That's pretty much my point. The "hyper sexualized" imagery that sometimes appears in Fantasy and SciFi gaming really isn't any different from that you see in mainstream movies, television, literature, artwork, fashion, etc. in American culture at least. As such, I think it has a very, very small effect on whether or not a woman will choose to participate in tabletop wargaming. Heck, in Role Playing, there is a far higher percentage of female players than there are in tabletop wargaming, and it would be disingenous to assert that highly sexualized imagery doesn't exist in all aspects of the Role Playing hobby (from pictures in rule books to the costumes people wear while LARPing).
I firmly believe that the willingness of a potential female gamer to enter into tabletop wargaming is far more affected by the social interactions she has with the other gamers than it is by whether or not a miniature shows cleavage.
Saldiven wrote: That's pretty much my point. The "hyper sexualized" imagery that sometimes appears in Fantasy and SciFi gaming really isn't any different from that you see in mainstream movies, television, literature, artwork, fashion, etc. in American culture at least. As such, I think it has a very, very small effect on whether or not a woman will choose to participate in tabletop wargaming. Heck, in Role Playing, there is a far higher percentage of female players than there are in tabletop wargaming, and it would be disingenous to assert that highly sexualized imagery doesn't exist in all aspects of the Role Playing hobby (from pictures in rule books to the costumes people wear while LARPing).
I firmly believe that the willingness of a potential female gamer to enter into tabletop wargaming is far more affected by the social interactions she has with the other gamers than it is by whether or not a miniature shows cleavage.
It certainly doesn't help. It will be something that will have to be dealt with on the way to a more inclusive hobby. To me the cheese cake imagery seems like low hanging fruit. As in, if you dropped it in favor of more equal and realistic portrayals, I don't think it would hurt much, and have a more long term beneficial outcome.
Saldiven wrote: That's pretty much my point. The "hyper sexualized" imagery that sometimes appears in Fantasy and SciFi gaming really isn't any different from that you see in mainstream movies, television, literature, artwork, fashion, etc. in American culture at least. As such, I think it has a very, very small effect on whether or not a woman will choose to participate in tabletop wargaming. Heck, in Role Playing, there is a far higher percentage of female players than there are in tabletop wargaming, and it would be disingenous to assert that highly sexualized imagery doesn't exist in all aspects of the Role Playing hobby (from pictures in rule books to the costumes people wear while LARPing).
I firmly believe that the willingness of a potential female gamer to enter into tabletop wargaming is far more affected by the social interactions she has with the other gamers than it is by whether or not a miniature shows cleavage.
It certainly doesn't help. It will be something that will have to be dealt with on the way to a more inclusive hobby. To me the cheese cake imagery seems like low hanging fruit. As in, if you dropped it in favor of more equal and realistic portrayals, I don't think it would hurt much, and have a more long term beneficial outcome.
It's also a fairly well discussed part of why women within the hobby struggle, it's certenly why I have issues. One of the main reasons I was able to get into Warmachine and hordes, is the female charecters in there. I could have fun and get positive female charecters, the same is for infinty. So it could be there allready is a shift away, if slowly.
40k drags its feet along with the issue.
Saldiven wrote: That's pretty much my point. The "hyper sexualized" imagery that sometimes appears in Fantasy and SciFi gaming really isn't any different from that you see in mainstream movies, television, literature, artwork, fashion, etc. in American culture at least. As such, I think it has a very, very small effect on whether or not a woman will choose to participate in tabletop wargaming. Heck, in Role Playing, there is a far higher percentage of female players than there are in tabletop wargaming, and it would be disingenous to assert that highly sexualized imagery doesn't exist in all aspects of the Role Playing hobby (from pictures in rule books to the costumes people wear while LARPing).
I firmly believe that the willingness of a potential female gamer to enter into tabletop wargaming is far more affected by the social interactions she has with the other gamers than it is by whether or not a miniature shows cleavage.
It certainly doesn't help. It will be something that will have to be dealt with on the way to a more inclusive hobby. To me the cheese cake imagery seems like low hanging fruit. As in, if you dropped it in favor of more equal and realistic portrayals, I don't think it would hurt much, and have a more long term beneficial outcome.
It's also a fairly well discussed part of why women within the hobby struggle, it's certenly why I have issues. One of the main reasons I was able to get into Warmachine and hordes, is the female charecters in there. I could have fun and get positive female charecters, the same is for infinty. So it could be there allready is a shift away, if slowly.
40k drags its feet along with the issue.
Yeah, the current Marine codex has more named characters than there have been named female special characters in the history of the game. Of which most of whom never had official models produced.
The many iterations of the Sisters of Battle Codex has even had more male special characters than female ones (Celestine, Praxedes and Helena vs Kyrinov, Armandus, Jacobus, and Karamazov) . Think about that.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: The fluff mention how the repentia included some of the most devout Sisters that actually got in here because they obsess over extremely minor or imaginary sins. I like that way better than the Repentia being some kind of Penal Legion where you go when you are punished and forced to by others, and need an overseer.
They don't need to overseer to force them, they're quite willing. She's there to judge them and punish them.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Well, it mainly says that she is the one who will be able to say which one earned redemption at the end of battle.
Okay, so that's actually a pretty vital role. Repentia are outcasts from their Order, so somebody needs to lead and watch over them to judge when they're earnt their redemption.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: For me, it doesn't go well with it, because of what I said above. If anything, the Sororitas should try to restrain its more self-destructive elements so that they can actually help in battle.
But that's the point of the Repentia, they are the "self-destructive" elements of the Sororitas, taken to the extreme. Regular Sisters are a mix of zealot and soldier, they'll yell hymns and willingly give their lives, but they will employ tactics too, since they're elite soldiers. The Repentia, on the other hand, are all zealot. They actively charge towards the enemy, seeing death as a perfectly possible and reasonable end to their service. So, nah, restraining the self-destructiveness goes against the characterisation of the Repentia. They're full-on zealot nutters, and the Mistress adds to that.
xruslanx wrote: well in the real world there are very few things that seek to appeal to both men and women. I see no reason why a sci-fi setting where 99% of the people who follow it are men, should appeal to women instead.
Do you think that swathes of men would give up 40K is it cut back on scantily clad women? Like I said, it's not a tradeoff. It can be more welcoming to women without becoming unappealing to men.
CaulynDarr wrote: The many iterations of the Sisters of Battle Codex has even had more male special characters than female ones (Celestine, Praxedes and Helena vs Kyrinov, Armandus, Jacobus, and Karamazov) . Think about that.
To be fair, the Sisters might've gotten more female special characters if they'd been able to get new plastics. Alas, modelling issues stood in the way of that.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: What annoys me about that picture is the male-as-default pronoun in the text. Guys: it's okay to use generic pronouns. Male pronouns aren't "generic." They never were. Using them as if they are is quite creepy and exclusionary.
We don't have that problem in French, or we have it all the time, depending on one's point of view. Because we have no neutral, and therefore the male pronouns are actually canonically generic .
Saldiven wrote: If I had to guess, the reason they come to the store is because it is nice, clean, well-lit, and has an owner with a great personality and inclusive manner to all kinds of gamers.
My FLGS is all that and more, but still very few girls playing there.
Apple fox wrote: PP actuly gets praised for its depiction of women in gaming.
Still, it seems only trollkin have females, all other kind of trollblood (dire, pureblood, and pyg) are all male or something. The only female in my warband are two of my sluggers.
CaulynDarr wrote: Yeah, the current Marine codex has more named characters than there have been named female special characters in the history of the game.
Most of them do. How many female special characters ? Apart from the Sisters you already quoted, I guess there is one Inquisitor, Lelith, Lady Malys, and Shadowsun. With models, only Celestine, Lelith and Shadowsun.
Troike wrote: She's there to judge them and punish them.
But precisely, if they punish themselves for imaginary sins, the Mistress has nothing to judge them about.
Troike wrote: But that's the point of the Repentia, they are the "self-destructive" elements of the Sororitas, taken to the extreme.
Repentia are. Mistresses are not. So Mistresses should try to employ tactics, and make repentia do something useful, since they are still elite soldiers.
Troike wrote: Do you think that swathes of men would give up 40K is it cut back on scantily clad women?
Given how few women there are now, extremely unlikely.
Look at the ads I saw while typing those answers :
Notice how it says Girls for games and not Games for girls .
But precisely, if they punish themselves for imaginary sins, the Mistress has nothing to judge them about.
She's there to judge if they've earned redemption. The Repentia can't really do that for themselves.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Repentia are. Mistresses are not. So Mistresses should try to employ tactics, and make repentia do something useful, since they are still elite soldiers.
Well, she does. She leads them.
And, again, I'd say that they largely leave their elite soldier component behind when they become Repentia. It's an entirely different mode of attack than their non-Repentia Sisters use.
Most of them do. How many female special characters ? Apart from the Sisters you already quoted, I guess there is one Inquisitor, Lelith, Lady Malys, and Shadowsun. With models, only Celestine, Lelith and Shadowsun.
There was a Dark Eldar one from a global campaign(I think), Jain Zarr, A named spirit seer out of the 3rd ed Eldar Codex, at least one of the Last Chancers, and I guess the Masque can sort-of count. That's it really.
Most of them do. How many female special characters ? Apart from the Sisters you already quoted, I guess there is one Inquisitor, Lelith, Lady Malys, and Shadowsun. With models, only Celestine, Lelith and Shadowsun.
There was a Dark Eldar one from a global campaign(I think), Jain Zarr, A named spirit seer out of the 3rd ed Eldar Codex, at least one of the Last Chancers, and I guess the Masque can sort-of count. That's it really.
Kruellagh the Vile was in the 3rd ed Dsrk Eldar book, alongside Lilith. Rocket Girl was certainly one of the Last Chancers - can't recall if there was a second one.
None of them in my discussions have ever indicated that they bear offense to this imagery. Heck, many of them buy, paint, and play with the most sexualized miniatures out there.
Just ask them if they would like a better/bigger variety of female miniatures (than mostly pin ups). It might be that they are tolerating the status quo because they like some other aspect of the hobby.
People are offended by that inquisitor artwork just because of a bit of cleavage!? Wouldn't be surprised if soon we'll have people offended at an exposed ankle.
spaceelf wrote: I am disappointed in this thread. It is chock full pictures of half naked men. This is certainly not the kind of fantasy gaming I had in mind.
So half-naked men bother you? Would it perhaps bother you if almost all pictures of men in your gaming material were such?
MetalOxide wrote: People are offended by that inquisitor artwork just because of a bit of cleavage!?
Strangely, the same people are not offended by a fully naked woman (right in the middle, can't miss it, it's my avatar) or some fully-naked man .
Hey, maybe there is a reason for that. Maybe you could spend one or two seconds of your life trying to understand it ?
None of them in my discussions have ever indicated that they bear offense to this imagery. Heck, many of them buy, paint, and play with the most sexualized miniatures out there.
Just ask them if they would like a better/bigger variety of female miniatures (than mostly pin ups). It might be that they are tolerating the status quo because they like some other aspect of the hobby.
Oh, I'm sure they'd like a wider variety. That doesn't mean that the lack of variety has made them not want to play, as evidenced by the fact that they are, well, playing.
I'd like a wider variety of Dwarves in the GW line, too.
Saldiven wrote: If I had to guess, the reason they come to the store is because it is nice, clean, well-lit, and has an owner with a great personality and inclusive manner to all kinds of gamers.
My FLGS is all that and more, but still very few girls playing there.
Dunno what to tell you. Over the last year or so, we've actually had two different all-girl gaming clubs get set up. The first one went down in a blaze of glory because one girl started sleeping with another girl's boyfriend, and the two girls in question were the two people who created the club. Needless to say, that didn't go over well, and the club kind of fizzled, though most of the women in the club still came around to play. Recently, another all girl group has started playing at the club. I hope this one lasts longer.
Though, I do have to say one thing, now that I think about it. The number of female players that came to the FLGS really started to spike upwards when the first all-girl gaming group formed up. They advertised on Facebook and Meetup, and a lot of female gamers that I had never met before started coming to the store on a regular basis. I think this may point to what someone else said earlier that more women would be interested in playing if there were more other women involved in the first place. Having other women there would probably make women new to the scene feel more comfortable. Maybe your FLGS should consider sponsoring a club catering towards the women's gaming experience to attract more of that clientele?
Saldiven wrote: I think this may point to what someone else said earlier that more women would be interested in playing if there were more other women involved in the first place. Having other women there would probably make women new to the scene feel more comfortable. Maybe your FLGS should consider sponsoring a club catering towards the women's gaming experience to attract more of that clientele?
Yeah, I brought one friend to this FLGS to make her play a demo game. Sadly, very bad timing, since that day most of the staff had gone to do demo games to some event, and I ended up making her play with some of my Sisters against, well others of my Sisters. Now, of course, even if she looked enthusiastic about it, I sadly have no way to know if she was just being polite (damn Iranians and their t'aarof ). But still, she said she liked it, but also mentioned how she noticed she was the only girl in the store… and she never mentioned the game again.
I don't know if there really is a connexion here, but I guess I'll ask her one day.
The eyes don't lie: Men really do look at women's bodies more than their faces, according to a new study that used eye-tracking technology to prove what many women have long observed.
But it's not just men who do it -- the study found that women look at other women's bodies, too.
"We live in a culture in which we constantly see women objectified in interactions on television and in the media. When you turn your own lens on everyday, ordinary women, we focus on those parts, too," says lead author and social psychologist Sarah Gervais of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
"Until now, we didn't have evidence people were actually doing that to women's bodies," she says. "We have women's self-reports, but this is some of the first work to document that people actually engage in this."
The participants – 29 women and 36 men – were outfitted with the eye-tracking system, which measures in milliseconds how long the eyes are fixed on certain spots. Their gazes reacted to photographs of the same 10 women, each with three different digitally manipulated body shapes – curvaceous, much less curvaceous and in-between. (Only women's bodies were viewed by study participants.) Both sexes fixed their gaze more on women's chests and waists and less on faces. Those bodies with larger breasts, narrower waists and bigger hips often prompted longer looks.
