versions of your cheesecake art and figures. I will tell you once you get used to it and embrace it the benefits are huge-- more meaningful relationships with women (I mean this in a non-sexual way; it most helps in a professional setting TBQH) and more personal respect for yourself once you get out of a position where you have to rip somebody down to build yourself up.

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
Here's what it comes down to for a lot of women. They want to get involved in a gaming/nerdy hobby. But they have a look and see it dominated by tropes, images, and participants that make a lot of us cringe. [...] I think a better approach would be [for men to say] "This is an awesome hobby and we want you to feel welcome in it too, so we'll make it less weird for you by adding things that appeal to you, but we're still going to keep our big-boob panty ninjas."

It is always ideal for you that other people accommodate you. But this isn't ideal for them. If you have an interest in a hobby, but you find that you actually don't like much about it, then it's probably just not for you. If you really like it, you could attempt to change it up a bit so that you liked it even more. But demanding that everyone change what they like because you might be interested if all those changes are made ... well, that's rather absurd.

As for all this panty ninja business and this

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
I, and a lot of other women would say "Cool. Just drop the rape jokes and ask some of your guys to stop telling us to show our tits."

Are we still talking about war gaming? I think you're talking about 4chan instead. If all you want is not to be sexually harassed, well, good news you'll enjoy war gaming as things already are. People who think a certain sculpt constitutes sexual harassment and want to label any one who disagrees as a pervert chauvinist, however, might not fit in and I really disagree that "room should be made."

 Varrick wrote:

hands_miranda wrote:

 Varrick wrote:

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:

 Varrick wrote:

What hostilities? If we are talking about the feminist frequency nonsense, well most gaming communities rose up and called her a hero after the youtube and 4chan trolling. Personally i think shes a professional victim with the way she rode the youtube comments to massive backing, but the point stands that when pressed to confront sexism in gaming "communities"(youtube is not a gaming community nor is it one singular community) they didn't behave like the worst scum of the internet. Youtube did, 4chan did, but most gaming sites did not.

Yes, the Feminist Frequency "nonsense." Yes, online a lot of people did rise to her defense. And that was grand. But I'm not really sure what you're saying here. Are you implying that she had no reason to complain in the first place? Or that women in general are just making it up when we complain about harassment within game cultures?

No, im saying FF played victim to gaming press and made YouTube trolling into more than it actually was. The issue i took was that the feminist frequency controversy was grounded in the idea that gamers themselves are sexist, and gaming media ran with it. But what part do you think im saying the complaints are worthless in? Well i think her complaints about the YouTube comments are worthless & disingenuous. Mainly because they were used to slander gaming communities in press from the escapist to the Huntington post, all because someone on YouTube decided to take YouTube comments as a personal attack instead of trolling. Not to say its wrong to make such comments, but its just as bad to handle them the way she did.
Do i think it worthless to complain about threats? no, provided we are talking about legitimate threats on your life. Not YouTube trolls by some idiot with bad humor.
Do i think women cant complain about representation in media? no, but the way sarkeesian is doing it was just preaching to her audience, instead of trying to change anything.
The harassment exists, but not anywhere near to the extent some people think it is.

I would appreciate you not acting like im some woman-hating monster, i spend enough time browsing YouTube comments to know where "you think women are making it up" goes.

You're talking about a game that made rape a joke. She and every women out there is the victim of that trivialization. Hell, men are hurt by it to, since it helps create the false narrative that they have to be a predator to get anywhere. Telling someone off for making that kind of game is no different than shaming a minstrel show out of existence for being racist.

You're talking to someone that thinks nothing is off limits in comedy. Not to say YouTube comments are comedy to anyone but the poster. But this wasnt telling off you tube commentators, it was telling off gamers for what YouTube commentators said.

As unappealing as those Youtube comments are, a lot of gamers mirror that. It's just a fact. There are reams of stories about the horrific ways that online gamers behave towards women (I've been subject to it myself) as well as platform gamers and probably (though to a lesser degree by far) tabletop gamers. There are a lot of misogynistic little pricks out there in games giving an extremely hard time to females who dare to venture into "male" hobbies.

 Las wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Las wrote:
FFS I just want female guardsmen.

If realistically proportioned female IG would be virtually identical to male ones then ... you already have them! At most, you could just get some conversion heads, right?

Point being that there's no reason I should have to search for extra heads. What if I want to play in GW sanctioned tourneys? Why can't GW themselves provide this?

But there's plenty of armies that have elements I don't like or even elements that should exist but don't, I don't see what's special about female IG models. I don't see it as some sexist agenda by GW to not include female IG models. They DO have mixed female/male models in many of the elven armies, they just haven't made any for guardsmen. They also dropped Squats, they also haven't updated the Wolf rider wolves for over 20 years, they also went without Fenrisian Wolf/Thunderwolf/Tervigon models for a long period after the Codices came out.

hands_miranda wrote:

Listen to yourself for a second. A women coming in and breaking up the old boy's club is the definition of what happens when male privilege starts to be broken up. It's a good thing, not a bad one. Men don't get to have their objectified metal women to place on the shelf and "safe space" to tell rape jokes any more racists get to have a "safe space" to tell their racist jokes and enjoy Birth of a Nation. Sorry it hurts your ego so much to have to actually treat the women you deal with on a daily basis as equals and not the flesh versions of your cheesecake art and figures. I will tell you once you get used to it and embrace it the benefits are huge-- more meaningful relationships with women (I mean this in a non-sexual way; it most helps in a professional setting TBQH) and more personal respect for yourself once you get out of a position where you have to rip somebody down to build yourself up.

People telling rape jokes at game stores are clearly in the wrong. Name them and shame them.

People using models that YOU think are sexist are not "treating women as flesh versions of cheesecake art and figures".

How the hell are you making that leap?

 Las wrote:
Insinuating that I think there's 'anti-woman conspiracy' is pretty extreme.

Sorry for the misattribution. I'm glad to hear you don't really think sexualized sculpts constitute an anti-woman agenda.

 Las wrote:

 lucasbuffalo wrote:


They are welcome to "explore" a new hobby, and just like anyone else, they might find things they don't like which keep them from partaking in that hobby

The issue is that there is literally zero reason as to why this misrepresentation needs to continue.

Other than it's what the artist chooses to make and what the owner chooses to sell?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kronk wrote:

hands_miranda wrote:

Listen to yourself for a second. A women coming in and breaking up the old boy's club is the definition of what happens when male privilege starts to be broken up. It's a good thing, not a bad one. Men don't get to have their objectified metal women to place on the shelf and "safe space" to tell rape jokes any more racists get to have a "safe space" to tell their racist jokes and enjoy Birth of a Nation. Sorry it hurts your ego so much to have to actually treat the women you deal with on a daily basis as equals and not the flesh versions of your cheesecake art and figures. I will tell you once you get used to it and embrace it the benefits are huge-- more meaningful relationships with women (I mean this in a non-sexual way; it most helps in a professional setting TBQH) and more personal respect for yourself once you get out of a position where you have to rip somebody down to build yourself up.

People telling rape jokes at game stores are clearly in the wrong. Name them and shame them.

People using models that YOU think are sexist are not "treating women as flesh versions of cheesecake art and figures".

How the hell are you making that leap?

^This exactly.

 Varrick wrote:
You're talking to someone that thinks nothing is off limits in comedy. Not to say YouTube comments are comedy to anyone but the poster. But this wasnt telling off you tube commentators, it was telling off gamers for what YouTube commentators said.

Considering gamers were the ones supporting the rape game through Kickstarter, I'd say it's appropriate. I'd also be a lot less worried about the "comedy" of the situation if it wasn't part of a narrative that is used to discredit victims of the certain crimes. Especially when these crimes have historically been unreported and unpunished.

 Buzzsaw wrote:

And we could all do with more art.

Sometimes a multiple breasted cock monster sticking it's winkle into multiple dead faced, massive breasted 'victim' women is just a multiple breasted cock monster sticking it's winkle into multiple dead faced, massive breasted 'victim' women...

Or would you paint it up and mount it (ahem) on the mantelpiece to show off to the neighbors, proclaiming it's worth as art?

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:

And we could all do with more art.

Sometimes a multiple breasted cock monster sticking it's winkle into multiple dead faced, massive breasted 'victim' women is just a multiple breasted cock monster sticking it's winkle into multiple dead faced, massive breasted 'victim' women...

Or would you paint it up and mount it (ahem) on the mantelpiece to show off to the neighbors, proclaiming it's worth as art?

I hate that stupid model. Very ugly. Not sure what the hell it's supposed to be used for...

Just to use GW as an example.

We have a universe where Space Marines, a faction that represents one of the rarest forms of Imperial Force is covered with 4 or 5 different books alone. This fact by itself should show that Male Models are more popular in terms of selling power.

You might see a change in kits having female and male components if we ever get a nice multi plastic Sisters of Battle release and it proves popular. There are so many other elements to be addressed model wise before then.

Until then, there is still the possibility of Sisters, but If you want to play an all female/mixed gender force relatively affordably there is the possibility to do this through the Eldar or Dark Eldar. They might not be human, but they are humanoid.

 Manchu wrote:

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
Here's what it comes down to for a lot of women. They want to get involved in a gaming/nerdy hobby. But they have a look and see it dominated by tropes, images, and participants that make a lot of us cringe. [...] I think a better approach would be [for men to say] "This is an awesome hobby and we want you to feel welcome in it too, so we'll make it less weird for you by adding things that appeal to you, but we're still going to keep our big-boob panty ninjas."

It is always ideal for you that other people accommodate you. But this isn't ideal for them. If you have an interest in a hobby, but you find that you actually don't like much about it, then it's probably just not for you. If you really like it, you could attempt to change it up a bit so that you liked it even more. But demanding that everyone change what they like because you might be interested is rather absurd.

As for all this panty ninja business and this

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
I, and a lot of other women would say "Cool. Just drop the rape jokes and ask some of your guys to stop telling us to show our tits."

Are we still talking about war gaming? I think you're talking about 4chan instead. If all you want is not to be sexually harassed, well, good news you'll enjoy mostly war gaming as things already are. People who think a certain sculpt constitutes sexual harassment and want to label any one who disagrees as a pervert chauvinist, however, might not fit in and I really disagree that "room should be made."

See that's the thing. I'm certainly not demanding that anyone "change what they like." Not at all. Is that even possible? The demands of lady gamers boils down to options. I want to play X game, but maybe not play a model with FF boobs and a 24inch waist who wears a loincloth. So give me options.

I'm talking about gaming in a more broad sense. Rape jokes are pretty common, bandied about by players towards women and men alike.

I have to say, I'm pretty baffled by this idea that "Wargaming/gaming is a hobby for men." I'm just finding that to be odd and a little off putting.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:

And we could all do with more art.

Sometimes a multiple breasted cock monster sticking it's winkle into multiple dead faced, massive breasted 'victim' women is just a multiple breasted cock monster sticking it's winkle into multiple dead faced, massive breasted 'victim' women...

Or would you paint it up and mount it (ahem) on the mantelpiece to show off to the neighbors, proclaiming it's worth as art?

I think I would put it right next to the Mapplethorps.

It's almost as if not everyone has identical views on art...

 lucasbuffalo wrote:

 Las wrote:

 lucasbuffalo wrote:


They are welcome to "explore" a new hobby, and just like anyone else, they might find things they don't like which keep them from partaking in that hobby

The issue is that there is literally zero reason as to why this misrepresentation needs to continue.

Other than it's what the artist chooses to make and what the owner chooses to sell?

So why is there so much resistance to the idea of more female representation in miniatures in this thread? We'd have female guardsmen if more gamers were open to having them in their armies, but obviously they aren't. Why do you think that is? And don't say "that's just how it is" because that isn't sufficient.

This thread is full of people whose knee-jerk reaction to female gamer opinion is thinking that their hobby is under attack. That speaks volumes.

 Buzzsaw wrote:

I, and a lot of other women would say "Cool. Just drop the rape jokes and ask some of your guys to stop telling us to show our tits."

The problem here is that (and this echoes your earlier point), you're asking people to exercise control over people that... we don't know. That we don't associate with. To rebuke behavior that we would already rebuke.

This is the element of grievance I mentioned earlier: the things said to you by uncouth people were said because they are uncouth people.

I think this is the heart of the matter. Nobody, or at least nobody I'd consider a decent person, thinks that sexually hostile behavior is appropriate. It's tough to rebuke in person, and it's impossible to rebuke remotely.

So, the anger gets transferred. Yes, the neck beard at the gaming store made you feel bad. That's no reason to expect everybody to hate on a miniature that you don't like.

I am sure it's obnoxiously difficult for women to deal with some pockets of wargaming. There are pockets of wargaming that even my buddy and I avoid because of their level of dickishness. But that's the problem, or least the big one. The cup size of a miniature is simply not the problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:

See that's the thing. I'm certainly not demanding that anyone "change what they like." Not at all. Is that even possible? The demands of lady gamers boils down to options. I want to play X game, but maybe not play a model with FF boobs and a 24inch waist who wears a loincloth. So give me options.

Show me a game where that isn't' an option.

At some point, you're demand for options is no different than mine. I would like many things in the gaming world.

Mrs. Stompa, do you really run into a lot of gamers making rape jokes at game stores? That's pretty messed up.

 Las wrote:
...
So why is there so much resistance to the idea of more female representation in miniatures in this thread? We'd have female guardsmen if more gamers were open to having them in their armies, but obviously they aren't. Why do you think that is? And don't say "that's just how it is" because that isn't sufficient.

This thread is full of people whose knee-jerk reaction to female gamer opinion is thinking that their hobby is under attack. That speaks volumes.

Seriously, are you just making things up? This thread seems to be full of people who like all types of miniatures, including people that have funded major KS campaigns to make female miniatures.

It's full of people praising some companies for their inclusiveness and breadth of their ranges.