The eyes don't lie: Men really do look at women's bodies more than their faces, according to a new study that used eye-tracking technology to prove what many women have long observed.
But it's not just men who do it -- the study found that women look at other women's bodies, too.
"We live in a culture in which we constantly see women objectified in interactions on television and in the media. When you turn your own lens on everyday, ordinary women, we focus on those parts, too," says lead author and social psychologist Sarah Gervais of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
"Until now, we didn't have evidence people were actually doing that to women's bodies," she says. "We have women's self-reports, but this is some of the first work to document that people actually engage in this."
The participants – 29 women and 36 men – were outfitted with the eye-tracking system, which measures in milliseconds how long the eyes are fixed on certain spots. Their gazes reacted to photographs of the same 10 women, each with three different digitally manipulated body shapes – curvaceous, much less curvaceous and in-between. (Only women's bodies were viewed by study participants.) Both sexes fixed their gaze more on women's chests and waists and less on faces. Those bodies with larger breasts, narrower waists and bigger hips often prompted longer looks.
You can't blame women, that's not politically correct! Blaming men for everything is politically correct.
You've been reading this whole thread and you still think that's what this is about? Really?
While it might not be in the simplest of terms - it does sort of boil down to that. You have one side which believes that females should only be portrayed in sensible clothes (with varying degrees of what is considered sensible - a moving goal post to be certain) and the other side who really doesn't care too much. In the middle you have manufacturers who really don't care what they produce provided that it sells.
If they make a figure in a chain mail bikini - the ones who want them to make only sensible females say they are pandering and reinforcing negative stereotypes (or which ever mantra you would like to hang your hat on). However, when they make sensibly clad female figures - they do not sell well enough to justify them. Now, some people point to Infinity as sensible - but they are considered overly sexualized by others still (very little effort searching can find examples of people freaking out over a belly button being exposed).
No matter what is done, if there is a female in miniature - who is obviously a female, you will still have those who get out the soap box and freak out a good bit. If you don't like it - don't buy it. It really is pretty easy. People do like it though, and it sells, so expect to see it for the foreseeable future.
Sean_OBrien wrote: You have one side which believes that females should only be portrayed in sensible clothes (with varying degrees of what is considered sensible - a moving goal post to be certain)
No, it's not that at all. The problem is the ratio between "sex object" and "practical/awesome/etc" is skewed. Women should be portrayed just like men. If the men are sexy, the women should be sexy. If the men are wearing practical clothes the women should be too. If the men are wearing stupid impractical but not sexy outfits the women should be too. But instead women are far more often portrayed as sex objects.
Sean_OBrien wrote: You have one side which believes that females should only be portrayed in sensible clothes (with varying degrees of what is considered sensible - a moving goal post to be certain)
No, it's not that at all. The problem is the ratio between "sex object" and "practical/awesome/etc" is skewed. Women should be portrayed just like men. If the men are sexy, the women should be sexy. If the men are wearing practical clothes the women should be too. If the men are wearing stupid impractical but not sexy outfits the women should be too. But instead women are far more often portrayed as sex objects.
But they don't sell...period.
Nothing else matters - the practical miniatures do not sell. Chain Mail bikinis (or which ever cheese cake you would rather point at) sell like mad. How you feel about it, or what you think it should be is really irrelevant. This isn't a question of hypothetical sociology, it is an actual business with significant upfront costs that need to be justified in order to create the products. Making the ratio more balanced would not change the number of cheese cake miniatures that you see as the non-cheese cake miniatures will get canceled and tossed in the bins before they have a chance to change the apparent ratio on tables.
Peregrine wrote: No, it's not that at all. The problem is the ratio between "sex object" and "practical/awesome/etc" is skewed. Women should be portrayed just like men. If the men are sexy, the women should be sexy. If the men are wearing practical clothes the women should be too. If the men are wearing stupid impractical but not sexy outfits the women should be too.
Why you want to see sexy ladies and practically dressed men in your game art? For similar reasons some other people might want to see sexy men and practically dressed women.
Well, yeah. Why not? There's plenty of good reasons to champion equal representation in games or fiction in general, most of which should be fairly obvious if they haven't already been argued into the dirt by now (like the fact that women are people too and are probably just as interested in reading about notable female characters and their heroic deeds instead of always being the trophy for the male hero that's only valued for their pretty face and nice rack, or that children consume all this media as well as adults and may grow up with the notion that women are inferior/incapable of being heroic or inspiring because that's been reserved strictly for the men in everything they've ever known), but I can't really think of any really good reason to argue that women shouldn't be treated equally. The only explanations I've seen so far were either blatantly sexist or from people who just don't want things to change for whatever reason...probably because they think they won't be able to buy cheesecake minis anymore, I dunno.
The only real justification for keeping things as they are is because it makes companies like Reaper, CB, etc. lots of money. And in my opinion that's not a very good justification for it.
The only real justification for keeping things as they are is because it makes companies like Reaper, CB, etc. lots of money. And in my opinion that's not a very good justification for it.
For a business that is about the best reason to do anything...or rather the counter to it. Doing what you want will cost them lots of money and quite possibly put them out of business.
Most gaming companies are running on paper thin margins already and the prospect of loosing 50% of their sales for the sake of equality for a market which doesn't exist (in any significant manner) is ludicrous. It also has been done in the past, and those companies who try it end up closing up show within a year because the losses are just so great that they can not keep pushing their agenda (or it is a niche, within a niche that is so insignificant as to have fewer copies sold than say...a copy of a college term paper).
However, as I have said before, if it is something that you think is viable now - go ahead and do it. Hire artists, write the rules, have miniatures sculpted, attend the gaming conventions to pimp your wares (though I guess that phrase is insensitive too...)... See how it goes, but be prepared to loose your entire investment. However, if you are not prepared to loose your own shirt - don't expect others to risk their own businesses for the sake of an idealistic equality.
Do you really find her ugly ? I mean, either you only saw women in magazines, or I want to know where you live !
Maybe Saudi Arabia, would explain a lot .
Sean_OBrien wrote: You have one side which believes that females should only be portrayed in sensible clothes (with varying degrees of what is considered sensible - a moving goal post to be certain)
Depends way more on the story/settings than anything else.
Sean_OBrien wrote: the ones who want them to make only sensible females say they are pandering and reinforcing negative stereotypes (or which ever mantra you would like to hang your hat on).
That they are breaking immersion.
Sean_OBrien wrote: No matter what is done, if there is a female in miniature - who is obviously a female, you will still have those who get out the soap box and freak out a good bit.
(I guess those models were all made by people that had not talked to Sean OBrien before and therefore didn't knew they were going to loose their shirt if they sculpted female models without cleavage)
Actually, Reaper is probably the perfect example to look to. They have a full line of miniatures and include plenty within their 4000 some odd SKUs who are not cheese cake. However, those ones which you linked to do not sell as well as the cheese cake miniatures (and most of those actually get complaints as well - from the skin tight clothes to the posing of them).
Reaper does do some "sensible" figures, but no where near the "equal" representation that is called for. High profile releases (like last year's KS Storm Giant female and this year's female barbarian) cause a storm of complaints even though there are plenty of options to choose from from them. Most of those are financial loosers though. They sell more of anyone of these:
Spoiler:
Than they do of almost all the sensible female figures combined. More so when you consider that about half of the figures you linked to would not qualify as sensible by a lot of the people who are calling for them (too much hip action, too much cleavage, too feminine...). Reaper has addressed this issue on dozens of occasions and they have said that they quite often it takes several years to recoup their investment on those figures - compared to a month or so for the cheese cake figures.
Regarding the inquisitor - she is basically wearing the exact same armor as the SoB...so for simplicities sake, I will even keep things right here on Dakka:
Sidstyler wrote: Well, yeah. Why not? There's plenty of good reasons to champion equal representation in games or fiction in general, most of which should be fairly obvious if they haven't already been argued into the dirt by now (like the fact that women are people too and are probably just as interested in reading about notable female characters and their heroic deeds instead of always being the trophy for the male hero that's only valued for their pretty face and nice rack, or that children consume all this media as well as adults and may grow up with the notion that women are inferior/incapable of being heroic or inspiring because that's been reserved strictly for the men in everything they've ever known), but I can't really think of any really good reason to argue that women shouldn't be treated equally. The only explanations I've seen so far were either blatantly sexist or from people who just don't want things to change for whatever reason...probably because they think they won't be able to buy cheesecake minis anymore, I dunno.
The only real justification for keeping things as they are is because it makes companies like Reaper, CB, etc. lots of money. And in my opinion that's not a very good justification for it.
If you're genuinely arguing that there are no representations of heroic females in literature, I honestly don't know how to reply to that.
My girlfriend reads a lot of romance novels. I think we can all agree the mainstream ones are targeted at a female audience. Pretty odd that so much of the artwork on the covers features heroic gentlemen sweeping Boobs McCleavage off her feet, huh?
Sidstyler wrote: Well, yeah. Why not? There's plenty of good reasons to champion equal representation in games or fiction in general, most of which should be fairly obvious if they haven't already been argued into the dirt by now (like the fact that women are people too and are probably just as interested in reading about notable female characters and their heroic deeds instead of always being the trophy for the male hero that's only valued for their pretty face and nice rack, or that children consume all this media as well as adults and may grow up with the notion that women are inferior/incapable of being heroic or inspiring because that's been reserved strictly for the men in everything they've ever known), but I can't really think of any really good reason to argue that women shouldn't be treated equally. The only explanations I've seen so far were either blatantly sexist or from people who just don't want things to change for whatever reason...probably because they think they won't be able to buy cheesecake minis anymore, I dunno.
The only real justification for keeping things as they are is because it makes companies like Reaper, CB, etc. lots of money. And in my opinion that's not a very good justification for it.
If you're genuinely arguing that there are no representations of heroic females in literature, I honestly don't know how to reply to that.
My girlfriend reads a lot of romance novels. I think we can all agree the mainstream ones are targeted at a female audience. Pretty odd that so much of the artwork on the covers features heroic gentlemen sweeping Boobs McCleavage off her feat, huh?
The follow up argument to that is that women have been brainwashed into wanting to look good and be swept off their feet by Fabio.
I can see what you are saying about "with force" getting you in trouble. Yet force takes many forms, and physical force should always be the last resort. the store manager/owner should always have the power to eject people that are causing disturbances. if that does not work, he should summon the Law enforcement professionals. If things get out of hand too quickly, self defense and defense of others is a universal human right, or is here in most parts of the US.
I dunno mate - I see plenty cleavage on show with some of those models. The canines with a Bolter is quite obvious as are quite a few if the crusaders. Ironic really, as an inquisitor showing a bit of cleavage started this whole mess, and here you are pointing to other acceptable models, this time with cleavage.
My position? People are over sensitive and get upset over anything. I think sometimes folks go out of their way to feel offended half the time. Folks in the war gaming hobby are no different.
Sean_OBrien wrote: However, those ones which you linked to do not sell as well as the cheese cake miniatures (and most of those actually get complaints as well - from the skin tight clothes to the posing of them).
So, they did publish their sales figures ?
Also, none of those seems to have skin-tight clothes . Most have plate armor, which isn't exactly skintight. I don't see the problem with the posing either. Would you give an example ? I'm especially found of Nicole's “bracing for impact” pose, my favorite crusader . I usually switch models so that she dies last.
Sean_OBrien wrote: More so when you consider that about half of the figures you linked to would not qualify as sensible by a lot of the people who are calling for them (too much hip action, too much cleavage, too feminine...).
Really ? Which one ?
Just found out a cool one :
http://www.reapermini.com/miniatures/chronoscope/latest/50159 Too ad it doesn't integrate at all with 40k's general aesthetic, else I guess I would have been very tempted to use her as a Canoness or something .
Canoness Maria with a power ruler !
Sean_OBrien wrote: Regarding the inquisitor - she is basically wearing the exact same armor as the SoB...
Well, no. It's close, but there are very clear differences that keeps her apart. Not the same shoulderpad, not the same corset-like torso, no cloth sleeves, …
Actually, every part of it is close, but different. Except for the loincloth.
But yeah, I get what you are saying : the problem is not in the manufacturer, it's more in the community. I.e. us.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Deadnight wrote: I dunno mate - I see plenty cleavage on show with some of those models. The canines with a Bolter is quite obvious as are quite a few if the crusaders. Ironic really, as an inquisitor showing a bit of cleavage started this whole mess, and here you are pointing to other acceptable models, this time with cleavage.
Canines with a bolter ? Do you mean “Bolter Bitches”/Sisters of Battle ? They don't show any cleavage, no. That's not how power armor works.
As for the crusaders:
Nicole obviously doesn't, see the official painted picture :
The Bladesisters shares Nicole's armor.
Isabeau Laroche doesn't either, one of the official painted pictures :
And Janan wears a big metal breastplate with, you know, metal that doesn't expose any kind of skin.
Thank you, Durandal, for repeating an argument that has already been writen in this very topic. I offer you a Redundant Badge Redundancy. Wear it proudly !
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, I just noticed : DakkaDakka is spying on me and exposing my private life. Now everyone know I went in Switzerland to put dirty money on my secret bank account !
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Thank you, Durandal, for repeating an argument that has already been writen in this very topic. I offer you a Redundant Badge Redundancy. Wear it proudly !
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, I just noticed : DakkaDakka is spying on me and exposing my private life. Now everyone know I went in Switzerland to put dirty money on my secret bank account !
Mate, your posts in this thread are increasingly becoming less about you own argument, and more nitpicking other people's.
I will say again, pointing out exceptions to a point doesn't invalidate it, neither does the point in time when they are made.
Sean_OBrien wrote: However, those ones which you linked to do not sell as well as the cheese cake miniatures (and most of those actually get complaints as well - from the skin tight clothes to the posing of them).
So, they did publish their sales figures ?
Also, none of those seems to have skin-tight clothes . Most have plate armor, which isn't exactly skintight. I don't see the problem with the posing either. Would you give an example ? I'm especially found of Nicole's “bracing for impact” pose, my favorite crusader . I usually switch models so that she dies last.
Sean_OBrien wrote: More so when you consider that about half of the figures you linked to would not qualify as sensible by a lot of the people who are calling for them (too much hip action, too much cleavage, too feminine...).