And it's full of condemnation for GW. The one company that seems utterly disinterested in making female miniatures.

It's also full of accusations hurled at the above people, where those that disagree on tiny matters are accused of deep and prevalent moral failings.

 Las wrote:

 lucasbuffalo wrote:

 Las wrote:

 lucasbuffalo wrote:


They are welcome to "explore" a new hobby, and just like anyone else, they might find things they don't like which keep them from partaking in that hobby

The issue is that there is literally zero reason as to why this misrepresentation needs to continue.

Other than it's what the artist chooses to make and what the owner chooses to sell?

So why is there so much resistance to the idea of more female representation in miniatures in this thread? We'd have female guardsmen if more gamers were open to having them in their armies, but obviously they aren't. Why do you think that is? And don't say "that's just how it is" because that isn't sufficient.

This thread is full of people whose knee-jerk reaction to female gamer opinion is thinking that their hobby is under attack. That speaks volumes.

I don't really see that reaction though. I see people saying "you're right, YOU should do something about it to improve it," and defending their choice in what they enjoy. I personally would love to see some female faces on Imperial Guard, especially since it's in the lore and makes sense.

 Las wrote:

 lucasbuffalo wrote:

 Las wrote:

 lucasbuffalo wrote:


They are welcome to "explore" a new hobby, and just like anyone else, they might find things they don't like which keep them from partaking in that hobby

The issue is that there is literally zero reason as to why this misrepresentation needs to continue.

Other than it's what the artist chooses to make and what the owner chooses to sell?

So why is there so much resistance to the idea of more female representation in miniatures in this thread? We'd have female guardsmen if more gamers were open to having them in their armies, but obviously they aren't. Why do you think that is? And don't say "that's just how it is" because that isn't sufficient.

This thread is full of people whose knee-jerk reaction to female gamer opinion is thinking that their hobby is under attack. That speaks volumes.

That's what's I'm trying to figure out. I'm sitting here talking with MGS and saying that I don't understand why Wargaming is a "men's hobby." Why? Why is it for men and not women? Why should women be told to go make their own games and own communities? I don't -want- separate womens and mens games and game communities.

It's a bit off putting, to be honest, to confront the attitude of "Well this is a hobby for men. You're not really welcome here. If you feel bothered by something, that's too bad because this isn't a hobby for women, so go find your own thing."

I feel like that can only be damaging to the hobby.

Also I feel like I need to say I was being to broad in my other posts, and including things like online and platform gaming in my statements, when in reality the communities are different animals.

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:

 MetalOxide wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
But I think it's not a bad idea to discuss the issues of hostility towards feminism within gaming culture in a more broad sense.

So what do you think causes this hostility?

The self entitlement some of these feminists have even though men and women are pretty equal in today's western society; they think they can go into a male dominated hobby and expect sensorship just because they find things that men like offensive. Sure it would be nice to have games for women and a female gaming community, but instead of building a female gaming community and showing the games companies that they would like more inclusion in the industry, many feminists decide to bash on the games intended for men, which results in them getting no sympathy or support and hostility from the gaming community.

But let me ask you - why is it male dominated? Is it ok that it's male dominated? Why shouldn't women feel welcome in exploring a new hobby? I don't think I'm alone in saying that I don't want a separate "women's gaming community" or "women's games."

I don't think its ok that it's male dominated, heck, I wish there were more women in miniature wargaming and video gaming. I personally don't want separate gaming communities either. I think the problem is that even though society has made great progress in equality and acceptance of each other, there are still people who have a divide and conquer mentality which is usually created to isolate groups and make it easier for big companies to generate lazy products and get big cash. An example of this would be with Lego marketing Space-ships to boys and then selling pink Lego doll's houses to girls, it is a lazy product; they can spend little in research and development and hike up the prices. I think that this is essentially the same in nearly all industries including gaming and miniature wargaming/collecting.

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
The demands of lady gamers boils down to options. I want to play X game, but maybe not play a model with FF boobs and a 24inch waist who wears a loincloth. So give me options.

But if lady gamers don't have the collective cash, then no one will offer the options. You're position here makes some interesting assumptions. Companies should see that there are droves of women out there who want to play war games -- just not anything like the wargames they are currently not playing. So all those companies need to do is make the product women want and they'll be selling like hotcackes, right? Maybe so. I don't know. I don't really care, since I'm not part of that demographic. These are just products we're talking about, not the elements of self-worth or human dignity.

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
I have to say, I'm pretty baffled by this idea that "Wargaming/gaming is a hobby for men." I'm just finding that to be odd and a little off putting.

I'd also be baffled by that idea if it was some kind of abstract principle. Instead, it's a market fact. And in that sense, I'm not sure what there is to be baffled about. There's a difference between saying "GW makes most of its money off of male customers" and saying "40k/WHFB are male-only hobbies." In practice, however, we're talking about GW making products that its existing customer demographic wants to buy. More than anything else, that means Space Marines. For those of us who want to play Sisters, well, we have to wait and wait. For those who think the Sisters line are terrible, you have other options. For those who think those of us who like Sisters are evil and hate woman ... I guess I'd have to say "feth off." Like I said, hostility begets hostility.

 kronk wrote:

People telling rape jokes at game stores are clearly in the wrong. Name them and shame them.

People using models that YOU think are sexist are not "treating women as flesh versions of cheesecake art and figures".

How the hell are you making that leap?

I'm not sure why it matters if they're telling them in the gamestore or not. Name, shame, and remove the cancerous branch from the community no matter where they tell the jokes.

Can someone then explain the point of cheesecake/sexualized figures to me then? If you don't think viewing something repeatedly makes a difference in how you deal with people in real life, well I'd have to say that you're contradicting everything people know about psychology.

 Manchu wrote:

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
Here's what it comes down to for a lot of women. They want to get involved in a gaming/nerdy hobby. But they have a look and see it dominated by tropes, images, and participants that make a lot of us cringe. [...] I think a better approach would be [for men to say] "This is an awesome hobby and we want you to feel welcome in it too, so we'll make it less weird for you by adding things that appeal to you, but we're still going to keep our big-boob panty ninjas."

It is always ideal for you that other people accommodate you. But this isn't ideal for them. If you have an interest in a hobby, but you find that you actually don't like much about it, then it's probably just not for you. If you really like it, you could attempt to change it up a bit so that you liked it even more. But demanding that everyone change what they like because you might be interested if all those changes are made ... well, that's rather absurd.

As for all this panty ninja business and this

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
I, and a lot of other women would say "Cool. Just drop the rape jokes and ask some of your guys to stop telling us to show our tits."

Are we still talking about war gaming? I think you're talking about 4chan instead. If all you want is not to be sexually harassed, well, good news you'll enjoy war gaming as things already are. People who think a certain sculpt constitutes sexual harassment and want to label any one who disagrees as a pervert chauvinist, however, might not fit in and I really disagree that "room should be made."

Manchu, I hope your last sentence isn't referring to Mrs Stompa. Both sides can disagree without labeling "everyone" on the other side a certain way.

There's certainly room for female minis to be less sexualized, and for wargaming to be more sensitive to women in general.

Frankly, as a man I don't think you can really see a woman's perspective, and I'd be much more inclined to listen to Mrs Stompa, or my wife, who express very similar views. And, you know, are women, saying how something in the hobby affects them.

 kronk wrote:
Mrs. Stompa, do you really run into a lot of gamers making rape jokes at game stores? That's pretty messed up.

Yeah, I gotta say, this would not fly at the stores near me and certainly not in my gaming group.

 kronk wrote:
Mrs. Stompa, do you really run into a lot of gamers making rape jokes at game stores? That's pretty messed up.

No, no. I mentioned in my last post that I was being too broad in discussing my gaming experiences, and including online and platorm games.

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:

 kronk wrote:
Mrs. Stompa, do you really run into a lot of gamers making rape jokes at game stores? That's pretty messed up.

No, no. I mentioned in my last post that I was being too broad in discussing my gaming experiences, and including online and platorm games.

so, what, exactly, is holding you back from playing a minis wargame?

 RiTides wrote:
Manchu, I hope your last sentence isn't referring to Mrs Stompa.

RiTides, I'd rather you not "stir the pot" as that sort of thing is against the rules. I think it's clear that my comment is not a reference to any particular poster but a hypothetical mindset. Making up that kind of connection is very poor form.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

hands_miranda wrote:
Can someone then explain the point of cheesecake/sexualized figures to me then?

I think this would be a great question to address to Mrs Stompa and any other women gamers who apparently don't find that category of models to be prima facie offensive. Because the assumption has been that those models exist only to titillate men by demeaning women.

 Polonius wrote:

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:

 kronk wrote:
Mrs. Stompa, do you really run into a lot of gamers making rape jokes at game stores? That's pretty messed up.

No, no. I mentioned in my last post that I was being too broad in discussing my gaming experiences, and including online and platorm games.

so, what, exactly, is holding you back from playing a minis wargame?

My vast amounts of unpainted and unassembled Tyranids.

 Las wrote:

 MetalOxide wrote:

The self entitlement some of these feminists have even though men and women are pretty equal in today's western society; they think they can go into a male dominated hobby and expect sensorship just because they find things that men like offensive. Sure it would be nice to have games for women and a female gaming community, but instead of building a female gaming community and showing the games companies that they would like more inclusion in the industry, many feminists decide to bash on the games intended for men, which results in them getting no sympathy or support and hostility from the gaming community.

No one's bashing on the games, it's quite clear from the women in this thread that they have a real love and passion for the hobby. The issue is that they feel like outsiders and instead of looking for ways to alleviate this problem, your insecurities are driving you to ignore the way they feel and dismiss it as intrusion into something that isn't really yours to govern. We should be looking to make the gaming community as awesome as possible and personally I think having more women in the hobby would be wicked. Unless you're some dork with a fear of females I don't see what the problem is. No one says you have to get rid of your mini porn, just recognize the viewpoints of others, regardless of gender.

.

You raise some pretty good points there ... and mini porn? I do no own any female minis, I have not seen any which I particually like, I will take war-machines, robots and tanks over scantily clad female minis any day.

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:

That's what's I'm trying to figure out. I'm sitting here talking with MGS and saying that I don't understand why Wargaming is a "men's hobby." Why? Why is it for men and not women? Why should women be told to go make their own games and own communities? I don't -want- separate womens and mens games and game communities.

It's a bit off putting, to be honest, to confront the attitude of "Well this is a hobby for men. You're not really welcome here. If you feel bothered by something, that's too bad because this isn't a hobby for women, so go find your own thing."

I feel like that can only be damaging to the hobby.

Also I feel like I need to say I was being to broad in my other posts, and including things like online and platform gaming in my statements, when in reality the communities are different animals.

I have no idea why it's male dominated. When I go in a game store, my GF is usually the only female in there. Sad, really. I don't think the guys in there would kick them out if a girl wanted to play. I think perhaps it goes back to the "girls mature faster than boys" thing. Most of the guys I see at the two FLGSs near me are teenagers. Listening to them talk, it's clear they haven't learned that many social skills. Very awkward, to condense it to stereotypes. Talking over one another. Interrupting me when I was talking to the manager, for example. Perhaps the girls just don't want to be around that. I don't recall any rape jokes or the like, but then I don't game in game stores. Just occasionally swing by to browse or pick up a new board game.

I don't think they're intentionally behaving that way. I don't think you'll find many people that say they don't want to play against girls. Perhaps they don't want to lose to a girl, but that's a whole different topic. Dunno. I guess I just haven't seen the "No girls aloud" clubs you're talking about. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding your point.

Really not wanting to stir the pot, just to clarify. Since you're not referring to her, I apologize. Would've edited it but knew your reply would beat it.

However, it wasn't clear to me that you were being hypothetical, given that that statement was part of a response to her quote.

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:

 kronk wrote:
so, what, exactly, is holding you back from playing a minis wargame?

My vast amounts of unpainted and unassembled Tyranids.

The great equalizer!

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
My vast amounts of unpainted and unassembled Tyranids.

The Tyranid Horde strikes again!

 lucasbuffalo wrote:
I don't really see that reaction though. I see people saying "you're right, YOU should do something about it to improve it," and defending their choice in what they enjoy. I personally would love to see some female faces on Imperial Guard, especially since it's in the lore and makes sense.

I do see it, however. People in this very thread have reacted to "can we have more female miniatures which are not cheesecake" with "how DARE you take the cheesecake away!". Numerous times, and repeatedly.

Because apparently, you can't have a hobby with both?

 RiTides wrote:
However, it wasn't clear to me that you were being hypothetical, given that that statement was part of a response to her quote.

But she never did any of the things I mentioned:

 Manchu wrote:
People who think a certain sculpt constitutes sexual harassment and want to label any one who disagrees as a pervert chauvinist, however, might not fit in and I really disagree that "room should be made."

She's not saying model X is sexual harrassment or that I or anyone else who disagrees with such an assessment is wrong much less morally deficient. What we have instead is a poster who is explicitly NOT being hostile and therefore dialog is possible. That's radically different from what I often see come out of the blogosphere on gaming.

 Manchu wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

hands_miranda wrote:
Can someone then explain the point of cheesecake/sexualized figures to me then?

I think this would be a great question to address to Mrs Stompa and any other women gamers who apparently don't find that category of models to be prima facie offensive. Because the assumption has been that those models exist only to titillate men by demeaning women.

I don't find cheesecake or sexualized figures to be "offensive." Silly? Sure. MGS can tell you how much I sigh and eyeroll at the majority of female models I see. Straight men like looking at lady parts. This is a fact, and one that doesn't bother me. I just have a desire to see more female models (speaking about 40k, Fantasy, and all manner of minis) which are sculpted less to tittilate and more to look badass. I'm not saying that the tittilation models are evil and should be scrapped. But just balance the offerings a little so that if I ever want to paint a female model, I have more to think about than which shadowing will make her bosom look more voluptuous.