Really ? Which one ?
Just found out a cool one :
http://www.reapermini.com/miniatures/chronoscope/latest/50159 Too ad it doesn't integrate at all with 40k's general aesthetic, else I guess I would have been very tempted to use her as a Canoness or something .
Canoness Maria with a power ruler !
Sean_OBrien wrote: Regarding the inquisitor - she is basically wearing the exact same armor as the SoB...
Well, no. It's close, but there are very clear differences that keeps her apart. Not the same shoulderpad, not the same corset-like torso, no cloth sleeves, …
Actually, every part of it is close, but different. Except for the loincloth.
But yeah, I get what you are saying : the problem is not in the manufacturer, it's more in the community. I.e. us.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Deadnight wrote: I dunno mate - I see plenty cleavage on show with some of those models. The canines with a Bolter is quite obvious as are quite a few if the crusaders. Ironic really, as an inquisitor showing a bit of cleavage started this whole mess, and here you are pointing to other acceptable models, this time with cleavage.
Canines with a bolter ? Do you mean “Bolter Bitches”/Sisters of Battle ? They don't show any cleavage, no. That's not how power armor works.
As for the crusaders:
Nicole obviously doesn't, see the official painted picture :
The Bladesisters shares Nicole's armor.
Isabeau Laroche doesn't either, one of the official painted pictures :
And Janan wears a big metal breastplate with, you know, metal that doesn't expose any kind of skin.
You have to much skin in there showing, cover her head with a berka.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Durandal wrote: I have a Catachan army where all the female models have shirts and jackets, but half the guys are only wearing tight pants. Yet no one complains.
azreal13 wrote: Mate, your posts in this thread are increasingly becoming less about you own argument, and more nitpicking other people's.
I'm sorry, what would you have me do ? Type again what I already answered to this argument ? What would be the point of doing that ?
If you want to see me write new interesting things on the subject, maybe bringing new arguments and new ideas to the discussion would be a good idea.
Here is what I said on page 3 of this discussion about the Catachan :
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: For instance, someone pointed out the fact that Catachan are wearing nothing but a shirt. Yeah, they do. Yeah, that's maybe not the most convenient or efficient. But that does definitely emphasize their role as jungle-fighter rambo-like super tough guy. Having a huge cleavage doesn't emphasize the Inquisitor being some ruthless, extremely independent ruthless investigator with an enormous amount of authority, does it ? At least to me, it doesn't, and that's why I have issue with it.
You had 9 pages to answer that. You never saw fit to do it. Neither did anyone else. Maybe that's why I don't think “Hey, very new and very interesting argument, let me think of an answer” when I see the same thing repeated ad nauseam, don't you think ?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grot 6 wrote: You have to much skin in there showing, cover her head with a berka.
Thank you, Grot 6, for repeating a joke that has already been writen in this very topic. I offer you a Redundant Badge Redundancy. Wear it proudly !
azreal13 wrote: Mate, your posts in this thread are increasingly becoming less about you own argument, and more nitpicking other people's.
I'm sorry, what would you have me do ? Type again what I already answered to this argument ? What would be the point of doing that ?
If you want to see me write new interesting things on the subject, maybe bringing new arguments and new ideas to the discussion would be a good idea.
The old adage of "if you can't say something nice, say nothing" would apply here.
You are not obliged to personally reply to every single poster, even if they are responding to you.
Anyway, let that be an end to it, this is OT, and I simply wanted to make an observation to try and stop the thread devolving into a mud slinging match and getting locked, which I felt might happen.
What about “If you can't say something that hasn't already been said multiple times on the very same thread, and answered as many times, say nothing” ?
Beside, I don't feel like I've been overly aggressive, was I ?
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: What about “If you can't say something that hasn't already been said multiple times on the very same thread, and answered as many times, say nothing” ?
Beside, I don't feel like I've been overly aggressive, was I ?
Not at all no. (At least, I didn't think so)
More denigrating a counter argument doesn't move things forward, doesn't paint you in the best light and can quickly degenerate into name calling and pooh flinging.
You'll just have to be patient with repeat arguments, once a thread gets to a certain length people do not want, or are unable to read the whole thing. It doesn't make their point less valid though, in fact it adds weight to it if multiple individuals are making the same argument separately, it is just sometimes a little wearing for anyone who has followed the thread for a long time.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Canines with a bolter ? Do you mean “Bolter Bitches”/Sisters of Battle ? They don't show any cleavage, no. That's not how power armor works.
The Bladesisters shares Nicole's armor.Isabeau Laroche doesn't either, one of the official painted pictures :
And Janan wears a big metal breastplate with, you know, metal that doesn't expose any kind of skin.
apologies on my ipads behalf - the damn thing never types what i want it to do.
as to that laroche - that simply boils down to your paintscheme.whilst the one you linked shows cloth, the model is ambiguous. its just as easy to paint her skin "nude" as with "cloth".
Personally though, the whole issue doesnt really arouse much sympathy from me. Preferring little models with less skin showing isnt going to make the female population like you or me any more than they already do.
Deadnight wrote: Preferring little models with less skin showing isnt going to make the female population like you or me any more than they already do.
Really. Preferring miniatures that don't, or rather disliking miniatures that do, sexualise and objectify woman is not about getting girls to like you.
Deadnight wrote: Preferring little models with less skin showing isnt going to make the female population like you or me any more than they already do.
Really. Preferring miniatures that don't, or rather disliking miniatures that do, sexualise and objectify woman is not about getting girls to like you.
indeed. my girlfriend isnt gonna care one way or the other. although to be fair to her, she finds the caledonians from infinity with the skimpy dresses quite amusing. as do i.
some folks to see it as a "cause" to stand for though. And i've seen enough posts on the topic in general (not necessarily on dakka, mind) to feel its done to somehow make the posters feel it makes them more valid (in theory though!) to the females of the species. or that somehow, it will allow for more girls to get involved in the hobby. personally, i dont really think it works that way, but there you go.
as to "objectifying" women, i find even though i can think a girl looks stunning, or has a really nice body, i'm still perfectly capable of also seeing her as more than a pair of mamarry glands, and actually being able to treat her as an equal in all ways whilst simultaneously not having sex on my mind whilst im treating her as an equal.
Deadnight wrote: Preferring little models with less skin showing isnt going to make the female population like you or me any more than they already do.
Really. Preferring miniatures that don't, or rather disliking miniatures that do, sexualise and objectify woman is not about getting girls to like you.
The accusation is standard MRA fare, at least, the premise being that no man could possibly object to the imagery in question without an ulterior motive. It's rather sexist, and in a rare double-whammy, insults men as well as women, since they, the argument argues, have to relate everything in their lives to the pursuit of sex like some kind of troglodytes.
Deadnight wrote: Preferring little models with less skin showing isnt going to make the female population like you or me any more than they already do.
Really. Preferring miniatures that don't, or rather disliking miniatures that do, sexualise and objectify woman is not about getting girls to like you.
indeed. my girlfriend isnt gonna care one way or the other. although to be fair to her, she finds the caledonians from infinity with the skimpy dresses quite amusing. as do i.
some folks to see it as a "cause" to stand for though. And i've seen enough posts on the topic in general (not necessarily on dakka, mind) to feel its done to somehow make the posters feel it makes them more valid (in theory though!) to the females of the species. or that somehow, it will allow for more girls to get involved in the hobby. personally, i dont really think it works that way, but there you go.
as to "objectifying" women, i find even though i can think a girl looks stunning, or has a really nice body, i'm still perfectly capable of also seeing her as more than a pair of mamarry glands, and actually being able to treat her as an equal in all ways whilst simultaneously not having sex on my mind whilst im treating her as an equal.
life is mysterious, and quite complicated.
It is indeed. I didn't really want involved in this thread, just wanted to make that one point after reading your post. You are right though, it is complicated though and it's very hard to have the discussion and keep it isolated to the rather narrow context of the miniature wargaming community/culture. For me, the discussion always has to go all the way back to the problems and the inequality that exist in the patriarchal society in which we live. A society which uses, and has always used, the objectification and sexualisation of women to maintain its position of dominance. But that's a loooong discussion, so I'll bow out again.
No matter what way you portray women somebody is going to find it sexualized or objectionable.
The heavy set matron nun? that's somebody's fetish material. Nuns with guns are fetish material and can be offensive to the viewer simply from a religious point of view as it promotes the image of violence. (also why do you suppose only the matrons are fat and old, when the other nuns are always young and thin?)
There's even a group of people in Isreal who have proposed that the wearing of a burqa not only objectifies women but it even prompts sexual urges in certain fetish groups. (and thus is counter productive in the purpose of "saving men from impure thoughts")
Personally I find the subject of women in combat offensive, because I don't feel that women should be in combat, period. It's not that I don't feel that women aren't capable, but I feel that if we have resorted to sending women or children into combat we have already lost as a society. I get offended when I see a female in combat armor much the same way I get offended when I see a child being conscripted into some african army. Having women and children in combat is needless and wastefull, and IMO it's a cruelty that's entirely avoidable.
The point is no matter how you display a woman somebody is always going to find a way to be either turned on by it, offended by it, or even both at the same time.
Hybrid: lovely way to argue your point; cry about cleavage on the inquisitor's drawing yet say here's a great mini from reaper while ignoring the fact it has just as much cleavage, or here's some fetish nuns or female knights with sculpted boob armor. Women wearing plate armor wear the same breatplates as men, so sculpting boobs onto the breastplate is done to sexualize the sculpt. (Much akin to adding high heels to the boots, nobody willingly fights in high heels)
I don't think women in combat is any worse than men in combat as long as both are capable. I would prefer neither to be in combat but sadly thats not the world we live in.
azreal13 wrote: You'll just have to be patient with repeat arguments, once a thread gets to a certain length people do not want, or are unable to read the whole thing.
Yeah, but reading at least a little of the beginning of the thread and a little of the end is good manners imho.
azreal13 wrote: It doesn't make their point less valid though
It doesn't. My argument does. I mean, how can the discussion evolves if we keep going back to the same basic argument.
I confess I'm actually a bit frustrated that nobody seems to have noticed in any way my whole point about nudity actually serving the story and everything too.
as to that laroche - that simply boils down to your paintscheme.whilst the one you linked shows cloth, the model is ambiguous. its just as easy to paint her skin "nude" as with "cloth".
Oh. I guess both models are the same on that area. It all boils down to the painter's interpretation. I've painted my Isabeau Laroche in the same golden armor as my whole conclave, with no cleavage, and I plan to do the same with Shaedra.
If I get the model and it actually looks like cleavage, then I'll green-stuff it.
Deadnight wrote: Preferring little models with less skin showing isnt going to make the female population like you or me any more than they already do.
Can't make them like me less either .
Anyhow, I already mentioned a bunch of time in this topic that I complain first and foremost for my own, egoistical enjoyment of the miniatures or illustrations. And, just in case, that it's not about being prudish, and that I'm perfectly okay with full nudity when it serves the story.
paulson games wrote: No matter what way you portray women somebody is going to find it sexualized or objectionable.
Who cares if someone find it “objectionable” ? For instance, you find any women in armor objectionable. I neither care nor thing there shouldn't be plenty of female model with armor.
Now if you can argument your point, maybe you'll get me to change my mind. But really, it's not a great start so far.
paulson games wrote: Nuns with guns are fetish material and can be offensive to the viewer simply from a religious point of view as it promotes the image of violence.
Not only it's more of a bonus for me if it offend religious feelings ( ), but the whole 40k range promotes violence. What are you even doing here if you are offended by that ?
paulson games wrote: There's even a group of people in Isreal who have proposed that the wearing of a burqa
A group of people in Israel. That's definitely an authority on burka !
paulson games wrote: cry about cleavage on the inquisitor's drawing yet say here's a great mini from reaper while ignoring the fact it has just as much cleavage
If you are speaking about Shaedra, that didn't seem like cleavage to me.
Well, they are nuns, that's undeniable.
However, fetish is in the eye of the beholder.
They don't have anything related to fetishism, or any kind of sexual practice, on them.
paulson games wrote: Much akin to adding high heels to the boots, nobody willingly fights in high heels
Good thing none of the models I linked to have any, then !
Personally I find the subject of women in combat offensive, because I don't feel that women should be in combat, period. It's not that I don't feel that women aren't capable, but I feel that if we have resorted to sending women or children into combat we have already lost as a society. I get offended when I see a female in combat armor much the same way I get offended when I see a child being conscripted into some african army. Having women and children in combat is needless and wastefull, and IMO it's a cruelty that's entirely avoidable.
Whoa, that's most sexist thing I've read for a while! Comparing women to children, way to go.
paulson games wrote: Nuns with guns are fetish material and can be offensive to the viewer simply from a religious point of view as it promotes the image of violence.
hybrid wrote:Not only it's more of a bonus for me if it offend religious feelings ( ), but the whole 40k range promotes violence. What are you even doing here if you are offended by that ?
Much the same could be in regards to gaming. Gaming promotes sexist depictions of women. What are you even doing here if you are offended by that?
Sorry but if you're going to lead off a thread about taking offense to something you can't just disqualify people's statements by saying well if you don't like it why are you here?, afterall that's exactly what everyone could counter your entire arguement with.
paulson games wrote: There's even a group of people in Isreal who have proposed that the wearing of a burqa
A group of people in Israel. That's definitely an authority on burka !
Considering that Isreal is also smack in the center of the Islamic world and they share the same city on a daily basis with hundreds of thousands of muslims I think they *might* have a more educated view on burqa than some dudes sitting in the France or the US, bothof which tend to have a pretty piss poor understanding of Muslim culture.
The Isabeau Laroche figure you quoted is only 1 of 4 "offically painted" minis that seems to be under the impression that those breasts are covered. The other 3 on reaper website all have flesh tones on the upper breast. Additionally the detail on the mini suggests that it is bare skin of the breasts. You have small details on the side and underneath of the breast area representing the foldings and sticthing line of the leather, that detail is absent on the top of the breasts and there is a hard line showing where the chest covering ends and the exposed breast is revealed. The painter doing the grey version simply got it wrong.