ETA - I did find that one diorama that guy did - the one with the Eldar woman surrounded by men and getting her clothes torn off, making it clear she was in for a raping - to be offensive. That bothered me because it was rape as tittilation.

Who are y'all gaming with that rape jokes are common place? Are they all twelve? In my limited gaming circles (which, sadly, have been almost entirely male) i never hear rape jokes.

I'm much more likely to hear tongue-in-cheek gay jokes/homophobia about Dark Angels or Elves than anyone making jokes about rape.

Have I just been lucky enough to have fallen into enlightened gaming utopias for much of the last twenty years?

(Not here in Richmond, mostly because A) I took a break from gaming and sold out and B) I don't have gaming group here

 Melissia wrote:
Because apparently, you can't have a hobby with both?

I think we already do.

 Melissia wrote:

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
My vast amounts of unpainted and unassembled Tyranids.

The Tyranid Horde strikes again!

 lucasbuffalo wrote:
I don't really see that reaction though. I see people saying "you're right, YOU should do something about it to improve it," and defending their choice in what they enjoy. I personally would love to see some female faces on Imperial Guard, especially since it's in the lore and makes sense.

I do see it, however. People in this very thread have reacted to "can we have more female miniatures which are not cheesecake" with "how DARE you take the cheesecake away!". Numerous times, and repeatedly.

Because apparently, you can't have a hobby with both?

But that's not what's being said. What's being said is that "Cheesecake is sexually demeaning and everyone who likes it is furthering a rape-filled male agenda" followed by "how DARE you take the cheesecake away!" If this thread was "I wish there were more non-cheesecake cool female sculpts", you wouldn't see a defensive reaction.

 Manchu wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
However, it wasn't clear to me that you were being hypothetical, given that that statement was part of a response to her quote.

But she never did any of the things I mentioned:

 Manchu wrote:
People who think a certain sculpt constitutes sexual harassment and want to label any one who disagrees as a pervert chauvinist, however, might not fit in and I really disagree that "room should be made."

She's not saying model X is sexual harrassment or that I or anyone else who disagrees with such an assessment is wrong much less morally deficient. What we have instead is a poster who is explicitly NOT being hostile and therefore dialog is possible. That's radically different from what I often see come out of the blogosphere on gaming.

Agreed, which is why the Stompas are awesome

Sorry I mis-read your post, then.

 chaplaingrabthar wrote:
Who are y'all gaming with that rape jokes are common place? Are they all twelve? In my limited gaming circles (which, sadly, have been almost entirely male) i never hear rape jokes.

I'm much more likely to hear tongue-in-cheek gay jokes/homophobia about Dark Angels or Elves than anyone making jokes about rape.

Have I just been lucky enough to have fallen into enlightened gaming utopias for much of the last twenty years?

(Not here in Richmond, mostly because A) I took a break from gaming and sold out and B) I don't have gaming group here

I admitted, I was making the mistake of lumping my own online gaming experiences with gaming in general, which was a little off topic and unintentionally misleading.

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
I just have a desire to see more female models (speaking about 40k, Fantasy, and all manner of minis) which are sculpted less to tittilate and more to look badass.

And this is where the meaningful differences in opinion start to come out. Honestly, I don't see much in the GW line that is more about titillation than badassery. Sure, there are those slave girls but that's like two sculpts. Some might say Repentia, but I actually disagree. When I think of female GW models, I'm thinking SoB, Lelith, Shadowsun. I'm not titillated by any of them.* But I do think they're pretty badass.

*TBH, I have to make an exception for Lelith's dex art. That's sexy. But it's also badass and no less badass for its sexiness. But that's what she's supposed to represent and she's hardly the rule across 40k.

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
I don't find cheesecake or sexualized figures to be "offensive." Silly? Sure. MGS can tell you how much I sigh and eyeroll at the majority of female models I see. Straight men like looking at lady parts. This is a fact, and one that doesn't bother me. I just have a desire to see more female models (speaking about 40k, Fantasy, and all manner of minis) which are sculpted less to tittilate and more to look badass.

Have you checked Reaper Miniatures? Their more recent sculpts have been more like this:



And less like this:

 RiTides wrote:
Sorry I mis-read your post, then.

pas de probleme!

I do tend to like Reaper minis. And this is where I annoy the lot of you by admitting I don't much like humanoid models anyway...the disproportionately large head and hands bother me! It's a thing, I can't help it.

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
ETA - I did find that one diorama that guy did - the one with the Eldar woman surrounded by men and getting her clothes torn off, making it clear she was in for a raping - to be offensive. That bothered me because it was rape as tittilation.

I'm such a horrible person because EVERYTHING technical about that piece is AMAZING! the blending, the conversions, sculpting, basing, everything! But I feel like such a cretin for liking that diorama for the artistic aspects simple because it contains that subject matter.

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
I do tend to like Reaper minis. And this is where I annoy the lot of you by admitting I don't much like humanoid models anyway...the disproportionately large head and hands bother me! It's a thing, I can't help it.

BAH!!! Welcome to ignore!

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
ETA - I did find that one diorama that guy did - the one with the Eldar woman surrounded by men and getting her clothes torn off, making it clear she was in for a raping - to be offensive. That bothered me because it was rape as tittilation.

I'm such a horrible person because EVERYTHING technical about that piece is AMAZING! the blending, the conversions, sculpting, basing, everything! But I feel like such a cretin for liking that diorama because of the subject matter.

Well...that's probably a topic for another forum altogether. But I, like a lot of women, am bothered by graphic and/or realistic depictions of rape or near rape . I think it's just a chemical thing in our brains that makes us go NOPE THAT'S NOT ENJOYABLE TO LOOK AT.

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

hands_miranda wrote:
Can someone then explain the point of cheesecake/sexualized figures to me then?

I think this would be a great question to address to Mrs Stompa and any other women gamers who apparently don't find that category of models to be prima facie offensive. Because the assumption has been that those models exist only to titillate men by demeaning women.

I don't find cheesecake or sexualized figures to be "offensive." Silly? Sure. MGS can tell you how much I sigh and eyeroll at the majority of female models I see. Straight men like looking at lady parts. This is a fact, and one that doesn't bother me. I just have a desire to see more female models (speaking about 40k, Fantasy, and all manner of minis) which are sculpted less to tittilate and more to look badass. I'm not saying that the tittilation models are evil and should be scrapped. But just balance the offerings a little so that if I ever want to paint a female model, I have more to think about than which shadowing will make her bosom look more voluptuous.

How do you feel about the Elvish/Eldar races then, which often have female and male models mixed or are on occasion sexually ambiguous?

 lucasbuffalo wrote:
If this thread was "I wish there were more non-cheesecake cool female sculpts", you wouldn't see a defensive reaction.

Yes I would, because that's the same knee-jerk reaction that's been had every single time that sentiment is expressed on this forum, and on the internet in general.

Such as me asking on a gamefaqs forum "Does this game have a playable female character in it"? -- exact words-- and immediately I get labeled a feminazi and attacked. That's the norm, sadly.

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
ETA - I did find that one diorama that guy did - the one with the Eldar woman surrounded by men and getting her clothes torn off, making it clear she was in for a raping - to be offensive. That bothered me because it was rape as tittilation.

I'm such a horrible person because EVERYTHING technical about that piece is AMAZING! the blending, the conversions, sculpting, basing, everything! But I feel like such a cretin for liking that diorama because of the subject matter.

Well...that's probably a topic for another forum altogether. But I, like a lot of women, am bothered by graphic and/or realistic depictions of rape or near rape . I think it's just a chemical thing in our brains that makes us go NOPE THAT'S NOT ENJOYABLE TO LOOK AT.

My edit on that post clarifies my point, because the original version of that message made it seem like I like the content lol.

But that guy has done several other pieces, one of which was humans being enslaved by Dark Eldar, just as technically sound without the rapey undertones. That artist in general is a fantastic painter, but gets a lot of recognition because of his racey content.

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
But I, like a lot of women, am bothered by graphic and/or realistic depictions of rape or near rape . I think it's just a chemical thing in our brains that makes us go NOPE THAT'S NOT ENJOYABLE TO LOOK AT.

I think most men are much the same.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

hands_miranda wrote:
Can someone then explain the point of cheesecake/sexualized figures to me then?

I think this would be a great question to address to Mrs Stompa and any other women gamers who apparently don't find that category of models to be prima facie offensive. Because the assumption has been that those models exist only to titillate men by demeaning women.

I don't find cheesecake or sexualized figures to be "offensive." Silly? Sure. MGS can tell you how much I sigh and eyeroll at the majority of female models I see. Straight men like looking at lady parts. This is a fact, and one that doesn't bother me. I just have a desire to see more female models (speaking about 40k, Fantasy, and all manner of minis) which are sculpted less to tittilate and more to look badass. I'm not saying that the tittilation models are evil and should be scrapped. But just balance the offerings a little so that if I ever want to paint a female model, I have more to think about than which shadowing will make her bosom look more voluptuous.

How do you feel about the Elvish/Eldar races then, which often have female and male models mixed or are on occasion sexually ambiguous?

Fine? I'm not terribly familiar with them, to be honest. Ours is a household of Orcs and Tyranids. But let me be clear, I'm not anti boob-having models. And I'm not anti sexy models.

 kronk wrote:

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
I do tend to like Reaper minis. And this is where I annoy the lot of you by admitting I don't much like humanoid models anyway...the disproportionately large head and hands bother me! It's a thing, I can't help it.

BAH!!! Welcome to ignore!

Lol great reaction.

You must hate the Chibi minis from Impact or Super Dungeon Explore then, Mrs Stompa

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
ETA - I did find that one diorama that guy did - the one with the Eldar woman surrounded by men and getting her clothes torn off, making it clear she was in for a raping - to be offensive. That bothered me because it was rape as tittilation.

I'm such a horrible person because EVERYTHING technical about that piece is AMAZING! the blending, the conversions, sculpting, basing, everything! But I feel like such a cretin for liking that diorama because of the subject matter.

Well...that's probably a topic for another forum altogether. But I, like a lot of women, am bothered by graphic and/or realistic depictions of rape or near rape . I think it's just a chemical thing in our brains that makes us go NOPE THAT'S NOT ENJOYABLE TO LOOK AT.

My edit on that post clarifies my point, because the original version of that message made it seem like I like the content lol.

But that guy has done several other pieces, one of which was humans being enslaved by Dark Eldar, just as technically sound without the rapey undertones. That artist in general is a fantastic painter, but gets a lot of recognition because of his racey content.

Well yeah, it was technically lovely. I just didn't like looking at it.

 Melissia wrote:

 lucasbuffalo wrote:
If this thread was "I wish there were more non-cheesecake cool female sculpts", you wouldn't see a defensive reaction.

Yes I would, because that's the same knee-jerk reaction that's had every single time that sentiment is expressed..

Where? Everyone person in this discussion seems to be in agreement that more is good. Some disagree in the likelihood of market viability or success, but I haven't seen a soul here argue that there isn't a place for it or that it shouldn't exist. On the contrary I, as well as most other posters, agree that they'd happily buy these sorts of models in the same shopping cart as all their cheesecake.

Edit: As for the video gaming forum thing... It's a video gaming forum. Dakka is where people who actually care about themselves or that you might talk to in person go. Video game forums are typically right up there with youtube comments in being anything but rational or sociable, and instead are full of people who talk some one into suicide for a laugh if they thought they could.

 lucasbuffalo wrote:


"I wish there were more non-cheesecake cool female sculpts", you wouldn't see a defensive reaction.

I would personally pefer less cheese cake and more robots, zombies and giant space bugs

I don't know if this is the sort of thing that Melissia means but I don't think more is necessarily good. For example, I'd say femarines have no place in the 40k setting. I don't mind them as homebrewed (you can have blue Blood Angels for all I care!) but I would be pretty disappointed if I saw GW make them.

 MetalOxide wrote:

 lucasbuffalo wrote:


"I wish there were more non-cheesecake cool female sculpts", you wouldn't see a defensive reaction.

I would personally pefer less cheese cake and more robots, zombies and giant space bugs

I'd prefer more of all of them.

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

hands_miranda wrote:
Can someone then explain the point of cheesecake/sexualized figures to me then?

I think this would be a great question to address to Mrs Stompa and any other women gamers who apparently don't find that category of models to be prima facie offensive. Because the assumption has been that those models exist only to titillate men by demeaning women.

I don't find cheesecake or sexualized figures to be "offensive." Silly? Sure. MGS can tell you how much I sigh and eyeroll at the majority of female models I see. Straight men like looking at lady parts. This is a fact, and one that doesn't bother me. I just have a desire to see more female models (speaking about 40k, Fantasy, and all manner of minis) which are sculpted less to tittilate and more to look badass. I'm not saying that the tittilation models are evil and should be scrapped. But just balance the offerings a little so that if I ever want to paint a female model, I have more to think about than which shadowing will make her bosom look more voluptuous.

How do you feel about the Elvish/Eldar races then, which often have female and male models mixed or are on occasion sexually ambiguous?

Fine? I'm not terribly familiar with them, to be honest. Ours is a household of Orcs and Tyranids. But let me be clear, I'm not anti boob-having models. And I'm not anti sexy models.

Ok. I was just wondering, because you made the comment about if you ever wanted to paint a female model you have more to think about than shading her bosom to look more voluptuous, it seemed to me GW do have models which fulfill this criteria in their Elven and Eldar races. To be honest, I haven't heard a lot of complaints before this thread about GW not having enough female models or poorly representing women (not necessarily because they don't exist, I just haven't heard a lot of it) and I figured GW did have a reasonably balanced female contingent of models in their Elf based races.

 Manchu wrote:
I don't know if this is the sort of thing that Melissia means but I don't think more is necessarily good. For example, I'd say femarines have no place in the 40k setting. I don't mind them as homebrewed (you can have blue Blood Angels for all I care!) but I would be pretty disappointed if I saw GW make them.

Well I don't think there's any reason to shoe-horn female figures into lore just for the sake of putting females in it, if that's what you mean.

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:

 kronk wrote:
Mrs. Stompa, do you really run into a lot of gamers making rape jokes at game stores? That's pretty messed up.

No, no. I mentioned in my last post that I was being too broad in discussing my gaming experiences, and including online and platorm games.

I think you might have a problem with people following the anonymity+audience=dick method of life. I believe you'd find in-person gaming through Warhammer, etc. much more agreeable as people actually have to face you when they play you and can't hide behind a screen name.

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
Well I don't think there's any reason to shoe-horn female figures into lore just for the sake of putting females in it, if that's what you mean.

Yeah, I think that's what it would be and that's a shame. I think one of the reasons I hate the idea of femarines is because I'm protective of the SoB's niche. They're my favorite faction and they're kind of an "endangered species" in terms of production.

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
ETA - I did find that one diorama that guy did - the one with the Eldar woman surrounded by men and getting her clothes torn off, making it clear she was in for a raping - to be offensive. That bothered me because it was rape as tittilation.

I'm such a horrible person because EVERYTHING technical about that piece is AMAZING! the blending, the conversions, sculpting, basing, everything! But I feel like such a cretin for liking that diorama because of the subject matter.

Well...that's probably a topic for another forum altogether. But I, like a lot of women, am bothered by graphic and/or realistic depictions of rape or near rape . I think it's just a chemical thing in our brains that makes us go NOPE THAT'S NOT ENJOYABLE TO LOOK AT.

My edit on that post clarifies my point, because the original version of that message made it seem like I like the content lol.

But that guy has done several other pieces, one of which was humans being enslaved by Dark Eldar, just as technically sound without the rapey undertones. That artist in general is a fantastic painter, but gets a lot of recognition because of his racey content.

Well yeah, it was technically lovely. I just didn't like looking at it.

Technically it was very good, but I felt it was only popular because of the shock value and controversy over it. A piece of art doesn't have to be shocking to be good.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lucasbuffalo wrote:

 MetalOxide wrote:

 lucasbuffalo wrote:


"I wish there were more non-cheesecake cool female sculpts", you wouldn't see a defensive reaction.

I would personally pefer less cheese cake and more robots, zombies and giant space bugs

I'd prefer more of all of them.

Yes, I am interested in seeing what GW does with the Sisters of Battle

Nakatan (the artist behind the piece) is, like I said, amazing!

His dakka gallery only has a few select pieces, but his Cool Mini or Not Gallery shows on average that his painting skills are near "perfect" his images, even the non Alien Contact images rate near perfects.

The man is skilled, and may have been commissioned to do that, but idk.

wewowewo its the morals police....

xxvaderxx wrote:
wewowewo its the morals police....

As a general rule, if it's in the Sci-Fi or Fantasy category, chances are the women will be scantly clad or their armor will be curvy. There are, of course, exceptions (Samus, but now she has Zero-Suit, so ...) but that's the general trend as the main consumers are men who may be more on the "sexually-deprived" end of the spectrum. At least, that is the stereotype.

On the flip-side, aren't the men practically always muscular? Is that not "sexist?"

Also, a lot has to do with aesthetics. Now, I'm not saying I want scantily clad women running around my tabletop (not saying I don't) but if you want the character to look female, either clad it in almost nothing, or if it is an armored character, accentuate those curves.

Look at the game Dark Souls: There is almost no way of telling the gender of a character based on the build after the armor is on - the armor appearance does not change. Now this is fine because they aren't aiming for these characters to be obviously female.

Now let's look at the train-wreck-of-a-game Halo: Reach. If there's one thing this game did right, it was finally including a character model for female Spartans. The female models where skinnier then the men, and had narrower wastes but the hips were still large, giving that curved look. The chest, however, looks the same on both genders, because they're in bulky armor. Fast forward to Halo 4 (better than Reach) and they still have models for the female Spartans but ... well, honestly they just look like skinny dudes(and the helm size doesn't change, making them all have large heads.) I played as a female in Reach, but in 4 I am sticking with the male, for reasons described in the TL;DR below

TL: DR

The entertainment industry has corrupted how we see people. Ever notice that just about every character in every show/movie ever is more on the attractive side? I noticed this and became somewhat agitated by it ... and then when I saw a film with a rather unattractive leading lady I was ... well, I didn't care about her character very much.

However, there is a point where it becomes "put some effing clothes on."

 Hojtastic wrote:
On the flip-side, aren't the men practically always muscular? Is that not "sexist?"

Nowhere near as much.

This, which someone (who I forgot the name of) linked to earlier, is a good explanation.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/5950-Tropes-vs-MovieBob

 Melissia wrote:

 Hojtastic wrote:
On the flip-side, aren't the men practically always muscular? Is that not "sexist?"

Nowhere near as much.

This, which someone (who I forgot the name of) linked to earlier, is a good explanation.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/5950-Tropes-vs-MovieBob

Again, that's largely the "no true Scottsman" fallacy, imposing one prepackaged pre-approved sexual identity on all women. Nope, you aren't allowed to want to look like this, or desire someone who looks like that. If you feel differently then you've just been brainwashed...

 Melissia wrote:

 Hojtastic wrote:
On the flip-side, aren't the men practically always muscular? Is that not "sexist?"

Nowhere near as much.

This, which someone (who I forgot the name of) linked to earlier, is a good explanation.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/5950-Tropes-vs-MovieBob

Both overly muscular men and scantily clad women can be stupid and tacky.

Or sexy.

 kronk wrote:
Or sexy.

Bossk_Hogg wrote:
Again, that's largely the "no true Scottsman" fallacy

No, it's not. You are ignoring the fact that the sexualization of men is still almost entirely done FOR men, as a power fantasy, not to make them in to sex objects. Men have, historically, been sexualized for what they can do-- while women have been sexualized for what can be done TO them.

That said, a stay at home dad is sadly openly mocked by many people, to give an example of the sexualization negatively effecting both men and women.

This whole debate still comes down to the color green.

Its what sells.

If you want it to change, make sure those models you agree with sell really well. If a company sees that its "non-cheesecake" minis are selling well, they will make more.


Its economics. I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm not saying there shouldn't be more non-cheescake minis. What I am saying is that the market is what drives new minis. Make a demand and it will be filled. Perhaps not immediatly, but it will.

Your all mighty dollar (or Euro) is the loudest voice you can yell with.

Accusing male gamers of sexism isn't going to change it or help matters... Nor is blaming the companies for sexism... They follow what makes them money, for the immediate financial good of their company and the shareholders.

But the approach this thread came in with, I can see why it generated knee-jerk reactions and negative opinions.

Please remember, not everyone's opinion of what they want in a miniature is the same.
Not everyone's opinion of what IS a "cheescake" mini is going to be the same.
You are entitled to your opinions, I am entitled to mine, and TFG is entitled to his/hers (no matter how asinine it is).

 hammeyaneggs wrote:
If you want it to change, make sure those models you agree with sell really well

I'd love to... if they were actually being sculpted.

By and large, they are not in any notable amount. How the hell am I supposed to buy something that doesn't exist?

I started reading this post and found myself losing focus. Minis produced by X company are considered "bad/good" by different people is a predominant part of this conversation. And I fear that there is nothing the average gamer can do about that. Yes some mini lines sell better than others, but the company at large chooses what to produce and sell, even if a large number of people disagree. The most important part of this conversation is, do the gamers at large make the hobby uncomfortable for women to join. If this is a problem it should never be tolerated. If I was at a game store and heard a number of people making comments of the type some posters complain about, it is my duty as a conscientious person to ask them to stop, or ask the game store employee if that kind of behavior is tolerated. It should not be tolerated. Truly deep conversations about what is sexist, or does owning or looking at something make me sexist is fine, but it does not start the corrective measures to making the hobby more accessible to people of different genders. Armies are what we make of them, and getting a company do cater to us is hard, especially to a company that dislikes change. But making gaming more friendly is something we can all do, even if we don't game at FLGS, we can offer a moral compass to those who do play in them.

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:

I have to say, I'm pretty baffled by this idea that "Wargaming/gaming is a hobby for men." I'm just finding that to be odd and a little off putting.

Be aware that I agree with most of what you have said, and clearly I've got no time for the ridiculous social misfits that make rape jokes (although, I have took my missus into GW with me many times and nobody has evr gave her any gak at all or displayed such a crass level of social ineptitude) But this comment makes no sense.. it IS a hobby for men surely?

If 95% of the people that you see at tourneys, or in Games Workshop have cocks.. even really small ones, then by definition, that's what It is, and therefore thats the norm. Note that Im not saying it should be that way, indeed, Id love it if my missus was interested (she massively isn't and reads or watches No Reservations or something when I paint or play) but you cant argue with what is an obvious fact, most chicks don't like wargaming.

In fact, I've probably dated more women than most chaps due to my "never at home for more than a month" Bootneck career, and I didn't actually meet a single one that was remotely interested either, I think the cl;osest I got was a goth bird who was into David Gemmell.. but obviously my hobby always came up when they saw my minis.. and the fact of the matter is that its pretty fething weird for a chick to like war gaming.

Ergo, if you fall into a huge, huge minority, surely you are the odd one?

And if its so normal for women to ignore the hobby (it is!) why do you find it off putting? Isn't it entirely understandable? Aren't we all just following the social norms? People don't find it odd when they see old people knitting, but they find it odd when they see them skateboarding! Is it really that strange that people think something thats very uncommon is a bit odd in itself?

What is a notable amount for you? I understand there aren'y any anywhere near the quantities of other figures... I also know my wife does not like "cheescake" minis either but has a collection of 45 or 50 figs from various companies that she has bought and painted to use for various things?

You haven't found any company that makes some to your specifications?

Depending on what you want them for, perhaps try forming a petition of like-minded individuals to present to a company or various companies to show theree is a market.


Companies like having their market research done for them to a certain degree and if you can get enough signatures, I'm betting they would look into making more.

 hammeyaneggs wrote:
You haven't found any company that makes some to your specifications?

No, I haven't.

Mostly, I'm looking for miniatures to represent my characters in various RPGs I play, and models I can use to represent female Imperial Guardsmen without having them blatantly stick out. The former is much, much easier to find (Reaper is the biggest source of this, and they've really improved... but they're not perfect by any means), the latter... I haven't found any in the various years I've been looking.

Which is to say, since the launch of third edition C:IG.

 Melissia wrote:

 hammeyaneggs wrote:
If you want it to change, make sure those models you agree with sell really well

I'd love to... if they were actually being sculpted.

By and large, they are not in any notable amount. How the hell am I supposed to buy something that doesn't exist?

It doesnt work as well for chicks because you arent as shallow for things like body parts as we men are... I cant see a buff man with a big wanger flying off the shelves for lady gamers.

I know.. he could be really buff and be carrying a big sack of chocolate and shoes?

 Melissia wrote:

 hammeyaneggs wrote:
You haven't found any company that makes some to your specifications?

No, I haven't.

Mostly, I'm looking for miniatures to represent my characters in various RPGs I play, and models I can use to represent female Imperial Guardsmen without having them blatantly stick out. The former is much, much easier to find, the latter... I haven't found any in the various years I've been looking.

Which is to say, since the launch of third edition C:IG.

Have you found any miniature that you found that could represent a character of yours? I'm asking to see if I can judge what you want versus minis I know of (I'm not above offering unasked for help )

I have, yes. Reaper has good examples for fantasy roleplays, although not very good if you're trying to get models for an entire army.

For example, I purchased this for a pilot character:



Her wearing a jumpsuit made sense for a pilot, after all, and it still has enough on it that you can envision her putting on some armor over that suit. I wish it wasn't zipped down so far? But meh.

 Melissia wrote:

Bossk_Hogg wrote:
Again, that's largely the "no true Scottsman" fallacy

No, it's not. You are ignoring the fact that the sexualization of men is still almost entirely done FOR men, as a power fantasy, not to make them in to sex objects. Men have, historically, been sexualized for what they can do-- while women have been sexualized for what can be done TO them.

Again, implying that women cannot (or should not) want strapping men as sex objects, nor have certain fantasies about themselves. A quick perusal of romance covers artwork reveals a fair amount of hunky shirtless guys and boddice ripping... are those designed to appeal to men as well? Magic Mike and other strip clubs? And yes, I know they are no where near as prevalent as the ones aimed at men, the point is many women ARE attracted to that, and more would likely be if society weren't shaming women for more aggressive/overt sexuality. 50 Shades of Gray, with its female sub seems to have done well for itself, and a quick perusal of Crag's List will show many men wanting to be dominated by women. What I disagree with is the "one size fits all" ideal of fantasy.

That said, a stay at home dad is sadly openly mocked by many people, to give an example of the sexualization negatively effecting both men and women.

I would totally agree with this however.

Bossk_Hogg wrote:
Again, implying that women cannot (or should not) want strapping men as sex objects

That isn't being said.

 mattyrm wrote:

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:

I have to say, I'm pretty baffled by this idea that "Wargaming/gaming is a hobby for men." I'm just finding that to be odd and a little off putting.

Be aware that I agree with most of what you have said, and clearly I've got no time for the ridiculous social misfits that make rape jokes (although, I have took my missus into GW with me many times and nobody has evr gave her any gak at all or displayed such a crass level of social ineptitude) But this comment makes no sense.. it IS a hobby for men surely?

If 95% of the people that you see at tourneys, or in Games Workshop have cocks.. even really small ones, then by definition, that's what It is, and therefore thats the norm. Note that Im not saying it should be that way, indeed, Id love it if my missus was interested (she massively isn't and reads or watches No Reservations or something when I paint or play) but you cant argue with what is an obvious fact, most chicks don't like wargaming.