I would suggest you oggle them a bit more closely and take in all the details
No, it doesn't.
Especially given how few depiction of women there is in 40k !
But it's right that if 99% of the miniatures for a game were pin-up girls, I wouldn't be interested in it, and wouldn't go on forums dedicated to it.
paulson games wrote: Sorry but if you're going to lead off a thread about taking offense to something
Except that :
- I'm not offended
- even if I was, it wouldn't be the important part. The important part would still be me explaining why I think it's wrong. Nobody cares if I'm offended except if, well, after I explain them, they feel offended too. Or at the very least, thing that my reasons for being offended are legitimate, and that they sympathize with them enough for wanting not to offend me.
And the bad news here is that I'm as far as possible to thinking your reasons for being offended legitimate. Actually, the truth is that I'm offended by your reasons for being offended. And so is Crimson. Hence, we really have no reason to try not to offend you on this subject.
We are actually going to offend you by reminding you that most modern countries have women as part of their military forces, and that there are a bunch of women fighting in history.
Especially, let me emphasize that Israel do have a lot of women in their military forces .
paulson games wrote: Considering that Isreal is also smack in the center of the Islamic world and they share the same city on a daily basis with hundreds of thousands of muslims I think they *might* have a more educated view than some dudes sitting in the France or the US, bothof which tend to have a pretty piss poor understanding of Muslim culture.
I'm pretty sure I've seen more integral veils (though they were niqab rather than burka) than most Israeli (and without any hint of doubt more chadors, thanks Khamenei and co ), and I have a better understanding of “Muslim culture” than you do (hint : there is no such thing, Islam is a religion). Burqa is not worn in Palestine, except maybe for a statistically insignificant number of women.
But you seem to fail to grasp the real issue here. With no better description than “a group of people in Israel”, you could as well have said “Some tiny-tiny minority of extremely biased people with an agenda but without anyone taking them seriously”. I'm sure there are a lot of Israeli groups of people with extremely biased views on Islam.
Now I don't want to go too deep on Islam here. Please. Don't get me banned .
I don't care for models of women with big tits, big butts and showing a ton of skin. They look like strippers that were given guns and told "Go shoot stuff". I'd rather have proffesional looking soldiers TBH. I do like those ouftits but on fighters? Stupid as hell. I mean, skimpy outfits are a sniper's/marskman's dream. You got so many vital organs exposed.
TheCustomLime wrote: I don't care for models of women with big tits, big butts and showing a ton of skin. They look like strippers that were given guns and told "Go shoot stuff". I'd rather have proffesional looking soldiers TBH. I do like those ouftits but on fighters? Stupid as hell. I mean, skimpy outfits are a sniper's/marskman's dream. You got so many vital organs exposed.
Trying to use logic is a dead end when talking about a fictional creation that's already as preposterous as 40K.
Professional looking female soldiers at 30mm just look like soldiers, hence the features need exaggerating in order for them to work visually.
TheCustomLime wrote: I don't care for models of women with big tits, big butts and showing a ton of skin. They look like strippers that were given guns and told "Go shoot stuff". I'd rather have proffesional looking soldiers TBH. I do like those ouftits but on fighters? Stupid as hell. I mean, skimpy outfits are a sniper's/marskman's dream. You got so many vital organs exposed.
Trying to use logic is a dead end when talking about a fictional creation that's already as preposterous as 40K.
Professional looking female soldiers at 30mm just look like soldiers, hence the features need exaggerating in order for them to work visually.
Why? Why do we need to distinguish the males from the females if, when wearing appropriate armor, they would just blend into the crowd? Is it to show that you got female minis? I always disliked that reasoning because it falls into this idea of males being the default and females being the exception.
But in a military situation, women are the exception.
Everything is exaggerated in 40K. Infinity perhaps is often held up as an example of more accurate proportions, and one could struggle to tell the gender of certain models at tabletop range, other than the odd bit of cheesecake and bare midriff, both male and female models can be found in armour or in lightweight jumpsuits or similar. But in 40K, everything is turned up to 11, there is no such thing as subtle.
azreal13 wrote: But in a military situation, women are the exception.
Everything is exaggerated in 40K. Infinity perhaps is often held up as an example of more accurate proportions, and one could struggle to tell the gender of certain models at tabletop range, other than the odd bit of cheesecake and bare midriff, both male and female models can be found in armour or in lightweight jumpsuits or similar. But in 40K, everything is turned up to 11, there is no such thing as subtle.
In a historical context, yes, but this is fantasy where anything is possible. In the Imperial Guard and Sisters of Battle, and indeed in every army save the Space Marines/Orks/Necrons/Chaos/Nids and CSM women serve are not the exception. Though you wouldn't know within the art.
And your second point is valid to a certain extent. Guns and heads are emphasized on GW's "Heroic" scale but this is for 1) Aid in identifying different members in the squad and 2) To emphasize certain stylistic elements. Not to emphasize the gender of the model. After all, space marines notwithstanding, not very many GW models have incredibly wide shoulders and bulging pants.
My question, though, still remains. Why does a female's gender need to be emphasized so much? I can understand it in rulesets where certain rules differ between genders but I've never heard of one.
or here's some fetish nuns or female knights with sculpted boob armor.
.
btw to touch on the whole fetish about women in armor thing...
Did you know they sell chain mail undergraments for women? I was looking for historical type chain mail armor stuff on eBay (because nerd) and it was like 80% female stuff.
Personally I would think that gak chaffs like mad.
TheCustomLime wrote: I can understand it in rulesets where certain rules differ between genders but I've never heard of one.
Macho Women With Guns...
There, now you have heard of one.
I neither care nor thing there shouldn't be plenty of female model with armor.
That doesn't make sense at all. If you didn't care - you wouldn't care, and you wouldn't be in this thread. You have been active from the start of it and have been arguing quite fervently that women should be in full armor all the way.
I don't care, however I have just pointed out that companies have attempted to point out that companies have tried to fulfill what people like you claim should happen and it isn't economically viable. For everyone of those miniatures sold - you sell 10 French maids in high heels (and really - how many of those do you need). You also have games like MWWG that has sold out of every single print run he has done whereas female friendly games like Blue Rose fell flat (yes, it won an ENnie - but largely was a loss for GRP)
The other issue goes to how big of a problem is it? Believe it or not - the majority of females like the idealized miniatures who are showing a bit of skin. It is inline with the same reason why the male miniatures are not portrayed as being 50 lbs over weight with a receding hairline and neck beards. People prefer to look at pretty things.
Unless those who feel otherwise are willing to put enough cash on the table for it to make a difference - then, it won't make a difference and you will continue to see curvaceous miniatures, cleavage in rule books - and yes, Cosmo at your grocery store checkouts.
Personally I find the subject of women in combat offensive, because I don't feel that women should be in combat, period. It's not that I don't feel that women aren't capable, but I feel that if we have resorted to sending women or children into combat we have already lost as a society. I get offended when I see a female in combat armor much the same way I get offended when I see a child being conscripted into some african army. Having women and children in combat is needless and wastefull, and IMO it's a cruelty that's entirely avoidable.
.
We've lost as a society by not restricting competent, capable adults from pursuing their goals and serving out countries because of what's between their legs?
We've lost as a society by not restricting competent, capable adults from pursuing their goals and serving out countries because of what's between their legs?
What year is it?
Year is irrelevent. You can't critisise someone for being appalled by the notion of women in combat, that is just how some people feel. An innate desire to protect women from warfare is not offensive to anyone and is a perfectly natural - and overwealmingly common - opinion.
Yes you can criticise it. Ideally the criticism is backed up with reasons rather than simply assuming the obvious, but you can certainly criticise it.
The desire to protect women in particular, rather than say, human beings who are weak enough to warrant protecting, is the issue that I have. A protector needs to be strong and capable, not have a penis. Women are not an inferior victim class of human beings no matter how common that perception is.
Kojiro wrote: Yes you can criticise it. Ideally the criticism is backed up with reasons rather than simply assuming the obvious, but you can certainly criticise it.
The desire to protect women in particular, rather than say, human beings who are weak enough to warrant protecting, is the issue that I have. A protector needs to be strong and capable, not have a penis. Women are not an inferior victim class of human beings no matter how common that perception is.
So those of us who were raised that men should be protective of women...? That is quite a common cultural trait in our society, you might pretend otherwise but many people are simply disgusted by the notion of women in combat.
We've lost as a society by not restricting competent, capable adults from pursuing their goals and serving out countries because of what's between their legs?
What year is it?
Why I am not for women in combat isn't because they aren't capable but because it has a lot of potential fall out in regard to what happens as a result of the war. In order for a population to continue we need far fewer men than we do women. If the majority of men sent off to combat die the few men remaining are enough the population of the following generation doesn't decrease significantly. Now if you start sending the same amount of women into combat that die simular numbers to the men, you will see a decline in the population following that war as there are not as many females to carry offspring.
When a male dies in combat it's just him as any other male can easily father dozens or hundreds children if need be, when a female dies her offspring are not as easily replaced, which is one of the reasons why women haven't been a main battlefield presence in most cultures. (except as supporting roles) You see it happen in a few points in history but those instances are rare and when it occurs in modern day it is typically from situations of extreme duress like in WWII wherre there simply weren't enough soviet men left.
Children soliders are also commonely a case of extreme military desperation and causes long term damage to the populations. There are regions in Africa where war has killed off so many men that they are left scrounging for whatever resources they can which is why they've taken to conscripting boys. It's so severe that many villiages in warzones are facing total population collapse within the next generation. So it feeds directly into the collapse of a society.
I respect the choice of a female soldier to serve as much as any man and I think there are a lot of fine and capable service women out there. But at the same time the level of warfare we engage in is differant than what occurs in other countries. Nowdays we aren't losing wave after wave of soldiers like has happened in the past, but should we encounter such situations again I do believe it's foolish to place females in combat under those circumstances as it has potential to jepordize the survival of the following generation.
Suppose we end up in a situation where we might lose a 1/4 of the females in our counrty due to mass warfare, those type of losses not only damage the current population but you'll see a sharp decline in the following generations as well. Lose 1/4 of the male population it's not nearly as pronounced.
It has nothing to do with percieving females as weaker or any less capable. It's based on how it impacts future generations.
Addiitionally I was raised that men fight because you believe that the lives of others are more important then your own. You take their place so that they can go on to prosper and grow it's not done to show disrespect towards women. Deciding to protect somebody does not inherantly mean that you view yourself as superior or that they are incapable. I'd put myself in front of a bullet for any of my fellow soldiers in a heartbeat, it has nothing to do with seeing any of them as less capable, it has everything to do with me wanting to see somebody else continue on living. (even if it costs me my life)
xruslanx wrote: So those of us who were raised that men should be protective of women...?
Have cultural baggage like someone raised to believe blacks are inferior. Being raised with an idea about a group of people doesn't make that indoctrination true. Disgust is not a rational argument.
That is quite a common cultural trait in our society, you might pretend otherwise but many people are simply disgusted by the notion of women in combat.
As I said ' no matter how common that perception is'. If you want to claim women are an inferior class of human who are in need of special protections, considerations (and clearly limitations) go right ahead. You can't argue for equality and special consideration though.
Some people are weak, some are in need of protection and special assistance but to say that about all women truly is degrading and unfair to them.
Men are, on balance (yes there are exceptions yadda, yadda) bigger, stronger, more agressive, generally better suited to combat than women.
Not to mention the simple biological mechanism that one man can father many children in a short space of time, whereas a woman can at most produce one baby a year, so the survival of the species hinges on the protection of the female.
Have cultural baggage like someone raised to believe blacks are inferior. Being raised with an idea about a group of people doesn't make that indoctrination true. Disgust is not a rational argument.
The difference being of course that young men are not naturally predisposed towards starting a family with a black person as they are with a woman. Such a cultural teching reinforces the male desire to procreate, and to protect the carrier of his offspring as well as others in society.
As I said ' no matter how common that perception is'. If you want to claim women are an inferior class of human who are in need of special protections, considerations (and clearly limitations) go right ahead. You can't argue for equality and special consideration though.
Some people are weak, some are in need of protection and special assistance but to say that about all women truly is degrading and unfair to them.
Women have something about them that is very special though, the ability to make babies. Why shouldn't people who're special be treated...special?
Some people are weak, some are in need of protection and special assistance but to say that about all women truly is degrading and unfair to them.
You might think its truly degrading, but its also truly factually correct.
I attended special forces training, the only women that are allowed in are in the Special Reconnaissance Regiment, and they have longer times, and have to carry lighter weights than the men on every single criteria test.
In the USMC, women are allowed to do less chin ups, and complete all of the runs slower.
Women ARE weaker than men physically. It is a proven fact. If a man and a woman are of equal height and weight, the man will be able to bench around 20% more weight than the the woman.
I loathe misogynist feth heads, but being a man who reveres logic and reason above everything else, I also loathe political correctness getting in the way of facts, Its why gak like this happens.
If I was a New Yorker and I was desperate to become a firefighter and I read that story, I would be utterly appalled, as it stands, Im merely somewhat disgusted that PC bollocks is even being allowed to interfere in situations where peoples fething LIVES are on the line. That chick should be nowhere near a fire department.
Anyway, Im rambling, but the point is, ladies are great, and in many situations they are superior to men, certainly evidence suggests that they really are better multitaskers for example, but lets have it said right here and now so this thread doesn't start to get filled with nonsense.
Women are weaker and slower than men, and if you argue otherwise you are ignoring reality.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
azreal13 wrote: See, you say inferior, I merely say different.
Men are, on balance (yes there are exceptions yadda, yadda) bigger, stronger, more aggressive, generally better suited to combat than women.
Not to mention the simple biological mechanism that one man can father many children in a short space of time, whereas a woman can at most produce one baby a year, so the survival of the species hinges on the protection of the female.
Yeah I agree with you and Rus, I don't think women should be in frontline combat roles, but for different reasons.
I think they should only be allowed if they complete the same tests, and because they dont, they shouldn't, so clearly they deserve that special treatment, because they are already getting it in the first place.