In fact, I've probably dated more women than most chaps due to my "never at home for more than a month" Bootneck career, and I didn't actually meet a single one that was remotely interested either, I think the cl;osest I got was a goth bird who was into David Gemmell.. but obviously my hobby always came up when they saw my minis.. and the fact of the matter is that its pretty fething weird for a chick to like war gaming.

Ergo, if you fall into a huge, huge minority, surely you are the odd one?

And if its so normal for women to ignore the hobby (it is!) why do you find it off putting? Isn't it entirely understandable? Aren't we all just following the social norms? People don't find it odd when they see old people knitting, but they find it odd when they see them skateboarding! Is it really that strange that people think something thats very uncommon is a bit odd in itself?

I think, there's a difference for me between something being "A hobby that appeals to men moreso than women" And "A hobby that is FOR men, not women." When framed as something that appeals to men, yes women are in a minority if interested, but we're not excluded as being "Not the people this hobby is for."

Though I'm not sure I'm explaining the difference very well.

 Melissia wrote:


Her wearing a jumpsuit made sense for a pilot, after all, and it still has enough on it that you can envision her putting on some armor over that suit.

And if we turn the brightness down on our monitors and squint a little, we can pretend she is holding two big dildos!

YEEAAHHHH!

 mattyrm wrote:

 Melissia wrote:


Her wearing a jumpsuit made sense for a pilot, after all, and it still has enough on it that you can envision her putting on some armor over that suit.

And if we turn the brightness down on our monitors and squint a little, we can pretend she is holding two big dildos!

YEEAAHHHH!

Nah, but we CAN imagine that she's wielding one-handed crossbows that SHOOT dildos.

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:


I think, there's a difference for me between something being "A hobby that appeals to men moreso than women" And "A hobby that is FOR men, not women." When framed as something that appeals to men, yes women are in a minority if interested, but we're not excluded as being "Not the people this hobby is for."

Though I'm not sure I'm explaining the difference very well.

Oh right yeah well, of course the hobby isn't FOR men, I certainly think that over the last decade its become more common and accessible for women, and that's a good thing. I was just pointing out that if you think people are looking at you oddly.. its because.. well.. generally speaking, women playing wargames IS a little odd.

Most ladies haven't got that good taste.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:


YEEAAHHHH!

Nah, but we CAN imagine that she's wearing one-handed crossbows that SHOOT dildos.

 Melissia wrote:

 hammeyaneggs wrote:
If you want it to change, make sure those models you agree with sell really well

I'd love to... if they were actually being sculpted.

By and large, they are not in any notable amount. How the hell am I supposed to buy something that doesn't exist?

Rather then reiterate my "do something about it" post, let me ask you: what would you like to see that would make you happy?

Let's be quite clear here, people that do matter in the industry post on this board. Mack Martin, Mark Mondragon, Adam Poots, Tre Manor, Patrick Keith, Misty Smith and doubtless others that don't care to identify themselves.

So what do you want them to know, or, in the grand words of service people everywhere "how can they meet your needs better?" Specifically now: you've seen examples of DFG's "male" and female stormtroopers in this thread, what would change them from a "pass" to a "buy" for you? What would you have liked to see in KD:M that you didn't see, and would make KD:Heroes a buy for you? Is there an option for Wyrd's multipose female mini kit that you think simply must be there?

Seriously, campaigns for kickstarter are being planned by at least two of the aforementioned, what would you want to see in there? What does Mantic have to have in it's Warpath ks to meet your unmet need?

There has never been a time when more could be accomplished simply by speaking up and telling people exactly what it is that you want.

I explained the biggest two things I'm trying to find here:

 Melissia wrote:
Mostly, I'm looking for miniatures to represent my characters in various RPGs I play, and models I can use to represent female Imperial Guardsmen without having them blatantly stick out. The former is much, much easier to find (Reaper is the biggest source of this, and they've really improved... but they're not perfect by any means), the latter... I haven't found any in the various years I've been looking.

Which is to say, since the launch of third edition C:IG.

The problem is not just finding "soldiers who are female" but also trying to get them to fit in with the rest of the models while not sticking out too much. A lot of sci-fi models have the girls wear jumpsuits, or have aesthetics that just clash with cadian models, and so on and so forth.

As for the RPG characters, that's really just a matter of me being too picky most of the time.

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
I think, there's a difference for me between something being "A hobby that appeals to men moreso than women" And "A hobby that is FOR men, not women." When framed as something that appeals to men, yes women are in a minority if interested, but we're not excluded as being "Not the people this hobby is for."

Though I'm not sure I'm explaining the difference very well.

But do you yourself actually feel that it is a "hobby FOR men" and if so, why?

I'll be front with you-- I don't give a rat's ass about painting. The models I use, I only use as tools to make some other thing more enjoyable, like an RPG, or a tabletop game. I pointedly ignore the entire painting and modeling section of this forum, it's a tedious bore to me.

Which really makes the search all the more frustrating, because I view painting as at best a chore, and I don't want to paint a miniature I'm not really that happy with because feth painting-- so it makes my standards higher than if I actually wanted to paint the model (such as back when I was really trying to get in to the hobby). And again, with the kickstarter thing, I don't have the money for that. [/shrug]

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
I think, there's a difference for me between something being "A hobby that appeals to men moreso than women" And "A hobby that is FOR men, not women." When framed as something that appeals to men, yes women are in a minority if interested, but we're not excluded as being "Not the people this hobby is for."

Though I'm not sure I'm explaining the difference very well.

But do you yourself actually feel that it is a "hobby FOR men" and if so, why?

Do I feel that way? Screw that. It appeals to a lot more men, yes. But FOR men? No.

The ground keeps shifting under me. I think I've found what everyone is arguing about and then the whole thing shifts focus.

The only thing I can say is the whole thread seems a Men-vs-Women ordeal in the antagonistic sense.

 Dentry wrote:
the whole thread seems a Men-vs-Women ordeal

Agreed but I think this is what a lot of talk about "sexism" (including OP's points and especially the link he posted) boils down to these days. What miniatures are available on the market hardly speaks to anything about equality between women and men in our society. What is left over? IMO, a presumptuous and antagonistic attitude that has nothing to do with sex as both sexes seem to regularly indulge in it.

 Melissia wrote:

 mattyrm wrote:

 Melissia wrote:


Her wearing a jumpsuit made sense for a pilot, after all, and it still has enough on it that you can envision her putting on some armor over that suit.

And if we turn the brightness down on our monitors and squint a little, we can pretend she is holding two big dildos!

YEEAAHHHH!

Nah, but we CAN imagine that she's wielding one-handed crossbows that SHOOT dildos.

Its time to put an end to crossbow on sex toy violence. What did those dildos ever do to anyone?

On second thought, perhaps we shouldn't answer that question...

Bitch Magazine is the best. I can read those magazines for hours. I hope they take wargaming apart. That article is nothing compared to what they are capable of. I have a feeling they will leave it alone as wargaming is full of creepy nerds and there is little empowerment in destroying nerd masculinity. But they are Bitches so you never know. I hope they do it and really go for the balls. It could be a good mirror for "the community."

Until I read this thread I had no idea what cheesecake meant, other than it was a delicious type of desert, a desert made even better when covered in some sort of fruit topping.

That said, I still prefer a good apple pie over cheesecake.

hands_miranda wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

hands_miranda wrote:
Whine about it if you want, but if you want people to stop talking about the troglodyte label the best solution is to not act like one.

You claim to herald a pluralistic society but your language is full of derogatory comments and warnings to fit in. "Get with the program." Who's program? You have to realize that you're not talking about the end of privilege but its restructuring according to different parameters. This is different from what I mean. For example, you presume in the part of your post that I quoted that a person who doesn't want to be called a troglodyte should not act like one. It would be a wonderful world if people were only criticized for what they actually did and said -- but that's not the world we have. In this world, people call you a troglodyte for disagreeing with them. I reject that. Whether or not I share Blogger X's "concern" about a sexualized sculpt actually has nothing to do with whether I treat women with respect and dignity.

The point of plurality is that you have to throw out the old ideas that were set up to hinder the equality of people. It's no less pluralistic to call someone on the wrong side of the patriarchy divide a Troglodyte than it is to talk about persons on the wrong side of the racial inequality divide racist. Those divides are going to have to end, and the only way to do it in a equal society to redistribute power away from the advantaged groups and towards the disadvantaged. This is not a radical idea and has been happening in society for over a hundred years.

And yeah, liking and collecting a bunch of sexualized female figs is treating women with disrespect. You shouldn't be objectifying people, especially those you have a relative power advantage over. It's the same reason why collecting a bunch of racially stereotyped means you aren't treating those racial groups with respect. For example, the infamous Curteys Han Chinese figures with their overblown racialized look.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:
I have not advocated taking away the fan-service models, the cheesecake models, etc.. No matter how much you might try to claim otherwise, the claims are false, and I insist that you stop claiming that I have advocated that.

I'm not insisting that you claimed anything about fanservice. Fanservice is not the issue. The issue is sexualized miniature sculpts. Please stay on-topic.

Sexualized figures are fan service. Women, and men with some level of sensitivity about the issue, would prefer to be able to get some sculpts that aren't sexualized. Sorry, but with the bizarre breastplates and bondage gear, the old SOBs end up as pretty sexualized.

Here's a guy's art for redesigned sisters in a non-sexualized way :
http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k156/Terrible_Trygon/Sisters%20of%20Battle/BattleSisterDesign.jpg" border="0" />


Note how some level of femininity has been kept without actually sexualizing the figure. It's certainly possible to do so, it's just that due to how screwed up nerd and mini culture is, it isn't the more obvious choice.

what femininty? that looks like a man. if you didnt tell me i would assume that it's a man. yeesh
sisters should be more attractive/sexualized, not less, they look butch.

The problem with this argument is models are everyone's fantasy land. And personally in my fantasy land I want chicks in sexy armor with huge asses and bigol booobies. I want my space marines built like brickshit houses and I want my nurgle dude rotted to the core. Everyone sees it different the problem with the word "sexism" is it implies something negative when there is nothing negative about it. No one think less of women because of a sexy model this is there fantasy world and they want that girl to be that way. This isn't real life if you want real life miniatures other people do too but not everyone does. In fantasy world it doesn't matter how effective you think their armor is in my head gak doesn't work like that and this is cooler.

kb305 wrote:

what femininty? that looks like a man. if you didnt tell me i would assume that it's a man. yeesh
sisters should be more attractive/sexualized, not less, they look butch.

Actually this is not true Sisters of Battle are not actually nuns they are still women and do "mingle" with there imperial guard counter parts. They are not Space Marines they are humans some are hot as gak and some not so much.

The only source that tells us that sororitas have sex is the Cain series, and that is probably only slightly better a source than the Dawn of War series (no matter how amusing a read it is). So let's just drop that discussion.

 Manchu wrote:
I don't know if this is the sort of thing that Melissia means but I don't think more is necessarily good. For example, I'd say femarines have no place in the 40k setting. I don't mind them as homebrewed (you can have blue Blood Angels for all I care!) but I would be pretty disappointed if I saw GW make them.

Tell me, for I honestly wish to know.

What about female marines breaks the lore for you exactly? What about this universe - where the ideal way to deal with a tank is to punch it with a giant mitt, where one of the biggest problems are soccer hooligan-themed mushroom men, etc - would have the suspension of disbelief ruined by the presence of a female marine? I mean, we're not talking some intricate backstory that's set in stone - gee-dubs themselves are happy to retcon willy-nilly, and really, why not? The backstory for SM are essentially "a wizard did it", anyway.

I go the other way with it. When the Imperial Guard - the first line of defense for an embattled humanity - can, going by the model line, afford to pass on half the populace because they have the wrong junk; something most modern militaries already don't do - that breaks it for me.

Mostly, it breaks it by reminding me that instead of playing a fascinating tactical game with a rich universe, it's actually some poorly written spreadsheets shoehorned in after the fact to sell army men to small boys who still find girls to be yucky. This is how I feel GW sees me.

Just want to point out that GW has already shown what female IG look like. One of the characters in the Space Marine video game was a female IG officer.




With armor on, can't tell the difference. More people outside gaming will be familiar with this portrayal of women by GW than any model they put out.

 Melissia wrote:
The only source that tells us that sororitas have sex is the Cain series, and that is probably only slightly better a source than the Dawn of War series (no matter how amusing a read it is). So let's just drop that discussion.

Why would they not? Humans are humans they aren't space marines

silent25 wrote:
Just want to point out that GW has already shown what female IG look like. One of the characters in the Space Marine video game was a female IG officer.

With armor on, can't tell the difference. More people outside gaming will be familiar with this portrayal of women by GW than any model they put out.

And I'd reply, Fantasy Flight Games has shown me what a female guardsmen looks like. Relic has shown me what a female guardsman looks like.

Show me which one of those whole box of Rambo is a woman I can use in my game. I even underlined my point just to avoid this response.

 CajunMan550 wrote:
Why would they not? Humans are humans they aren't space marines

Sisters live a life of self-denial and discipline, for which giving in to one's vices is considered a sin that must be punished. There's really no reason to assume they WOULD, because their life is one that does not have time or allowance for such things. That they never actually in contact long enough for it to happen only adds to this. What's so strange about people not having sex for their entire lives by choice? Sisters have far more important things to do.

If anything, Sisters are LESS inclined to have sex than Space Marines are, and that's saying something.

 Melissia wrote:

 CajunMan550 wrote:
Why would they not? Humans are humans they aren't space marines

Sisters live a life of self-denial and discipline, for which giving in to one's vices is considered a sin that must be punished. There's really no reason to assume they WOULD, because their life is one that does not have time or allowance for such things. That they never actually in contact long enough for it to happen only adds to this. What's so strange about people not having sex for their entire lives by choice? Sisters have far more important things to do.

If anything, Sisters are LESS inclined to have sex than Space Marines are, and that's saying something.

Your also assuming every Sister of Battle is 100% pure just like every Nun and Priest now is right? They are still young women the majority of them and I've never read a piece of material saying it wasn't allow. Last I don't you can be any Less than a space marine in that regard they have been totally genetically reprogrammed to be nothing but fighting machines.

 CajunMan550 wrote:
Your also assuming every Sister of Battle is 100% pure

Because that is how they are described in the lore, outside of a SINGLE source whose information is not reproduced anywhere else and whose validity is questioned in-universe.

They are not, however, merely "young women". They are the best of the best, trained from childhood to become Sororitas, indoctrinated and trained to the point where they are capable of meeting or even exceeding Astartes in feats of combat-- despite not having any genetic implants. Even "acts of faith" are hinted at being things that they accomplish because of their TRAINING.

There are many things wrong with Sisters, but they are also still in many ways an example of female characters done right-- not as sex objects, but as competent human beings.

 Manchu wrote:
What miniatures are available on the market hardly speaks to anything about equality between women and men in our society.

Of course it does. It's just one more example of how women aren't considered a market of equal value compared to men.

silent25 wrote:
Just want to point out that GW has already shown what female IG look like. One of the characters in the Space Marine video game was a female IG officer.

Thank you for the perfect example of the kind of models that should exist in a sexism-free game. That's a realistic character, and one that is a hero to identify with without being used for sex appeal at all. And since she has a role in the video game, why not also create a 40k model and appropriate rules and release it as a WD update for IG?

(I think you can guess the answer to that one.)

 CajunMan550 wrote:
The problem with this argument is models are everyone's fantasy land. And personally in my fantasy land I want chicks in sexy armor with huge asses and bigol booobies. I want my space marines built like brickshit houses and I want my nurgle dude rotted to the core.

In other words, you want a fantasy land based around your desires that leaves no place for anyone who wants anything different, excluding a lot of potential players as a result. Thank you for proving my point very nicely.

kb305 wrote:
sisters should be more attractive/sexualized, not less, they look butch.

And people still believe there isn't a sexism problem...

Think we're confusing the word "pure" and virgin which is sexist in itself. Even nuns and priests don't have to be celibate before they enter their order so long as they are after their oath to their God. Kinda like a marriage, frowned upon to be adulterous beforehand, but unforgivable after the vow. Perhaps that might be a reason why the SoB were once called Brides?

Also,

It takes an extremely strong willed person to resist natural urges, which in my mind makes the SoB even more heroic than SM's because they have all the abilities, gear, and toys of a super human warrior, but must contend with still being human at the same time.

 DemetriDominov wrote:
Even nuns and priests don't have to be celibate before they enter their order so long as they are after their oath to their God

Yes, this is certainly true. They may have experimented while in the Schola Progenium, but once they enter the Sororitas, they really don't have time for such luxuries.

Why does the whole "do SoB have sex" question matter anyway? Who cares what they do when they're not fighting, that isn't what is being represented on the tabletop. Having sex does not mean dressing up in sexy-but-impractical armor, or being less effective at killing the enemies of god, or worrying about looking pretty in the middle of a battlefield.

 Peregrine wrote:

 CajunMan550 wrote:
The problem with this argument is models are everyone's fantasy land. And personally in my fantasy land I want chicks in sexy armor with huge asses and bigol booobies. I want my space marines built like brickshit houses and I want my nurgle dude rotted to the core.

In other words, you want a fantasy land based around your desires that leaves no place for anyone who wants anything different, excluding a lot of potential players as a result. Thank you for proving my point very nicely.

Please remove head from ass before talking. I said everyone has a fantasy land I EVEN SAID IN MY POST THERE IS A PLACE FOR BOTH TYPES OF MODELS. Offering all types of models fulfills everyones fantasies when playing no matter what they are. You are calling me wrong when all I said is I want both so anyone can live out what they want and so anyone can enjoy them. Thank you for being an idiot and incapable of reading holy crap please go count something before I get banned for ripping you apart on here.

 Melissia wrote:

 DemetriDominov wrote:
Even nuns and priests don't have to be celibate before they enter their order so long as they are after their oath to their God

Yes, this is certainly true. They may have experimented while in the Schola Progenium, but once they enter the Sororitas, they really don't have time for such luxuries.

That is not none for sure

 Peregrine wrote:
Why does the whole "do SoB have sex" question matter anyway? Who cares what they do when they're not fighting, that isn't what is being represented on the tabletop. Having sex does not mean dressing up in sexy-but-impractical armor, or being less effective at killing the enemies of god, or worrying about looking pretty in the middle of a battlefield.

I really wasn't arguing whether the armor matters for showing that (was just a side note and fun to argue about) He just said that SB are very butch and I commented not all are some are quite beautiful and some nto so much.

 Peregrine wrote:
Why does the whole "do SoB have sex" question matter anyway?

It doesn't matter, but that doesn't stop it from coming up all the time.

And the answer is that they don't. Even if they have no vow of chastity, they do not have the time or inclination for such things-- sex is a vice and a weakness, and they live a life of self-denial and discipline that does not allow for such weaknesses.

 Ouze wrote:
What about this universe [...] would have the suspension of disbelief ruined by the presence of a female marine?

Sorry but I'm not talking about suspension of disbelief. I'm talking about a coherent aesthetic.

 Manchu wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
What about this universe [...] would have the suspension of disbelief ruined by the presence of a female marine?

Sorry but I'm not talking about suspension of disbelief. I'm talking about a coherent aesthetic.

I don't see anything in 40k that would make it less coherent if there were fem-marines, but then again I've been called a marine-hater and marine-basher and the like for years now (even as I was posting Space Marine lists, custom chapter lore, and discussing how awesome I thought Space Wolves and Salamanders are), so my opinion probably doesn't matter.

 Melissia wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Why does the whole "do SoB have sex" question matter anyway?

It doesn't matter, but that doesn't stop it from coming up all the time.

And the answer is that they don't. Even if they have no vow of chastity, they do not have the time or inclination for such things-- sex is a vice and a weakness, and they live a life of self-denial and discipline that does not allow for such weaknesses.

Uch, that sounds like the George Lucas view of spiritual perfection... and now the idea of SoB as the execrable Jedi Order of the prequel movies is in my head.

Just great.

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Why does the whole "do SoB have sex" question matter anyway?

It doesn't matter, but that doesn't stop it from coming up all the time.

And the answer is that they don't. Even if they have no vow of chastity, they do not have the time or inclination for such things-- sex is a vice and a weakness, and they live a life of self-denial and discipline that does not allow for such weaknesses.

Uch, that sounds like the George Lucas view of spiritual perfection... and now the idea of SoB as the execrable Jedi Order of the prequel movies is in my head.

The fact that their Acts of Faith are hinted at being essentially a martial arts style probably won't help.

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Why does the whole "do SoB have sex" question matter anyway?

It doesn't matter, but that doesn't stop it from coming up all the time.

And the answer is that they don't. Even if they have no vow of chastity, they do not have the time or inclination for such things-- sex is a vice and a weakness, and they live a life of self-denial and discipline that does not allow for such weaknesses.

Uch, that sounds like the George Lucas view of spiritual perfection... and now the idea of SoB as the execrable Jedi Order of the prequel movies is in my head.

Just great.

Don't say that he will remake them again if he reads this he will buy SW back and do It! noooooo

 CajunMan550 wrote:
Please remove head from ass before talking. I said everyone has a fantasy land I EVEN SAID IN MY POST THERE IS A PLACE FOR BOTH TYPES OF MODELS. Offering all types of models fulfills everyones fantasies when playing no matter what they are.

Except that having lots of sex-object models tells potential female customers "you're here to be a sex object, not a real character". And you've made it clear that your fantasy land involves women being "idealized" sex objects whose primary purpose is to look pretty. Can you really not see how moving the game in that direction excludes people and/or makes them feel uncomfortable?

Thank you for being an idiot and incapable of reading holy crap please go count something before I get banned for ripping you apart on here.

Well I'd say you're well on your way to getting banned, just as soon as I press that little report button.

 Peregrine wrote:

 CajunMan550 wrote:
Please remove head from ass before talking. I said everyone has a fantasy land I EVEN SAID IN MY POST THERE IS A PLACE FOR BOTH TYPES OF MODELS. Offering all types of models fulfills everyones fantasies when playing no matter what they are.

Except that having lots of sex-object models tells potential female customers "you're here to be a sex object, not a real character". And you've made it clear that your fantasy land involves women being "idealized" sex objects whose primary purpose is to look pretty. Can you really not see how moving the game in that direction excludes people and/or makes them feel uncomfortable?

Thank you for being an idiot and incapable of reading holy crap please go count something before I get banned for ripping you apart on here.

Well I'd say you're well on your way to getting banned, just as soon as I press that little report button.

Your also saying all women are as sensitive as you and that none don't have opposing views. On top of this you are talking about a hobby that is 99% male. Then next you are talking about women as if all don't like other beautiful women? Tell me more.

The hobby being 99% male (a number most assuredly pulled out of thin air and not representative of reality) is not a justification for actively trying to exclude women.

 Melissia wrote:


The problem is not just finding "soldiers who are female" but also trying to get them to fit in with the rest of the models while not sticking out too much. A lot of sci-fi models have the girls wear jumpsuits, or have aesthetics that just clash with cadian models, and so on and so forth.

As for the RPG characters, that's really just a matter of me being too picky most of the time.

Would something like this be ok? old Citadel female imperial guard, i think Ripley is the name

 Manchu wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
What about this universe [...] would have the suspension of disbelief ruined by the presence of a female marine?

Sorry but I'm not talking about suspension of disbelief. I'm talking about a coherent aesthetic.

Would you expand upon this?

 Melissia wrote:
The hobby being 99% male (a number most assuredly pulled out of thin air and not representative of reality) is not a justification for actively trying to exclude women.

And 99% of people in the hobby (a number most assuredly pulled out of thin air and not representative of reality) do not actively try to exclude women.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:

 Melissia wrote:


The problem is not just finding "soldiers who are female" but also trying to get them to fit in with the rest of the models while not sticking out too much. A lot of sci-fi models have the girls wear jumpsuits, or have aesthetics that just clash with cadian models, and so on and so forth.

As for the RPG characters, that's really just a matter of me being too picky most of the time.

Would something like this be ok? old Citadel female imperial guard, i think Ripley is the name
http://img846.imageshack.us/img846/1102/femimp.png

If I was collecting Catachan that could definitely work.

But I'm collecting mostly Cadians. I could definitely pick her up to add to my veteran squad though, whom I'm representing with Catachans.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
Would something like this be ok? old Citadel female imperial guard, i think Ripley is the name

Yes, it would. She's wearing a tight T-shirt, but that is because she is a Catachan, not because she has boobs.

Also good:

 CajunMan550 wrote:
Your also saying all women are as sensitive as you and that none don't have opposing views.

No, I'm saying that when the dominant role of women in a game is "male fantasy material" it causes a lot of people to look at the game, eyeroll at the immaturity and/or sexism, and find something else to spend their time and money on. And it also seems to encourage an attitude among the community that the proper response to any criticism of that role is to scream about "feminazis" oppressing men for being men.

On top of this you are talking about a hobby that is 99% male.

I wonder why it's 99% male....

Then next you are talking about women as if all don't like other beautiful women?

Of course some women like other beautiful women. But that's not the point. The problem isn't a single sculpt taken in isolation, it's that the general trend in the hobby is to act like women are just there to fulfill male fantasies, not to be legitimate characters.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
The hobby being 99% male (a number most assuredly pulled out of thin air and not representative of reality) is not a justification for actively trying to exclude women.

And 99% of people in the hobby (a number most assuredly pulled out of thin air and not representative of reality) do not actively try to exclude women.

I never said they did. In fact, I specifically expressed this sentiment of "a few rotten individuals make it bad for everyone else" several times over the course of this

 Melissia wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:

 Melissia wrote:


The problem is not just finding "soldiers who are female" but also trying to get them to fit in with the rest of the models while not sticking out too much. A lot of sci-fi models have the girls wear jumpsuits, or have aesthetics that just clash with cadian models, and so on and so forth.

As for the RPG characters, that's really just a matter of me being too picky most of the time.

Would something like this be ok? old Citadel female imperial guard, i think Ripley is the name
http://img846.imageshack.us/img846/1102/femimp.png

If I was collecting Catachan that could definitely work.

But I'm collecting mostly Cadians. I could definitely pick her up to add to my veteran squad though, whom I'm representing with Catachans.

Catachans are actually pretty easy. Shadow Forge has a good selection which work for those.

http://eurekamin.com.au/index.php?cPath=806_807_812&sort=3a

Yeah, Catachan are basically "Vietnam-era US soldiers" crossed with Rambo, heh.

The faces on some of those models do kind of bother me, but that might just be the paint jobs.

 Melissia wrote:
Yeah, Catachan are basically "Vietnam-era US soldiers" crossed with Rambo, heh.

The faces on some of those models do kind of bother me, but that might just be the paint jobs.

Mostly the paint jobs - they are actually prettty good. The rest aren't too bad either, but that would likely cause all sorts of fits and what not for their blatant hyper-feminization.

Not fits, just me not caring enough to even consider buying them. I'm interested in models I can use on the tabletop, rather than models that titilate or "just look nice" but aren't very usable.

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Why does the whole "do SoB have sex" question matter anyway?

It doesn't matter, but that doesn't stop it from coming up all the time.

And the answer is that they don't. Even if they have no vow of chastity, they do not have the time or inclination for such things-- sex is a vice and a weakness, and they live a life of self-denial and discipline that does not allow for such weaknesses.

Uch, that sounds like the George Lucas view of spiritual perfection... and now the idea of SoB as the execrable Jedi Order of the prequel movies is in my head.

Just great.