Are there any sports where men and women compete in mixed gender at a professional level? Excluding mixed doubles racquet sports where the advantage is negated by the opposition being in the same boat.
No F1 drivers, not because the rules don't allow it, but, as yet, there hasn't been a woman fast enough to be selected. There's been what, one? Indycar female competitor.
All this isn't to say that there are things that women aren't superior at, or to say they're inferior overall, just that in certain things, men have a greater aptitude.
To load the dice to pretend women can somehow compete on an even level is unfair to men and patronising to women.
I do actually have a manual job where none of the people in my department are women. That's not to say that no woman in the entire world would be incapable of doing it - or that all men are capable, since they aren't. But certainly 95% of the girls who come in couldn't do it, the agency don't even bother sending women to us.
Not that I'd ever make blanket judgements about *all* men or *all* women, but I think that the differences between the sexes have been diminished in modern culture. If I view girls as little and feminine, and blokes as big and strong...it's because most of the guys I know are big and strong, and most of the girls I know are <5'4 and generally useless at manual activities .
Usual caveats about how this isn't universal, some women are built like a gak-brick house, some men will fall over at a fart in the wind, etc.
azreal13 wrote:See, you say inferior, I merely say different.
And subject to any given task that will be qualitatively better or worse. You can call that different if you like but it's a fine hair to split.
Not to mention the simple biological mechanism that one man can father many children in a short space of time, whereas a woman can at most produce one baby a year, so the survival of the species hinges on the protection of the female.
These considerations are long past and would only be considered in a massive, massive conflict. If the US armed forces doubled their female numbers AND made them all front line troops it wouldn't in any way threaten the US population. Yes if you get down to a literal race survival number of people men are more disposable, and I have no argument with that in that situation.
xruslanx wrote:The difference being of course that young men are not naturally predisposed towards starting a family with a black person as they are with a woman. Such a cultural teching reinforces the male desire to procreate, and to protect the carrier of his offspring as well as others in society.
Protecting your own offspring/partner is a wholly different matter to considering an entire gender victims in waiting, or the viability of woman to do a job like combat. Is she weaker than the male next to her? Maybe but if she meets the requirements so what? All that matters is she's strong enough to do the job.
Women have something about them that is very special though, the ability to make babies. Why shouldn't people who're special be treated...special?
So your argument now is that women are more valuable than men?
mattyrm wrote: Women ARE weaker than men physically. It is a proven fact. If a man and a woman are of equal height and weight, the man will be able to bench around 20% more weight than the the woman.
Don't get me wrong- as I said a protector needs to be strong and capable- and given the task at hand, like say top tier military training a (possibly overwhelming) majority women may indeed fall short. But that's an argument for uncompromising merit based testing, not for gross generalisations about a gender. If a woman can meet the standards there should be no barrier to entry due to her genitalia or potential breeding stock value.
Let me be clear I'm not claiming women are all universally equal to all men. I'm all for merit based everything. But outside of specific physical tasks women can meet those requirements.
i.e. stop getting offended on other people's behalf, ya knuckleheads
Couldn't agree more, people getting offended about the possibility of others offence is something that really rubs me the wrong way (there may be an irony buried deep in that, not sure!)
Such as those campaigning the Washington Redskins change their name, despite a relatively recent survey of Native Americans on the topic indicating the majority aren't the least bothered.
Saying women are better at some things and worse at others than men is in no trichological way similar to saying women are inferior.
I'm not sure that's the word you want to use, but I get your meaning. There are quantitative differences between the sexes, I'm certainly not arguing against that. What I'm saying though is that for most tasks in this world some number of women measure up (likewise some men fail).
And don't think for a moment I'm a feminist- I am most certainly not, nor am I trying to assign to women any ability they don't have. I get annoyed when people try to claim that women are all delicate flowers, that they have no right doing X (in this case combat) as if they have no agency or are inherently inferior because they're women. Likewise if they want to expose their chests or dress sexily that's their decision and I would vehemently oppose any call to oppose/censor this.
And I have no trouble with any artist depicting anything that happens in real life.
I know a lot of people always bring up the subject of female guard units which is a situation that I'd find uncomfortable.
You have an image of an all female unit from a deathworld or wherever, if they refuse to fight they are mowed down by their own officers. Furthermore they'd likely be facing an all male marine force or other male force. That could send a lot of mixed signals about the precieved value of women in the game. While the guard player might think it's great, other people viewing the game with a more traditional approach to the role women in combat might not think it's very funny or appealing.
The WWII soviet style tactics of throwing a wall bodies against the enemy is already horrific and dehumanizing, translate that into walls of disposable dead women..... it's not a good picture.
Many of us don't even give a second thought to horrible things done to other men in action films or video games, but when same things are applied to women in a "fantasy" conext it starts setting off alarms bells warning of sociopathic behavior.
I certainly don't want to be playinga game where the objective is to shoot and kill as many women as possible. There's a disassociation that occurs when the models are faceless male goons, and the violence is marginalized, maybe it's not right but it's there. You change the percieved theme to "hey lets shoot women" and you'll likely never see a female gamer in your store again. (and that's not even including how often male teenagers love to toss around rape jokes)
Saying women are better at some things and worse at others than men is in no trichological way similar to saying women are inferior.
I'm not sure that's the word you want to use, but I get your meaning. There are quantitative differences between the sexes, I'm certainly not arguing against that. What I'm saying though is that for most tasks in this world some number of women measure up (likewise some men fail).
And don't think for a moment I'm a feminist- I am most certainly not, nor am I trying to assign to women any ability they don't have. I get annoyed when people try to claim that women are all delicate flowers, that they have no right doing X (in this case combat) as if they have no agency or are inherently inferior because they're women. Likewise if they want to expose their chests or dress sexily that's their decision and I would vehemently oppose any call to oppose/censor this.
And I have no trouble with any artist depicting anything that happens in real life.
Trichology, relating to the hair and scalp. I'm fairly sure it was the word I intended.
But we have done some tests. Conversions on the same figure, and released under different part numbers and names have shown that an immodest figure will outsell a more modest version of the same exact figure. A topless version will sell a LOT more, and full nudity will sell even more.
Now, obviously this is the results of one company, and testing a very different market (individual figures rather then product lines), but this is, to the best of my knowledge, the only such testing ever publicly reported.
That's not to say that there is no market out there, or that the preferences that exist for single models (presumably bought for painting/display/RPGs) are applicable to building an army. But there is an opportunity coming in the next year as there are going to be 5 fairly large entries into the market of aesthetically distinct female miniatures; Raging Heroes has 3 different lines of female miniatures coming out ranging from tank tops and bare midriffs to head-to-toe uniforms. In addition we can (hopefully) expect relatively soon Dreamforge Games to release their Black Widow female anti-tank troopers in their Eisenkern line and the entry from Victoria miniatures.
A year from now if those lines reach the market we will have some real, new data in this area, since they represent five fairly good points on the continuum of titillation, from near-pinup to virtually de-sexualized.
I believe I read once that the reason for that is that males (And maybe females but to a lesser extend) are aroused by even the slightest hint of a mate.
So, we are biologically hardwired to be drawn towards sexualized things. Damn you, mother nature!
I'm quite surprised to discover how people around here are progressive. I mean, both paulson games, xruslanx, and azreal13 seems to be advocating polygyny. So, I guess I can answer your question : we seem to be around 630 AD.
Though given their description, it sometimes feel more akin to lebensborn, with that whole “Let's spit out as many babies as possible in as little time as possible”. They merely lack the eugenics for now. So maybe the right answer was actually 1942 AD !
I sincerely hope nobody gets offended by this post .
Automatically Appended Next Post:
paulson games wrote: I certainly don't want to be playinga game where the objective is to shoot and kill as many women as possible. There's a disassociation that occurs when the models are faceless male goons, and the violence is marginalized, maybe it's not right but it's there.
So you can disassociate with faceless male goons, but not with faceless female goons ? That's a pity. Too bad for you, but that certainly won't stop me from playing my army of faceless female goons.
paulson games wrote: You change the percieved theme to "hey lets shoot women" and you'll likely never see a female gamer in your store again.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure no female gamer could handle the shock of seeing faceless female goons trying to reduce to bloody ribbons other faceless female goons.
paulson games wrote: (and that's not even including how often male teenagers love to toss around rape jokes)
And rather than addressing this issue, let's just sweep it under the carpet. It's a saner, safer, and more sensitive thing to do.
I mean, seeing female faceless goon getting killed it sure to put off women, but having teenager joking about how they will rape them is sure to make female gamers feel so comfortable, right ?
paulson games wrote: I know a lot of people always bring up the subject of female guard units which is a situation that I'd find uncomfortable.
You have an image of an all female unit from a deathworld or wherever, if they refuse to fight they are mowed down by their own officers. Furthermore they'd likely be facing an all male marine force or other male force. That could send a lot of mixed signals about the precieved value of women in the game. While the guard player might think it's great, other people viewing the game with a more traditional approach to the role women in combat might not think it's very funny or appealing.
That their value is same as the value of men?
The WWII soviet style tactics of throwing a wall bodies against the enemy is already horrific and dehumanizing, translate that into walls of disposable dead women..... it's not a good picture.
Well no. And men being similarly killed isn't any better.
You think you're being chivalric, but you're just being sexist. You're casting women as damsels that need protecting.
Many people in this thread should just stop thinking humanity as males and females; for most of the time such division is immaterial; they're all just people with different individual characteristics.
Crimson wrote: Many people in this thread should just stop thinking humanity as males and females; for most of the time such division is immaterial; they're all just people with different individual characteristics.
I'm thinking more about who I'd want hauling me fifty yards to somewhere safe in order to start up Combat Lifesaver.
So, I'm honestly curious. Does anyone think anything of substance has been achieved with this thread? Or are we just circling the drain like the leftovers of a bad salad from three weeks ago, discovered in the back of the fridge growing six kinds of mould and emitting a horrifying smell of rancid olive oil?
I know what my pick is. I don't think we, as a community, have the rhetorical skill or empirical data to actually argue gender politics the way a lot of people here seem hellbent on doing.
That's comparing 2 units from the same faction. The female minis in the first pic are obviously female, but they're dressed the same as the male members of the unit. The second pic however shows the all to common problem of the 'sexy' girl model completely out of context. Why is her 'kilt' a mini-skirt? Why is she in that coquettish pose? Why isn't she dressed the same as her male counterparts from the same unit.
That's comparing 2 units from the same faction. The female minis in the first pic are obviously female, but they're dressed the same as the male members of the unit. The second pic however shows the all to common problem of the 'sexy' girl model completely out of context. Why is her 'kilt' a mini-skirt? Why is she in that coquettish pose? Why isn't she dressed the same as her male counterparts from the same unit.
That's been answered. The more cheesecake, the better the sales.
That's comparing 2 units from the same faction. The female minis in the first pic are obviously female, but they're dressed the same as the male members of the unit. The second pic however shows the all to common problem of the 'sexy' girl model completely out of context. Why is her 'kilt' a mini-skirt? Why is she in that coquettish pose? Why isn't she dressed the same as her male counterparts from the same unit.
That's been answered. The more cheesecake, the better the sales.
Still, people in this very thread has cited Infinity as having a less sexist range of minis than that of 40K.
There might be less examples (I doubt it though), but those that are are worse. I've yet to see short skirts and thongs in 40K, where there are more sensibly dressed male counterparts.
fishy bob wrote: There might be less examples (I doubt it though), but those that are are worse. I've yet to see short skirts and thongs in 40K, where there are more sensibly dressed male counterparts.
That's a personal line in the sand for yourself though (albeit probably a relatively common one to a lot of people)
Remember this whole thread started because of a picture of a woman showing a limited amount of cleavage. One could also argue because there is some element of Manga/Animé in Infinity DNA, it is at least more appropriate in the context. I'm not sure I'd argue that too vociferously myself, but I could see a case being made.
fishy bob wrote: There might be less examples (I doubt it though), but those that are are worse. I've yet to see short skirts and thongs in 40K, where there are more sensibly dressed male counterparts.
That's because GW's primary target audience is 13 years old.
I hate it when people bring out the profit argument to justify things. "Businesses have to make money, people!" There is such a thing a externalizes. When the seller and the buyer both make out for the better, but somebody else's back yard gets turned into a toxic waste dump.
So the miniature companies make money selling cheesecake. The nerds get their sexy models. And we exclude a possible demographic from the hobby due to an noninclusive culture. Yay Profit! The invisible hand; the cause of and solution to all of our problems!
No one here is arguing for an end to sexy models. We just want more parity in representation. More female characters. More normal looking female sculpts. If one or two of the guard models on an IG sprue where female, it probably wouldn't hurt or help their sales much. But it would be a change in the culture that may mean a few years down the line, the hobby becomes more open and inviting to female gamers.
That's comparing 2 units from the same faction. The female minis in the first pic are obviously female, but they're dressed the same as the male members of the unit. The second pic however shows the all to common problem of the 'sexy' girl model completely out of context. Why is her 'kilt' a mini-skirt? Why is she in that coquettish pose? Why isn't she dressed the same as her male counterparts from the same unit.
I like them, so I'm getting some*. In fact there's a lot of cool Infinity models.
*They certainly aren't any worse than any females that've come from GW, and it kinda fits in with the theme anyway; the outfit isn't impractical, and girls have always worn shorter tartan skirts than guys have kilts. Their outfit provides them no less protection than their male counterparts.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CaulynDarr wrote: So the miniature companies make money selling cheesecake. The nerds get their sexy models. And we exclude a possible demographic from the hobby due to an noninclusive culture. Yay Profit! The invisible hand; the cause of and solution to all of our problems!
What demographic do we exclude? Because I see a few female gamers and none of them have ever expressed any issue with the scantily clad female mini's, most of which are owned by said gaming girls.
CaulynDarr wrote: So the miniature companies make money selling cheesecake. The nerds get their sexy models. And we exclude a possible demographic from the hobby due to an noninclusive culture. Yay Profit! The invisible hand; the cause of and solution to all of our problems!
What demographic do we exclude? Because I see a few female gamers and none of them have ever expressed any issue with the scantily clad female mini's, most of which are owned by said gaming girls.
I'll counter your anecdote with my anecdote. The recent Zombicide expansions has included some pretty ridiculous cheesecake miniatures. I know a few life long gamer girls who are big fans of the game and they are universally displeased with the sculpts. Those characters never get played. Even the guys are bit embarrassed by them. Certain things don't work so well in mixed company.
People who are a female and already a gamer either are OK with it, or built up a tolerance because they like the games enough to look past the issues. It's a self selected grouping.
I'm not convinced that there isn't room to grow that demographic. And that growth isn't stifled by the very male-centric culture of the hobby.
There's definitely room to grow the demographic, though I'm not sure it's the male-centric imagery, as that doesn't seem to impact other hobbies either (like anime, there's a lot of girls at the cons I've been to that aren't put off by the male centric artwork).
Of course, this is all guesswork since none of us are potential girl gamers, but the anecdotal evidence points towards them being more interested in co-operative games and competitive games, and the smuttiness of the mini's is a secondary concern. We'll see what happens with Kingdom Death :p
Herzlos wrote: There's definitely room to grow the demographic, though I'm not sure it's the male-centric imagery, as that doesn't seem to impact other hobbies either (like anime, there's a lot of girls at the cons I've been to that aren't put off by the male centric artwork).
Of course, this is all guesswork since none of us are potential girl gamers, but the anecdotal evidence points towards them being more interested in co-operative games and competitive games, and the smuttiness of the mini's is a secondary concern. We'll see what happens with Kingdom Death :p
Anime has its baggage too, but Anime has a much broader range of options going on. Not every anime is an action show filled with Conan expys. There are plenty of shows and characters that have universal appeal or just appeal to women. There are Anime shows that aren't just fan-service(for the males) and violence.
That's comparing 2 units from the same faction. The female minis in the first pic are obviously female, but they're dressed the same as the male members of the unit. The second pic however shows the all to common problem of the 'sexy' girl model completely out of context. Why is her 'kilt' a mini-skirt? Why is she in that coquettish pose? Why isn't she dressed the same as her male counterparts from the same unit.
to be fair, the only offensive thing about that model is the fact that she's wearing something under her wee tartan dress in the first place.
A True Scotsman doesnt wear anything under their kilt. (yes, this is true. and i say this as a kiltowner/wearer). And believe me, its the same with the scottish lasses and their wee tartan skirts. (especially if they're from glasgow! ) there is such a thing as doing it properly.
CaulynDarr wrote: I'm not convinced that there isn't room to grow that demographic. And that growth isn't stifled by the very male-centric culture of the hobby.
Purely out of curiosity, do you believe that all hobbies have an obligation to avoid being male-centric? What about female-centric? I can think of some things women of my close personal acquaintance do that I would have absolutely zero interest in, regardless of how much flannel and beard you dressed it up in.
CaulynDarr wrote: I'm not convinced that there isn't room to grow that demographic. And that growth isn't stifled by the very male-centric culture of the hobby.
Purely out of curiosity, do you believe that all hobbies have an obligation to avoid being male-centric? What about female-centric? I can think of some women of my close personal acquaintance do that I would have absolutely zero interest in, regardless of how much flannel and beard you dressed it up in.
I made a similar point a few pages ago, but apparently a man shouldn't feel awkward or excluded by being in an aerobics class full of women.
So I know the discussion has gone in loops and all but just gonna state my own opinion. Personally, I don't really see anything all that wrong with the image. Is it impractical? Yes but I don't think it is necessarily a bad thing. My biggest gripe is I can't tell WHAT she is doing. IS she trying to go into battle with so many weak points? Is it a political place and things went wrong? What exactly is going on there? Now if she is marching into warfare... it's 40k but I admit I raise my brow ever so slightly. If a more peaceful meeting... dunno why she has a chainsword but I guess it might be customary there.
Now, onto the whole entire argument of women models. Honestly, I say the more the merrier. Who cares if realistically women are more important to the repopulation of mankind? 40k has never been realistic wwith statistics that would not be plausable and an infinite number of planets being lost and just magically others appearing to replace them. It is a world where vats grow children and Cadia has the entire population trained for combat. The peak of human expertise has an entire segment (SoB) that are strictly women that can wreck most other humans. We have genetic altering drugs that certain IG regiments use to make them stronger. Any pretense that they are needed for this or that in every circumstance are inherently flawed with the bs fluff that we have grown to enjoy xD. So I say I'd love to have female guardsman. Heck I'd love their to be teen guardsman (the youth). It doesn't matter how strong you are. In the future such differences might have long faded away and even if not it means nothing when 90% of the enemies you face can rip you apart in an instant whilst the others have guns that far out match you.
In the end, I suppose that I see no difference between a man and woman being slaughtered in war. Both are human beings. Does one being a female make it inherently worse than killing a man whom has just as much feeling and emotion?
In other words, the artwork is odd but fine, I'd like to see some badass inquisitor girls, I'd like to see more female in 40k, I dont mind a coupble being fan service as long as some others are badass aaaand that's really it.
CaulynDarr wrote: I'm not convinced that there isn't room to grow that demographic. And that growth isn't stifled by the very male-centric culture of the hobby.
Purely out of curiosity, do you believe that all hobbies have an obligation to avoid being male-centric? What about female-centric? I can think of some women of my close personal acquaintance do that I would have absolutely zero interest in, regardless of how much flannel and beard you dressed it up in.
I made a similar point a few pages ago, but apparently a man shouldn't feel awkward or excluded by being in an aerobics class full of women.
It's not a good argument, lack of interest or awquardness doesn't mean the hobby is exclusive for one gender. It's realy the same argument that was gaming is for boys and girls have no interest.
What about board games or art ?
Or even TCG all things girls are getting into. Aerobics has men into it, fashion has men into it.
Why would you be awquard in a aerobics class full of women ? Women put up with it in many Hobby they enjoy.
Crimson wrote: Many people in this thread should just stop thinking humanity as males and females; for most of the time such division is immaterial; they're all just people with different individual characteristics.
I'm thinking more about who I'd want hauling me fifty yards to somewhere safe in order to start up Combat Lifesaver.
I know what my pick is.
A person strong enough to do this, regardless of the gender?
Agamemnon2 wrote: So, I'm honestly curious. Does anyone think anything of substance has been achieved with this thread? Or are we just circling the drain like the leftovers of a bad salad from three weeks ago, discovered in the back of the fridge growing six kinds of mould and emitting a horrifying smell of rancid olive oil?
I know what my pick is. I don't think we, as a community, have the rhetorical skill or empirical data to actually argue gender politics the way a lot of people here seem hellbent on doing.
Nothing ever changes from these sorts of things, other than occiasional financial losses when a company decides to try to appease the gnashing and wailing of teeth. For as long as I can remember, this topic has come up (used to be in the letters column of Dragon Magazine and occaisional noise at conventions). Those who seek sensible looking femailes though never want to put forth the capital to fix their percieved problems (something that with KS now, they would be able to do much more readily).
The rest of the discussion (equality and all that) is largely irrelevant to miniatures and artwork. A miniature doesnt have to pass a fitness eval...it just is.
I don't know what's worst : that I had a brain malfunction, or that nobody noticed it. I guess nobody reads my messages at all.
I had my lengthy argument totally ignored, though of course should I ever give away some redundant point of redundancy, azreal13 will call me on how I should rather repeat them, so he can ignore them once again.
I'm really wasting my time here.
Agamemnon2 wrote: So, I'm honestly curious. Does anyone think anything of substance has been achieved with this thread? Or are we just circling the drain like the leftovers of a bad salad from three weeks ago, discovered in the back of the fridge growing six kinds of mould and emitting a horrifying smell of rancid olive oil?
I know what my pick is. I don't think we, as a community, have the rhetorical skill or empirical data to actually argue gender politics the way a lot of people here seem hellbent on doing.
Nothing ever changes from these sorts of things, other than occiasional financial losses when a company decides to try to appease the gnashing and wailing of teeth. For as long as I can remember, this topic has come up (used to be in the letters column of Dragon Magazine and occaisional noise at conventions). Those who seek sensible looking femailes though never want to put forth the capital to fix their percieved problems (something that with KS now, they would be able to do much more readily).
The rest of the discussion (equality and all that) is largely irrelevant to miniatures and artwork. A miniature doesnt have to pass a fitness eval...it just is.
As I pointed out above, this may be the single best time in the history of the hobby to launch new lines/produce new aesthetics. Latest word from Dreamforge is shipping late April/May for Black Widows. Raging Heroes is... well, sometime. Victoria Miniatures as well.
Seriously, if there is an interest it can come to fruition: there is a guy on Dakka making sci-fi Gnolls for crying out loud! And they actually look good!
There are professional and semi-professional casters that post to Dakka. Sculptors of many disciplines. People who have run kickstarters and people who have analyzed them ad nauseum. There is a wealth of expertise here, if the desire is to put out a desired product.
Ahhh... but there is the rub, isn't it? Just a few posts above this we have one fellow referring to the selling of the miniatures in question as analogous to creating "a toxic waste dump." Ah, but the refrain goes; "No one here is arguing for an end to sexy models"... the desire is only for "more parity in representation".
In other times, this is where the phrase "Put your money where your mouth is" would go. But this is such a golden age one doesn't even have to do that! The minimum standards to launch a kickstarter campaign are trivially low, and even a few tens of thousands of dollars can launch a business. JunkRobot and Bombshell miniatures have done exactly this: seen a gap in the market where their vision of female miniatures could prosper, and exploited it.
So let's see: if the desire is not simply to complain, then we can look forward to some new style female miniatures. But since this is far from the first time this post (in one form or another) has been written, certain doubts exist.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: I don't know what's worst : that I had a brain malfunction, or that nobody noticed it. I guess nobody reads my messages at all.
I had my lengthy argument totally ignored, though of course should I ever give away some redundant point of redundancy, azreal13 will call me on how I should rather repeat them, so he can ignore them once again.
I'm really wasting my time here.
Took you 14 pages to figure that one out huh?
Fact is what we have is a situation somewhat akin to that mentioned in the context of religion ie "for the skeptic, no proof is ever sufficient, for the faithful, no proof is necessary." There is nothing that can be said by either side which will result in the other throwing up their hands and saying "you know what, you were right all along!"
Crimson wrote: A person strong enough to do this, regardless of the gender?
Sounds like you're making a great argument for doing away with gender-specific standards. I'd agree wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, you wouldn't like the result, if you've got an agenda.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Apple fox wrote: It's not a good argument, lack of interest or awquardness doesn't mean the hobby is exclusive for one gender. It's realy the same argument that was gaming is for boys and girls have no interest.
What about board games or art ?
Or even TCG all things girls are getting into. Aerobics has men into it, fashion has men into it.
Why would you be awquard in a aerobics class full of women ? Women put up with it in many Hobby they enjoy.
So I guess you're basically saying that mainstream trashy romance novels just need to work harder to market to men?
The notion that we're all equally interested in everything doesn't strike me as being particularly true.
Crimson wrote: A person strong enough to do this, regardless of the gender?
Sounds like you're making a great argument for doing away with gender-specific standards. I'd agree wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, you wouldn't like the result, if you've got an agenda.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Apple fox wrote: It's not a good argument, lack of interest or awquardness doesn't mean the hobby is exclusive for one gender. It's realy the same argument that was gaming is for boys and girls have no interest.
What about board games or art ?
Or even TCG all things girls are getting into. Aerobics has men into it, fashion has men into it.
Why would you be awquard in a aerobics class full of women ? Women put up with it in many Hobby they enjoy.
So I guess you're basically saying that mainstream trashy romance novels just need to work harder to market to men?
The notion that we're all equally interested in everything doesn't strike me as being particularly true.
Yeah this whole threads just got proper daft now.
There's all kinds of gak that we can sit here and say sucks, we don't live in a utopia. I could sit and type all kinds of things that the vast majority of people would agree with, its hardly a difficult task, but what is the point?
The fact that companies report that scantily clad minis sell much better, is enough to end the argument. Its perfectly logical why it happens, sure it might be a little bit of a problem for the world, but ho-hum, there are plenty of worse things we could talk about. The issue is a non issue, it happens for no reason other than sales, it isn't a conspiracy, it isn't because men are seeking to covertly impose their will on women via the medium of miniatures, its simply because they sell more, so who cares?
It is an entirely non malevolent, natural occurrence, because of sales figures, there is no grand conspiracy.
Would the world be a better place if human beings weren't so shallow? Probably, but it manifests in countless thousands of ways. If you want to do your bit for equality, there are way better ways of doing it than seeking to have miniature companies put more clothes on tiny plastic models of females.
The other arguments (see above) are even sillier, because they start to suggest that the world would be a better place if we were all robots. I wouldn't feel comfortable with going to an aerobics class, perhaps that is foolish because it is all due to a pervasive cultural zeitgeist that just happens to be harful in some manner?
Well so what. I like being me, and the slight discomfort that I would feel in an aerobics class is easily offset, because I dont and wont go to an aerobics class. You cant sit here and make claims that the world is somehow wrong because we don't spend all of our time trying to make absolutely everything palatable to absolutely everyone, the very idea is preposterous.
And feth me, are we not already politically correct enough?
You've been reading this whole thread and you still think that's what this is about? Really?
While it might not be in the simplest of terms - it does sort of boil down to that. You have one side which believes that females should only be portrayed in sensible clothes (with varying degrees of what is considered sensible - a moving goal post to be certain) and the other side who really doesn't care too much. In the middle you have manufacturers who really don't care what they produce provided that it sells..
So, you think the side that objects to objectification of women is the side that calls women whores? THAT'S what Paulson suggested.
Here's a hint: when we object to what a woman is wearing, the reaction does not happen in the part of the brain that freaks out over twerking Miley Cyrus--it happens in the part that hates the scientists in Prometheus for taking off their helmets in an alien tomb. Not "whore!" but "whoever made this must think the audience is stupid."
And for the record, I don't object to the Incleavitor picture because...Inquisitors can have force fields and gak. If she's got a force field, she can go into battle wearing a throne-damned Starfleet red shirt and it would still be practical.
You've been reading this whole thread and you still think that's what this is about? Really?