Giving SoB lightsabers would be one way to freshen up the model line. I'd buy a dozen.

Jumping back to the lore, GW in particular does have some strong female characters. the aforementioned Ciaphas Cain novels in particular have some straight up bad ass ladies in the officer and enlisted ranks. Col. Castine and Lt. Sulla are a rich part of that world. Hell roll up rules for Amberly Vail and stick her into the IG codex with the above. She's consistently the most bad ass character in the books in every conceivable way and the Colonel's a short second. Sulla makes me face palm because she's a typical butterbar, but she becomes the first Lady-General in Guard history, so who am I to talk gak eh? The fluff's there, decent rules and a write up, then actually providing the models, and they will come. Hell I'd buy 30-40 (if not more) fem guard even if they were forgeworld.

How hard would it be for GW to make then sell the following?
597th Valhallan Command Squad, Standard Bearer, Vox Officer, Col. Regina Castine, Ciaphas Cain, Lt. Jenit Sulla, Jurgen,

Given'em a mix of special abilities and fun rules, Sulla for example comes with a free Chimera because she's a Mech Infantry officer, any infantry unit within X distance gains "Fearless Charge" because of her famous suicidal bravery, etc.

and a "Female Guard" 10 trooper box, or conversion kit?

I'd probably go as far as to buy an Imperial Armor volume for such, but that's pushing it.

Sexuality has a time to be expressed. TBH if a game like 40k consisted of mostly nude, male Space Marines with huge packages, sticking out their ass and bashfully smiling, or in other such poses as to make them sexual objects before all else... not sure how I would feel about playing that game . It's silly and unrealistic in the first place for a military simulation, and it's hard to get past. But I'm not going to tell anyone not to make models like that.

There are women who have no problem with sexualizing themselves and identifying with sexy heroines, but not all women (although probably more than men), so I think games ought to take that into account.

But the main reason women don't play wargames is the same that men don't play with dollhouses, it's all about gender roles imprinted on us. There still is the fact that testosterone-infused males are more aggressive and wargames (as well as sports) are a great way to channel our aggression, and we are conditioned from a young age to play with guns and identify with the military so that we might one day willing die for our leaders in foreign countries (rather than staying at home and possibly overthrowing them).

As for KD, I think it's a cool game. More into the monsters than the pinups, but hey, they are at least tastefully sexy.

Thats something that would convince me to fork over my cash to GW, mainly because i love Ciaphas Cain.

 Meade wrote:
But the main reason women don't play wargames is the same that men don't play with dollhouses, it's all about gender roles imprinted on us.

The same reason why advertisers think young girls are mentally defective while they try to treat young boys as brilliant. Cultural bias which has no real basis in fact, it's just tradition.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ClarkesLawForGirlsToys
http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-5-most-pointlessly-women-specific-products/

 Meade wrote:


But the main reason women don't play wargames is the same that men don't play with dollhouses, it's all about gender roles imprinted on us.

Interestingly I'd say we're actually at a period where that imprinting is starting to fail. Female gamers are as we've all seen strongly on the rise, within wargaming, RPGs, and video games along with the rest of nerd culture on a pretty large scale. Conversely we have the Brony population who say of them what you will are a group of relatively average nerds who watch a TV show for girls about pastel sparkle ponies. More and more people are challenging those gender roles and ultimately casting them aside.

 Manchu wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
What about this universe [...] would have the suspension of disbelief ruined by the presence of a female marine?

Sorry but I'm not talking about suspension of disbelief. I'm talking about a coherent aesthetic.

I'm not sure if this is in the same vein as what you are thinking, but I'm not overly keen on having rank and file female guardsmen in my own army. Not because I'm some woman hater, but because I like the idea of my guardsmen being the best mankind can achieve without genetic modification, representing the best athletes and most fit and strong people, but at the same time being nameless and faceless meat for the grinder, so I want them to look like they were churned out of a factory all looking the same. For that reason I like the aesthetic created by having them all men and all looking much the same. There could be women in there, but by the end of it they're as buff as the men (since they have to be), wearing the same armour as the men and indistinguishable from them. I LIKE that all my guardsmen look the same. Like any individuality has been crushed out of them, even in appearance.

That said, I'd be happy enough to see distinctly female models as commanders and such in my IG army.

Now, that's MY view of my guardsmen. Other people are free to have other views of them of course and I understand why other people might want distinctly female guardsmen. But personally I'm happy that my guardsmen are all male models and if they had a separate box of female guard add ons, that would be fine and other people could use them, but I wouldn't want to use them myself and if they made guardsmen as a mixed set of male and female parts I'd end up less happy because I'd be discarding all the female bits and effectively paying more per model for the ones I do want.

Obviously if GW did do that I'd just have to suck it up and deal with it. There's plenty of armies that are close to what I want but lack the aesthetic that I'd like.

Now, for my Wood Elves (and Eldar or Dark Elves if I collected them) on the other hand, I view them much differently and am happy to have a mix of female and male bits in the boxes of glade riders/glade guard/eternal guard/etc. I think the only units in the WE army that aren't mixed gender are the Wild Riders and the Dryads.

 Varrick wrote:
Thats something that would convince me to fork over my cash to GW, mainly because i love Ciaphas Cain.

I know right? I'd buy direct for that even. They did release that Cain limited edition mini for the Black Library, pretty sure they're over $100 for one on ebay and it's not even playable without home brew rules.

 Meade wrote:
Sexuality has a time to be expressed. TBH if a game like 40k consisted of mostly nude, male Space Marines with huge packages, sticking out their ass and bashfully smiling, or in other such poses as to make them sexual objects before all else... not sure how I would feel about playing that game . It's silly and unrealistic in the first place for a military simulation, and it's hard to get past. But I'm not going to tell anyone not to make models like that.

You could make a slanesh chaos marine army like that

Any Cain miniature release needs a Jurgen.

 Melissia wrote:
Any Cain miniature release needs a Jurgen.

This is a given. Failure to comply will be deemed heresy most foul.

On the Cain subject... yes, strangely that makes sense. A lot of sense.

On advertising to girls like they're retards... well, as a young boy a lot of people tried to convince me that there was a fat man who came down the chimney to give me presents and he flew in a sled pulled by reindeer. So I don't think it's entirely gender-specific. The pink-blue thing is rather obviously made up by culture and it goes both ways.

 Melissia wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
What about this universe [...] would have the suspension of disbelief ruined by the presence of a female marine?

Sorry but I'm not talking about suspension of disbelief. I'm talking about a coherent aesthetic.

I don't see anything in 40k that would make it less coherent if there were fem-marines, but then again I've been called a marine-hater and marine-basher and the like for years now (even as I was posting Space Marine lists, custom chapter lore, and discussing how awesome I thought Space Wolves and Salamanders are), so my opinion probably doesn't matter.

Go to school for one day and this thread has exploded! Wow

Anyway, here's the dealio: It's not possible for there to be female marines. Just like Sisters of Battle don't traditionally give into vices like sex, etc. It's part of the background.

Please, tell me more of how, in this make believe background where space marines have 2 hearts and can spit acid, that these pretend organs won't work.

 Vladsimpaler wrote:
Anyway, here's the dealio: It's not possible for there to be female marines. Just like Sisters of Battle don't traditionally give into vices like sex, etc. It's part of the background.

But GW has demonstrated their willingness to change the background whenever it's convenient, and "no female marines" is a fluff detail, not an inherent part of "genetically engineered super-soldiers in power armor" that can't be changed without destroying the entire concept.

(Of course having an all-male army wouldn't be nearly as much of an issue if marines weren't the majority of the game.)

 Meade wrote:
On the Cain subject... yes, strangely that makes sense. A lot of sense.

On advertising to girls like they're retards... well, as a young boy a lot of people tried to convince me that there was a fat man who came down the chimney to give me presents and he flew in a sled pulled by reindeer. So I don't think it's entirely gender-specific. The pink-blue thing is rather obviously made up by culture and it goes both ways.

You don't understand the full extent of it, then. I really recommend you read through those two links I gave, if you want to understand my low opinion about the expertise and intelligence of the advertising industry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vladsimpaler wrote:
Anyway, here's the dealio: It's not possible for there to be female marines.

If GW wanted to change it, it's possible. Just like with every other part of the lore.

The question isn't "can", it's "should".

Female space marines... is just not part of the fluff. The Imperium is Nazi Germany/Roman Empire on a galactic scale... why would they be politically correct? I hate that the game is so dominated by space marines and I'd change it if I could, but it could be worse. It's like complaining if you play a WW2 game that all the soldiers are dudes. Well, except maybe for the Russians, they were all dudes.

When I read literature and I pick up a book with a female lead character, the fact that she's female doesn't stop me from identifying with the character, if its well written. Maybe I enjoy Hemingway slightly more that Jane Austen, but the fact remains I can appreciate both books for what they are.

 Peregrine wrote:
But GW has demonstrated their willingness to change the background whenever it's convenient, and "no female marines" is a fluff detail, not an inherent part of "genetically engineered super-soldiers in power armor" that can't be changed without destroying the entire concept.

It's a set-in-stone part of the universe that there are no female Marines. Saying "But they could change that!" is a cop-out, because they could change literally anything tomorrow. They could say that Ultramarines are red if they wanted. That all races use Lasguns. That Dub-Step is the major past-time of the Tyranids. They could even say that Marines don't even exist if they wanted to. The fact of the matter is that once you take away "But they could change it!" you're left with the solidly maintained and unchangeable (by any of us) fact that there are no female Marines that it has been specifically stated that the process of making Marines precludes the female gender.

There is no argument to be entered. There is no debate to be had. This is as a solid a 'fact' as one gets in 40K, alongside "Marines use Bolters" and the names of the four Chaos Gods.

Of course they could change it at a whim, but until such time as they do, there is simply no point in arguing otherwise.

Fairness aside, it'd be interesting to see GW even attempt to make female SM's as they have yet to exist since the time of the Emperor.

In this case, I'd be ok with settling with the SoB as female SM equivalent's because they'd have some serious explaining to do after 25 years of pure manliness lore that has essentially dug itself into the annuls of GW. It's really hard to remove the skeleton of a creature when it's still alive and expect it to stay that way - but morphing or even breaking them to a certain degree certainly gives rise to new and interesting paths of motion......

i'd like to see female marines, GW don't make any good female heads for me to give to them for me to make my own

 DemetriDominov wrote:
Fairness aside, it'd be interesting to see GW even attempt to make female SM's as they have yet to exist since the time of the Emperor.

I wouldn't have a problem with it. I mean, we'd of course get an Amazonian Chapter ('cause they wouldn't be able to help themselves) and there'd be a "Big Bertha" character and an "Artemis" character (again, because they wouldn't be able to help themselves), but until they do so, they don't and cannot exist.

But honestly I'd rather they do the SoB justice and re-do them into a fully fledged army rather than an army limping along with a model range that has almost all been around since 2nd Ed. Make them into a proper fighting force worthy of a non-WD Codex, then worry about FemMarines.

 Meade wrote:
It's like complaining if you play a WW2 game that all the soldiers are dudes.

Actually I do make that complaint. WWII games are kind of boring. But that also might just be because I feel that way about historical re-enactment games and most of them are basically just that.

In 40k, for all its problems, you create new things. In WWII games, you try to re-live old things. It's probably also why I'm bored by the Horus Heresy.

 Melissia wrote:
Actually I do make that complaint.

Then play Soviets. They had women in their army.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
But GW has demonstrated their willingness to change the background whenever it's convenient, and "no female marines" is a fluff detail, not an inherent part of "genetically engineered super-soldiers in power armor" that can't be changed without destroying the entire concept.

It's a set-in-stone part of the universe that there are no female Marines. Saying "But they could change that!" is a cop-out, because they could change literally anything tomorrow. They could say that Ultramarines are red if they wanted. That all races use Lasguns. That Dub-Step is the major past-time of the Tyranids. They could even say that Marines don't even exist if they wanted to. The fact of the matter is that once you take away "But they could change it!" you're left with the solidly maintained and unchangeable (by any of us) fact that there are no female Marines that it has been specifically stated that the process of making Marines precludes the female gender.

There is no argument to be entered. There is no debate to be had. This is as a solid a 'fact' as one gets in 40K, alongside "Marines use Bolters" and the names of the four Chaos Gods.

Of course they could change it at a whim, but until such time as they do, there is simply no point in arguing otherwise.

Right, because GW has never taken any 'set-in-stone' aspect of the 40k universe and simply tossed it out the airlock.

Squats.

 Peregrine wrote:

 CajunMan550 wrote:
The problem with this argument is models are everyone's fantasy land. And personally in my fantasy land I want chicks in sexy armor with huge asses and bigol booobies. I want my space marines built like brickshit houses and I want my nurgle dude rotted to the core.

In other words, you want a fantasy land based around your desires that leaves no place for anyone who wants anything different, excluding a lot of potential players as a result. Thank you for proving my point very nicely.

kb305 wrote:
sisters should be more attractive/sexualized, not less, they look butch.

And people still believe there isn't a sexism problem...

This post is the type of thing that gets the negative reactions that a real appeal for equality doesn't.

Both CajunMan550 and kb305 express their preference for a particular kind of miniature and are told they are immoral for doing so.

This is a perfect example of self righteous moral imperialism.

Of course CajunMan550 wants a fantasy based on his desires. Is he supposed to want a fantasy based around yours instead? And then Peregrine misrepresents CajunMan550's position by adding "that leaves no place for anyone who wants anything different."

Can't you see Peregrine, that you are the one doing that? You are the one trying to condemn something other people like in order to leave no place for it? And you probably see yourself as a great moral champion for doing so.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Of course they could change it at a whim, but until such time as they do, there is simply no point in arguing otherwise.

But that's exactly what was being argued. I was replying to the idea that GW couldn't change it, not that the current fluff says it's impossible.