While it might not be in the simplest of terms - it does sort of boil down to that. You have one side which believes that females should only be portrayed in sensible clothes (with varying degrees of what is considered sensible - a moving goal post to be certain) and the other side who really doesn't care too much. In the middle you have manufacturers who really don't care what they produce provided that it sells..
So, you think the side that objects to objectification of women is the side that calls women whores? THAT'S what Paulson suggested.
Here's a hint: when we object to what a woman is wearing, the reaction does not happen in the part of the brain that freaks out over twerking Miley Cyrus--it happens in the part that hates the scientists in Prometheus for taking off their helmets in an alien tomb. Not "whore!" but "whoever made this must think the audience is stupid."
And for the record, I don't object to the Incleavitor picture because...Inquisitors can have force fields and gak. If she's got a force field, she can go into battle wearing a throne-damned Starfleet red shirt and it would still be practical.
You are clearly missing the sarcasm in that post.
That post was in reference to the second picture where every bit of the Inquisitor is covered from head to toe. What I was pointing out in a humorous fashion clearly went over your head. No matter how sensible that somebody thinks the female is being depicted there's always somebody else out there who's going to think they should be a bit less revealing.
I found no offense to the first inquisitor that started off the whole thread yet obviously that generated a negative reaction with at least one person. The second picture I find entirely tame as there's absolutely nothing that sexualized in that image IMO, but there's always going to be somebody else with a more radical view somewhere in the world who'd find her face being exposed to be considered offensive. (certain cultures even object to the wearing of make up or any sort of adornment being worn) We all have greatly differing views on how we see women (or men) as being sexy and no matter what you do to please the majority of people there will be individuals that are going to object as there's no universal standard that can be applied.
I tossed in the Burqa line because it's one of the most extreme examples of what people will resort to in order to contain sexual images. In parts of the world women risk being killed by stoning if they go out in public without an extremely concealing outfit. It's not a practice that was confined to dark ages, it's still occurring even today.
This is the picture that I was referring to in jest and I hope that nobody on here would seriously be offended by it, which was the point of the humor.
I think you all need to be less picky. Not everything has to be a political statement just so somebody can come along and pat you on the head and tell you your being a good drone.
And just to be clear, that second image will have plenty of people who object to the boob plate and nipple nuts.
@Bob you may object because of logic, however many do not care about logic. It is the same group who freaked out about Reapers female giant last year. There is nothing illogical about that figure, but they object that she is a female looking female.
Sean_OBrien wrote: Nothing ever changes from these sorts of things, other than occiasional financial losses when a company decides to try to appease the gnashing and wailing of teeth. For as long as I can remember, this topic has come up (used to be in the letters column of Dragon Magazine and occaisional noise at conventions). Those who seek sensible looking femailes though never want to put forth the capital to fix their percieved problems (something that with KS now, they would be able to do much more readily).
Speaking of Kickstarters, a few of the miniatures in this year's Empire of the Dead kickstarter turned out pretty well. I didn't pledge for any specifically, but women were represented in some of the freebies. A few met my requirements. The others... met the hammer. I would argue that some of the otherwise uninteresting Raging Heroes all-women campaign also broadened the horizons of representation in this regard.
I find it curious that the words used to describe people unhappy with the current state of affairs often emphasize the shrillness of their tone, the emotional nature of their argument, and often contain expressions of crying or otherwise "making a scene". There is something in this more than natural, if philosophy could find it out.
Sean_OBrien wrote: And just to be clear, that second image will have plenty of people who object to the boob plate and nipple nuts.
Those are rather lamentable design elements, especially the, as you so rightly, "nuts". Her torso armor ensemble just looks rather strange, possibly they were going for a "40k-gothic bulletproof vest" kind of thing with the coat thrown on top of that, but they still wanted to maintain her silhouette, which modern protective gear does not do. The bottom of her outfit is likewise a bit odd. Is she wearing green chaps, or a black leather crotch-guard over green pants? These are not gendered observations, just a slight digression. If anyone cares to post a picture of an inquisitorial dudebro, I will gladly nitpick the clothing on one of those as well.
Sean_OBrien wrote: And just to be clear, that second image will have plenty of people who object to the boob plate and nipple nuts.
@Bob you may object because of logic, however many do not care about logic. It is the same group who freaked out about Reapers female giant last year. There is nothing illogical about that figure, but they object that she is a female looking female.
That's not true, or at least not entirely true. I know a few of us were upset because all of the female giants are standing in passive poses, like they are at a photo shoot, while the male giants are in action poses. I have no problem with her appearance or attire, but I would have been much happier if she was threatening the PC minis with her club or...screaming and shaking a fist... or something. Instead it looks like she's supposed to be chatting. Ooooooh, threatening!
It's OK, though. Bones is fairly easy to chop and fix.
But I can see how you got the misconception about why most of us weren't happy with the female giant's pose. Lady Storm (or whatever the StandartenMod is named) deleted every post on the subject except for Buglips and similar necknards reacting as if we had said we don't like women because he somehow felt that women with agency can't also be his precious cheesecake.
I think the discussion of women in miniature games getting over sexualized doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Most female miniatures are hyper feminine, but male miniatures are hyper masculine as well.
There aren't allot of people up in arms about how much cleavage the standard catachan comes with. The game features 9ft tall, incredibly violent, armored caricatures of masculinity, complaining about some art showing impractical female clothing seems kind of absurd.
If you were to crusade against the hurtful portrayals of both genders in tabletop games, I could understand. But to single out women as getting the short end of the stick is laughable.
Thatguyoverthere wrote: I think the discussion of women in miniature games getting over sexualized doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Most female miniatures are hyper feminine, but male miniatures are hyper masculine as well.
They're hyper masculine, but usually not sexualised.
dunno, i think many women and gay men prefer to see a man being gritty and tough rather than posing around...so i probably wouldn't say they were very sexualised.
Thatguyoverthere wrote: I think the discussion of women in miniature games getting over sexualized doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Most female miniatures are hyper feminine, but male miniatures are hyper masculine as well.
There aren't allot of people up in arms about how much cleavage the standard catachan comes with.
Because the men are depicted as a male power fantasy and not as pin up bait for women.
Also there is a much bigger diversity in types of male miniatures (age, ethnicity, weight) while the female miniatures are mostly sexualized.
And while the image in the original post started this discussion it is not really problematic for the most part (and the follow up inquisitor is rather okay too). There is much worse.
Does nobody think that even if some women do claim to get offended, they are just being dippy and getting needlessly offended in the first place?
The vast majority of ordinary women wouldn't bother batting an eyelid at that picture of an inquisitor, so who cares what the militant feminist "wimmin" think?
Remember those Feminista UK chicks who wanted to ban any magazines which had partially disrobed women on? They hated things like Stuff and FHM, even if it was only partial nudity. Do most women find the cover of Stuff offensive? Would we listen to the calls from an ultra conservative group who said they found the cover of gay times offensive?
No.
Ergo, I care as much about extremist feminists as I do about extremist Muslims, extremist animal rights activists, racial extremists like the KKK and the Black Panthers, basically anyone with the word extremist in front of their name don't deserve to be listened to.
feth em.
People that get enraged about this weak ass gak deserve to be ignored.
Men being constantly portrayed as misogynistic macho shoot first ask questions later has it's negative side effects as well. So quit making it look like women constantly have the short straw, gender stereotyping goes both ways.
As for overly sexual female characters, it really depends on the context and the sculptural style, for example if the miniature was based on Greek mythology it would be more idealised to fit in to the sculptural style of that period, if the miniature was a female in a sexualised allied weird WW2 uniform, I wouldn't have a problem with it as it could of been based on the pin up art on the allied aircraft in the 1940's.
Thatguyoverthere wrote: I think the discussion of women in miniature games getting over sexualized doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Most female miniatures are hyper feminine, but male miniatures are hyper masculine as well.
There aren't allot of people up in arms about how much cleavage the standard catachan comes with. The game features 9ft tall, incredibly violent, armored caricatures of masculinity, complaining about some art showing impractical female clothing seems kind of absurd.
If you were to crusade against the hurtful portrayals of both genders in tabletop games, I could understand. But to single out women as getting the short end of the stick is laughable.
Thank you, Thatguyoverthere, for repeating an argument that has already been writen in this very topic. I offer you a Redundant Badge of Redundancy. Wear it proudly !
mattyrm wrote: Does nobody think that even if some women do claim to get offended, they are just being dippy and getting needlessly offended in the first place?
There is certainly an over sensitivity to it in my opinion. Why the depiction may clearly be sexualised I don't think you can in and of itself claim that as a negative.Women are- to straight men at least- sexual things and there is just no way around that. What I find onerous is that you can depict a woman as a fanatical zealot, willing to murder people with a chainsaw for as little as free speech (did I hear you call the Emperor a dictator?), genocidal, racist, fascist and xenophobe, but don't you dare display her as something sexually appealing to men.
Don't get me wrong, women are over sexualised in gaming but I don't believe that it causes males to view them as less human or property. That inquisitor to me looks like a bad ass I don't want to be opposing, not an object to acquire for pleasure.
mattyrm wrote: Ergo, I care as much about extremist feminists as I do about extremist Muslims, extremist animal rights activists, racial extremists like the KKK and the Black Panthers, basically anyone with the word extremist in front of their name don't deserve to be listened to. People that get enraged about this weak ass gak deserve to be ignored.
I care about them in so much as they affect me directly or truly affect the world at large. I really enjoyed Mirror's Edge so when I find out that EA is nerfing the controls in ME2 because a feminist video game critic said 'they're too hard for girls' I get annoyed, for example. Not burning effigies or anything but it is annoying.
MetalOxide wrote: Men being constantly portrayed as misogynistic macho shoot first ask questions later has it's negative side effects as well. So quit making it look like women constantly have the short straw, gender stereotyping goes both ways.
How is that negative? Isn't it a good thing that we should expect young men to fight for their country and disregard their own safety for the liberty of others? I don't see why gender stereotyping is wrong when without it, millions of men in 1944 would have just gone "lol cba don't stereotype me" and we'd have got nothing done.
Coming from a publishing back ground I have to add that books with sexy covers sell more than books with un-sexy covers. Showing a little leg or side boob goes a long way. Is it right? I dunno, probably not, but its what sells.
As for me, I think it needs to depend on the character. For example, a Sister of battle in high heels and bra? No, I wouldn't buy that at all. (both senses of the phrase.)
A Slaanesh demonette? It'd be weird if she wasn't showing skin.
An inquisitor can go either way, or any way they want. So if this inquisitor comes from a noble upbringing where sexuality is a tool, then sure, she'd show a little cleavage. Another female inquisitor might balk at showing too much neck. (like that female inquisitor mini. She's very covered up but also flamboyant.)
I have no problem with it either way as long as it fits the character. This is a fantasy game after all and everything is exaggerated for stylistic effect...including boobs.
Crimson wrote: A person strong enough to do this, regardless of the gender?
Sounds like you're making a great argument for doing away with gender-specific standards. I'd agree wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, you wouldn't like the result, if you've got an agenda.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Apple fox wrote: It's not a good argument, lack of interest or awquardness doesn't mean the hobby is exclusive for one gender. It's realy the same argument that was gaming is for boys and girls have no interest.
What about board games or art ?
Or even TCG all things girls are getting into. Aerobics has men into it, fashion has men into it.
Why would you be awquard in a aerobics class full of women ? Women put up with it in many Hobby they enjoy.
So I guess you're basically saying that mainstream trashy romance novels just need to work harder to market to men?
The notion that we're all equally interested in everything doesn't strike me as being particularly true.
Eh what ? Do you think women wouldn't be interested in wargaming ?
Do you think there are not men into trashy romance novels ?
Not everyone is interested in the same things, it's fairly obvious reading this thread isn't it, that the status isn't universally liked.
But if you compare it to romance novels well you have plenty of choice for books and literature.
But at end to attribute a gender to that lack of interest is realy sexist.
Eh what ? Do you think women wouldn't be interested in wargaming ?
Do you think there are not men into trashy romance novels ?
Not everyone is interested in the same things, it's fairly obvious reading this thread isn't it, that the status isn't universally liked.
But if you compare it to romance novels well you have plenty of choice for books and literature.
But at end to attribute a gender to that lack of interest is realy sexist.
Apple, I don't think it is sexist if it is obviously true. Think about it, sure some women like playing wargames, but it is far more male orientated. And of course, some men like reading trashy romance novels, but really, how many? My missus has 3 or 4 friends who read them, they giggle about it and I take the piss out of them because I wouldn't dream of reading one! So, maybe for every 20 women, there is 1 man. Its perhaps slightly more for women in wargaming, maybe 1 in 10, but that is the facts, so it isn't really sexism, its marketing.
Can you not understand that? Companies want to sell things, so they do what best achieves that aim. If Reaper have said that their models sell way better with legs and cleavage on show, can you not understand that they aren't doing it for any other reason than sales? It might be "inadvertently" sexist, but it isn't overtly sexist, because the marketing guys at Reaper don't do it because they want to drag women down, or stamp on peoples rights, they are just doing it because it sells. The same for trashy romance novels, they always have some strapping man cuddling up to some chick, do you think that the tiny minority of men that read them would be justified in going crazy about it and demanding that the cover is gender neutral?
Of course not!
In any industry, the minority has their wishes ignored so the product can be better sold to the masses, such is life, is it really something to get offended by? The minority can never make the big decisions in business, companies have to market to their biggest buyers. Remember that super famous Diet Coke advert where the girls watch the guy get undressed?
I read about that, it was because way more women buy Diet Coke, men don't like to buy things with the words Diet in because we are silly and like to pretend we don't care, and they is why they invented Pepsi Max, Coke Zero.. gak like that. Its crazy, but its true, and thats the world of marketing. You really cant expect to be able to have your views addressed in an industry where you are a small minority, surely you can see that?
Just ignore the female minis you don't like, and buy the ones you do. And if it really offends you, tell your opponent and I'm sure they will oblige, if we ever have a game I will put a paper cup over any female models you don't like ok?
When it's male orientated at the exclusion of women, it's very much sexist.