Peregrine - Fair enough. You won't find me arguing against that. I don't think GW would, but they certainly could change it.

 infinite_array wrote:
Right, because GW has never taken any 'set-in-stone' aspect of the 40k universe and simply tossed it out the airlock.

And tell me where I said that they had not or would not do that?

Oh that's right: I didn't.

Don't put words in my mouth.

agustin wrote:
Both CajunMan550 and kb305 express their preference for a particular kind of miniature and are told they are immoral for doing so.

They weren't told they're immoral.

Of course CajunMan550 wants a fantasy based on his desires. Is he supposed to want a fantasy based around yours instead? And then Peregrine misrepresents CajunMan550's position by adding "that leaves no place for anyone who wants anything different."

Oh yes, let's pretend that what he wants is just a mere 5% of the total models in the game, just a token few "chicks in sexy armor with huge asses and bigol booobies" so that he can be happy, and not a game in which "chicks in sexy armor with huge asses and bigol booobies" is the default and everything else is excluded.

You are the one trying to condemn something other people like in order to leave no place for it?

How is "this should be a minor part of the game", which is what I've clearly said it should be, the same thing as "this should be banned and everyone who likes it is immoral"?

 Melissia wrote:

 Meade wrote:
It's like complaining if you play a WW2 game that all the soldiers are dudes.

Actually I do make that complaint. WWII games are kind of boring. But that also might just be because I feel that way about historical re-enactment games and most of them are basically just that.

Well there you go. My point is, if I read a Jane Austen novel, it pretty much goes without saying that much like playing a WW2 game, if I'm going to enjoy this I'll have to put myself in the shoes of the opposite sex. When women play wargames it's mostly like men reading Jane Austen novels.

That explains why 40k is slightly friendlier to women than historicals (hard as that may be to imagine...). There is more of a roleplaying element to 40k and more access to female characters if you play the right race.

 Melissia wrote:

 Meade wrote:
On the Cain subject... yes, strangely that makes sense. A lot of sense.

On advertising to girls like they're retards... well, as a young boy a lot of people tried to convince me that there was a fat man who came down the chimney to give me presents and he flew in a sled pulled by reindeer. So I don't think it's entirely gender-specific. The pink-blue thing is rather obviously made up by culture and it goes both ways.

You don't understand the full extent of it, then. I really recommend you read through those two links I gave, if you want to understand my low opinion about the expertise and intelligence of the advertising industry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vladsimpaler wrote:
Anyway, here's the dealio: It's not possible for there to be female marines.

If GW wanted to change it, it's possible. Just like with every other part of the lore.

The question isn't "can", it's "should".

So what? They could choose tomorrow to make all Sisters of battle look like Repentia, and make it so that Sisters cruise hive worlds looking to get laid. Doesn't mean it will happen. Although much to your chagrin, I imagine that they'd sell much better.

As HBMC said, just because they can doesn't mean they will. Until they change the fluff, female marines are impossible. Nevermind the logistics, etc. but it won't happen.

 Ouze wrote:
Please, tell me more of how, in this make believe background where space marines have 2 hearts and can spit acid, that these pretend organs won't work.

I'm sure you could write fluff to make anything you want work and you're welcome to do so. Personally I don't like the idea of female Space Marines because I see Space Marines as the ultimate elite where no weakness could be accepted, behemoths with so much bone and muscle mass that even without armour they could shrug off blows that would kill a lesser human. Like it or not, men at the most elite level are bigger and stronger than women at the most elite level. Any form of athletics has a womens and a mens division not because of sexism, but because if it weren't then there'd be no women in many events (and perhaps some where there'd be no men).

Now I have no problem with female armies or Sisters of Battle, it just doesn't sit with me that a Marine chapter would recruit females to begin with. Now obviously you could make fluff about certain females being the physical equal of males in the far future (and they'd probably look like men anyway, what was Gimli's joke in the LOTR movies? Dwarf women are often mistaken for Dwarf men because they look so similar? lol).

EDIT: There are most certainly armies where women fit alongside men. Eldar do have female models alongside male models. I just don't think it fits for an army like Space Marines and would feel extremely forced if they did have females. And forced as in shoehorned, not forced as in prison, bend over I'm gonna shove this stick in your pooper.

I'm totally against GW adding female cadians to the basic box. They will cut the amount to five IG and rise the price on account of then new "added value" heads/torsos.
Who am I kidding? I no longer buy GW stuff so they can do whatever they want with their stuff, but forcing them to add females because they MUST is the wrong way to approach the sexism issue.
Also spreading the antics of online troglodites to other people just because we share the same gender is not the best option if you want us regular well mannered gamers to support giving women more chances to enjoy wargaming/rpging and similar games.

M.

I have cringed my way through this entire thread.

So, basically, people with no knowledge of marketing are telling multinational corporations about the massive amounts of money they are missing out on in the "untapped market" of women who want to play Warhams but are being kept away by sexism.

Write a proposal, pitch it to GW, and prove my smug dismissal of your position wrong.

I dare you.

 Peregrine wrote:
[
They weren't told they're immoral.

...

How is "this should be a minor part of the game", which is what I've clearly said it should be, the same thing as "this should be banned and everyone who likes it is immoral"?

You used their posts as exemplars of sexism. Your only response to kb305 was "And people still believe there isn't a sexism problem..."

 Monster Rain wrote:
I have cringed my way through this entire thread.

So, basically, people with no knowledge of marketing are telling multinational corporations about the massive amounts of money they are missing out on in the "untapped market" of women who want to play Warhams but are being kept away by sexism.

Write a proposal, pitch it to GW, and prove my smug dismissal of your position wrong.

I dare you.

I actually don't think Warhammer or 40k are terribly sexist games. The problem seemed more with other games in the hobby that have more of that sort of thing. Though I'm sure someone can come and tell me I'm wrong and how warhammer and 40k are sexist.

 Meade wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Meade wrote:
It's like complaining if you play a WW2 game that all the soldiers are dudes.

Actually I do make that complaint. WWII games are kind of boring. But that also might just be because I feel that way about historical re-enactment games and most of them are basically just that.

Well there you go. My point is, if I read a Jane Austen novel, it pretty much goes without saying that much like playing a WW2 game, if I'm going to enjoy this I'll have to put myself in the shoes of the opposite sex. When women play wargames it's mostly like men reading Jane Austen novels.

That explains why 40k is slightly friendlier to women than historicals (hard as that may be to imagine...). There is more of a roleplaying element to 40k and more access to female characters if you play the right race.

Interesting note, Tom Kirby has stated that Jane Austen is his favorite author, 'splains a lot, don't it?

xraytango wrote:


Interesting note, Tom Kirby has stated that Jane Austen is his favorite author, 'splains a lot, don't it?

Yes. We are on to something here. Clearly there is a conspiracy to turn 40k into a Jane Austen novel .

 Monster Rain wrote:
I have cringed my way through this entire thread.

So, basically, people with no knowledge of marketing are telling multinational corporations about the massive amounts of money they are missing out on in the "untapped market" of women who want to play Warhams but are being kept away by sexism.

Write a proposal, pitch it to GW, and prove my smug dismissal of your position wrong.

I dare you.

Dunno, I'm not championing the "untapped" factor - poor choice of words if you ask me - but rather the idea that in a universe bereft with war, it doesn't seem sensible that:

A. Women are in the passenger's seat or even in the back seat when it comes to competency on the battlefield.
B. Women dress like domimatrix's and bikini models with atmoic bombs blowing up just out of lethal range from them.
C. Women don't really do much in the narrative apart from die, usually as horrible failures.

 Vladsimpaler wrote:
[snip]

As usual, completely missing the point. The "can" vs "should" statement was the most important part of that post.

Can is the obvious thing. Of course they can. The more important question isn't "can they", it' "SHOULD they change the lore". I'm not touching that with a ten foot eviscerator, but I will argue that it really doesn't interrupt or damage or really do anything else to the lore at all to have fem-marines-- at best, it gives an option for a wider variety of interesting chapter cultures; at worst, it gives an option for a wider variety of BAD chapter cultures. But the overall feel and story for the Astartes wouldn't really change. What I really don't care all that much about is actually implementing the idea, because as I said, it wouldn't change the Astartes enough for me to bother liking them more than actual human beings in the settings.

Add fem-marines in, and I'd still prefer Guard and Sisters. I might buy some of the models if they're really good, though, maybe toss in a squad using allies rules, since it makes more tactical sense for Marines to act in support of the Guard anyway.

 DemetriDominov wrote:
Dunno, I'm not championing the "untapped" factor - poor choice of words if you ask me - but rather the idea that in a universe bereft with war, it doesn't seem sensible that:

A. Women are in the passenger's seat or even in the back seat when it comes to competency on the battlefield.
B. Women dress like domimatrix's and bikini models with atmoic bombs blowing up just out of lethal range from them.
C. Women don't really do much in the narrative apart from die, usually as horrible failures.

I think you used bereft the wrong way. Anyway. There are many Eldar models that don't fit in to that category. Sisters of Battle don't fit in to that category.

The only real army I can think of that could have female models and doesn't is IG, and I expressed my opinion about that on the previous page.

I personally have no real problem with not having female IG guardsmen. They could be in there as commanders or pilots, but I don't think they fit in to my own personal vision of my base line IG grunts, as I mentioned on the previous page. Just because the universe is at war doesn't mean you throw every man, woman and child in to battle.

Even if you do feel IG should have female models, whoopty-friggin-do, there's tons of armies that are bereft of models which I think they should have.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Just because the universe is at war doesn't mean you throw every man, woman and child in to battle.

That's what the Imperium should be doing to combat the impending Tyranid invasion. At the point that the species is truly on the brink I don't think anyone's going to overlook normally non-combatants.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Even if you do feel IG should have female models, whoopty-friggin-do, there's tons of armies that are bereft of models which I think they should have.

Interestingly enough I believe that's what a lot of this ultimately boils down to. A desire for more models that people would like to see.

 Dentry wrote:
Interestingly enough I believe that's what a lot of this ultimately boils down to. A desire for more models that people would like to see.

That is pretty much exactly what this is, to me.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Actually I do make that complaint.

Then play Soviets. They had women in their army.

Or realise that 99.999% of the soliers in WW2 were men and you cannot change that.

 MetalOxide wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Actually I do make that complaint.

Then play Soviets. They had women in their army.

Or realise that 99.999% of the soliers in WW2 were men and you cannot change that.

The women here in the US were busy welding Sherman tanks and loading millions of rounds of .30-06 for M1 Garands. I don't think anyone's looking to change history here. Though ignoring the many many Soviet women who contributed directly in combat during the Great Patriotic War (WW2 to the rest of us) is just being blind.

 Dentry wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Just because the universe is at war doesn't mean you throw every man, woman and child in to battle.

That's what the Imperium should be doing to combat the impending Tyranid invasion. At the point that the species is truly on the brink I don't think anyone's going to overlook normally non-combatants.

Yeah, if your planet is being wiped out then that's true, but as I understand it (and I don't pretend to be well read) that the imperium is still a functioning society, just like many nations fighting in WW2. There's still kids to be taught, scholars doing research, gangs fighting among themselves. And it's not like a warmachine is purely soldiers, you have people you have to build and maintain weaponry, create the supply lines for the soldiers, etc. It may take 1 person to fly a fighter plane, it takes many more to build and maintain one.

Now if your view of the imperium is one where its pushed to the point of throwing anyone in to the meat grinder, or a place where women are as physically capable as men, that's up to you and I'm not going to say you can't have your desires, but personally thats not how I see my own guard army.

Skink and there's room in the fluff for all those possibilities. The Imperium is made of of millions of worlds and many many trillions of people. We /know/ that all female and mixed gender regiments exist. Not just in "Oh gak any one with a pulse will work we need the numbers" situations like when Gaunt's Ghosts took on it's second levy of troops but planets like Valhalla supply all female units. Cadia's entire populace is on active duty, etc and so forth.

Plenty of room for everyone, especially in the Guard.

 Ouze wrote:

silent25 wrote:
Just want to point out that GW has already shown what female IG look like. One of the characters in the Space Marine video game was a female IG officer.

With armor on, can't tell the difference. More people outside gaming will be familiar with this portrayal of women by GW than any model they put out.

And I'd reply, Fantasy Flight Games has shown me what a female guardsmen looks like. Relic has shown me what a female guardsman looks like.

Show me which one of those whole box of Rambo is a woman I can use in my game. I even underlined my point just to avoid this response.

I was not responding to you. I was responding to all the comments about sexism at GW and how most people outside gaming, Lt. Mina is their exposure to how GW portrays females in 40k.

Just coincidence that your post came right before mine. Had spent several minutes trying to dig up some pics on Mina.

But by your response, you believe then that all troop boxes for all fantasy/future soldier games should be 50/50 male/female?

silent25 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

silent25 wrote:
Just want to point out that GW has already shown what female IG look like. One of the characters in the Space Marine video game was a female IG officer.

With armor on, can't tell the difference. More people outside gaming will be familiar with this portrayal of women by GW than any model they put out.

And I'd reply, Fantasy Flight Games has shown me what a female guardsmen looks like. Relic has shown me what a female guardsman looks like.

Show me which one of those whole box of Rambo is a woman I can use in my game. I even underlined my point just to avoid this response.

I was not responding to you. I was responding to all the comments about sexism at GW and how most people outside gaming, Lt. Mina is their exposure to how GW portrays females in 40k.

Just coincidence that your post came right before mine. Had spent several minutes trying to dig up some pics on Mina.

But by your response, you believe then that all troop boxes for all fantasy/future soldier games should be 50/50 male/female?

I'd say most everyone in this thread is calling for conversion kits or new kits. Not changing existing troop boxes, or even changing existing fluff.

My Ciaphas Cain example for example. Provides three strong and extremely BA heroines who are established in the fluff, and then a conversion kit from there can make you all the femguard you want.