And a target audience doesn't mean much in this context.
People keep saying that it's a male hobby, it's not and its very much shared. When it comes to these threads it's very much about people wanting alternatives.
In the end that is all, I would say even reaper hasn't done enough to say. They in this context has not produced anything I have wanted. Apart from PP and infinty to a point mph as realy break the mold by much. GW allways drag it's self along.
Apple fox wrote: When it's male orientated at the exclusion of women, it's very much sexist.
And a target audience doesn't mean much in this context.
People keep saying that it's a male hobby, it's not and its very much shared. When it comes to these threads it's very much about people wanting alternatives.
In the end that is all, I would say even reaper hasn't done enough to say. They in this context has not produced anything I have wanted. Apart from PP and infinty to a point mph as realy break the mold by much. GW allways drag it's self along.
It isn't male orientated at the exclusion of women though, it is male focused because women aren't a significant enough sales demographic to be worth catering to.
In addition, in 25 years of involvement in the hobby, with the exception of the odd CCG player, I've never encountered an active female gamer, so to say it is a shared hobby is a bit of a misnomer. That's just IME of course, but that is precisely as valid as yours.
Apple fox wrote: When it's male orientated at the exclusion of women, it's very much sexist.
And a target audience doesn't mean much in this context.
People keep saying that it's a male hobby, it's not and its very much shared. When it comes to these threads it's very much about people wanting alternatives.
In the end that is all, I would say even reaper hasn't done enough to say. They in this context has not produced anything I have wanted. Apart from PP and infinty to a point mph as realy break the mold by much. GW allways drag it's self along.
It isn't male orientated at the exclusion of women though, it is male focused because women aren't a significant enough sales demographic to be worth catering to.
In addition, in 25 years of involvement in the hobby, with the exception of the odd CCG player, I've never encountered an active female gamer, so to say it is a shared hobby is a bit of a misnomer. That's just IME of course, but that is precisely as valid as yours.
It isn't at all an accepting hobby, and reading responses in this thread shows that I think.
But things are changing I also cannot express myself so well in english D: which sucks.
Apple fox wrote: When it's male orientated at the exclusion of women, it's very much sexist.
And a target audience doesn't mean much in this context.
People keep saying that it's a male hobby, it's not and its very much shared. When it comes to these threads it's very much about people wanting alternatives.
In the end that is all, I would say even reaper hasn't done enough to say. They in this context has not produced anything I have wanted. Apart from PP and infinty to a point mph as realy break the mold by much. GW allways drag it's self along.
It isn't male orientated at the exclusion of women though, it is male focused because women aren't a significant enough sales demographic to be worth catering to.
In addition, in 25 years of involvement in the hobby, with the exception of the odd CCG player, I've never encountered an active female gamer, so to say it is a shared hobby is a bit of a misnomer. That's just IME of course, but that is precisely as valid as yours.
It isn't at all an accepting hobby, and reading responses in this thread shows that I think.
But things are changing I also cannot express myself so well in english D: which sucks.
Guess it's better than the fighting game genre :p
It is important to remember that the hobby, and associated industry, hasn't just sprung up over night. It has evolved and changed over decades, certainly the genesis of the hobby as we know it probably started in the 70s, but the roots go way further than that.
In the last ten years or so, companies in all sectors have been in a position to communicate, canvas and interact with their customers, and would-be customers, on a never before seen level, thanks to the Internet in general and social media in particular.
In the last few years, the barriers to entry for getting a game or range of miniatures to market have been getting lower and lower, to the point that with the advent of Kickstarter, genuinely all you need is some time, effort and a good idea.
Now, given how easy it is now to assess the desire for a product, and how easy it would be to then produce that product and start selling it (relatively speaking of course, I'm not saying getting a retail ready product to market from scratch is in any way straightforward) why do you think nobody is making wargaming product which is more female focused?
It's kind of a fascinating tautology that we have, isn't it? Women aren't interested in wargaming because nothing is aimed at them, so wargaming makes no effort to cater to women, and the circle spins forever.
Anyway, I think it it would be nice if there were more realistic representations of women in these games. I like some cheesecake, but I also would like an option for female realism. I think GWS has shown it's totally possible, with the Dark Eldar, if an effort was made. We'll see how things evolve in the coming days.
I suppose I'm just shrilling crying with poutrage though. It's also sort of fascinating that on this topic it is no longer sufficient to merely disagree with people, you have to try and totally marginalize their point of views as weird, extreme, and emotional. Not sure how that evolved but here we are.
Apple fox wrote: When it's male orientated at the exclusion of women, it's very much sexist.
And a target audience doesn't mean much in this context.
People keep saying that it's a male hobby, it's not and its very much shared. When it comes to these threads it's very much about people wanting alternatives.
In the end that is all, I would say even reaper hasn't done enough to say. They in this context has not produced anything I have wanted. Apart from PP and infinty to a point mph as realy break the mold by much. GW allways drag it's self along.
I would not say that it is exclusionary at all. Pointing back at Reaper (yes - I often point to them, because they are one of the more open and public miniature companies out there) more than half of their contract painters are women. They have stated that female customers make up almost 40% of their customers as well. Considering the popularity of Cheesecake figures in general, that would either mean that their male customers are buying them almost to the exclusion of all other figures - or that most women do not take issue with a little T&A.
While you might feel put off by figures that you do not like - that might have more to do with your perspective than reality. Going back up to the Storm Giant from Reaper - the controversial post was started "Does she really need to be in a stripper pose?" However, people who were not looking to be offended did not see a stripper pose - rather a large humanoid bending down to talk to smaller humanoids (as giants would do). This fit with the background more than a screaming, club wielding version of the figure. They are of a good alignment, so would be more likely to act as an ally or NPC agent to a party of gamers as opposed to an enemy to fight.
The point of view of the observer skewed what they saw and how they felt about it.
This isn't to say that there is not a lot of T&A out there. Several companies survive exclusively on miniature boobies. However, it is pretty easy to avoid if you don't want it. Much like any other commercial item - if you don't like it, don't buy it. Problem solved.
I actuly don't have a issue with cheesecake models, most I find quite nice even, others I look at and find them disgusting( in mins proportion and unatractive) . What I find the problem is that quite often that's all we get the chance at.
What's exclusionary is the attitude, very difernt subject that often gets dragged into these sorta threads and discussions.
I have the storm giant, I wish I got the other ones but was outside my budget for the kickstarter.
I am confused then...what attitude is conveyed in artwork that is exclusionary?
Beyond that, it is an issue with individuals rather than with the games or the companies. And that is easily dealt with as well, just dont bother with them.
We have several women in our gaming group, and we dont game in stores or other locations. Not because they feel they are objectified by the game mind you, but because the stereotypical bloated, odiferous, gamer types who lurk in many game stores are a good bit annoying to those in our group (no doubt for different reasons, though the assault to your sinuses is universal). Instead we play relaxed games in private residences and avoid that mess.
MetalOxide wrote: Men being constantly portrayed as misogynistic macho shoot first ask questions later has it's negative side effects as well. So quit making it look like women constantly have the short straw, gender stereotyping goes both ways.
How is that negative? Isn't it a good thing that we should expect young men to fight for their country and disregard their own safety for the liberty of others? I don't see why gender stereotyping is wrong when without it, millions of men in 1944 would have just gone "lol cba don't stereotype me" and we'd have got nothing done.
Why should young men be expected to go out and fight the wars? I would make a rubbish soldier; I am not physically strong and I wouldn't have the heart to kill someone, there are plenty of women who are far more suited for it than me.
MetalOxide wrote: Men being constantly portrayed as misogynistic macho shoot first ask questions later has it's negative side effects as well. So quit making it look like women constantly have the short straw, gender stereotyping goes both ways.
How is that negative? Isn't it a good thing that we should expect young men to fight for their country and disregard their own safety for the liberty of others? I don't see why gender stereotyping is wrong when without it, millions of men in 1944 would have just gone "lol cba don't stereotype me" and we'd have got nothing done.
Why should young men be expected to go out and fight the wars? I would make a rubbish soldier; I am not physically strong and I wouldn't have the heart to kill someone, there are plenty of women who are far more suited for it than me.
wow you'd rather send a woman off to war than put your own life at risk? Better hope we don't have a war or you'd be locked up for your cowardace.
mattyrm wrote: Remember those Feminista UK chicks who wanted to ban any magazines which had partially disrobed women on? They hated things like Stuff and FHM, even if it was only partial nudity.
Did they go after Cosmo and Vogue, too?
Apple fox wrote: Eh what ? Do you think women wouldn't be interested in wargaming ?
I think it would be an extraordinarily small proportion.
Do you think there are not men into trashy romance novels ?
I think it's an extraordinarily small proportion. I think they're clearly overwhelmingly marketed to women (in what I presume you would describe as a sexist fashion), and everyone seems to be pretty okay with this.
But if you compare it to romance novels well you have plenty of choice for books and literature.
And there are plenty of choices in tabletop gaming. My girlfriend loves herself some Settlers of Catan.
But at end to attribute a gender to that lack of interest is realy sexist.
Then nature is sexist. Pretending that every single leisure activity in the world would appeal equally to both genders if only that damn rotten patriarchy hadn't gotten in there first and propagandized everything is absurd.
wow you'd rather send a woman off to war than put your own life at risk? Better hope we don't have a war or you'd be locked up for your cowardace.
Again, what the feth the gender has to do with this?
Men are expected to fight and die for their country, or do you not agree? That is certainly the culture of the United Kingdom, it may not be the culture where you are.
Men are expected to fight and die for their country, or do you not agree? That is certainly the culture of the United Kingdom, it may not be the culture where you are.
And that culture is sexist. Assigning people different jobs/duties not based on their individual capabilities but based on their gender is sexist. Just like assigning people different jobs/duties not based on their capabilities but based on their ethnicity is racist. How this can be so hard to get?
Men are expected to fight and die for their country, or do you not agree? That is certainly the culture of the United Kingdom, it may not be the culture where you are.
And that culture is sexist. Assigning people different jobs/duties not based on their individual capabilities but based on their gender is sexist. Just like assigning people different jobs/duties not based on their capabilities but based on their ethnicity is racist. How this can be so hard to get?
It's not sexist, since men and women are not the same. Men do not have wombs, and women do not have the capacity for physical exertion that men do. Men are physically and emotionally more inclined towards warfare than women are, why shouldn't our culture expect them to be warriors?
It's not sexist, since men and women are not the same. Men do not have wombs, and women do not have the capacity for physical exertion that men do. Men are physically and emotionally more inclined towards warfare than women are, why shouldn't our culture expect them to be warriors?
Stop generalising. Most men are more aggressive than most women, most men are stronger than most women. Still, some women are more aggressive/stronger than some or even most men. To judge individuals based on the averages of some group they happen to belong to, regardless of whether those averages apply to them is bollocks. It's like banning all Asians from playing basketball because on average they're rather short.
It's not sexist, since men and women are not the same. Men do not have wombs, and women do not have the capacity for physical exertion that men do. Men are physically and emotionally more inclined towards warfare than women are, why shouldn't our culture expect them to be warriors?
Stop generalising.
No. Dividing things into groups is the natural instinct of intelligent species, including humans.
Most men are more aggressive than most women, most men are stronger than most women. Still, some women are more aggressive/stronger than some or even most men. To judge individuals based on the averages of some they group they happen to belong is bollocks. It's like banning all Asians from playing basketball because on average they're rather short.
Well, that's just how I was raised. You might be cool hearing a bump in the night and sending down your pregnant girlfriend to investigate it, but I'm not. I don't even understand your viewpoint really - you must put considerable effort into not differentiating or grouping men and women, certainly my culture is full of (usually accurate) gender stereotypes. Maybe Finland is some fantasy wonderland where women are build like gak brick houses and men are dainty or something.
Crimson wrote: Xrluslanx, you are not being logical. That gender stereotypes exist, doesn't mean they should.
Judge people as individuals, not as their gender. How hard can that really be?
I never said that people shouldn't be judged as individuals. If I were a less dignified poster, I would call that a straw man .
I am simply saying that it is a man's duty to protect his family and his country. That's not the same as "well she's a woman so obviously she's ditsy". Hell, my friend's girlfriend likes me because I'm one of the few people she talks to who doesn't assume that, being a woman, she's a dumbass. Similarly I have male friends who couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag, but that doesn't change anything - men are still men, women are still women.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Riquende wrote: Please stop embarrassing the rest of us in the UK by claiming to represent "our culture".
Thanks.
I could say some very hurtful things about men who are willing to have women fight for them. But I won't stoop to your level.
xruslanx wrote: I could say some very hurtful things about men who are willing to have women fight for them. But I won't stoop to your level.
Oh, I see my mistake now, I shouldn't have bothered addressing you. Sorry for wasting your time, causing you to type out such drivel in response! I'll leave you alone from now on, you can direct your drivel elsewhere.
Everybody else, please don't conflate xruslanx's views with that of the majority of the UK. Whatever he claims, he's not speaking for the populace and his views on 'our culture' are not ones I recognise. His views are entirely his own and not backed up by anything other than his own sense of self-importance.
xruslanx wrote: I could say some very hurtful things about men who are willing to have women fight for them. But I won't stoop to your level.
Oh, I see my mistake now, I shouldn't have bothered addressing you. Sorry for wasting your time, causing you to type out such drivel in response! I'll leave you alone from now on, you can direct your drivel elsewhere.
Everybody else, please don't conflate xruslanx's views with that of the majority of the UK. Whatever he claims, he's not speaking for the populace and his views on 'our culture' are not ones I recognise. His views are entirely his own and not backed up by anything other than his own sense of self-importance.
you think that a willingness to place my life and safety on the line for others stems from a 'sense of self-importance'?
In addition, in 25 years of involvement in the hobby, with the exception of the odd CCG player, I've never encountered an active female gamer, so to say it is a shared hobby is a bit of a misnomer. That's just IME of course, but that is precisely as valid as yours.
Seriously? Maybe it's because I count RPGs as part of the hobby, but the percentage of female gamers I've seen is in the 10-15% at least. Though a lot more of them play RPGs and CCGs from what I've seen. Saying you only met one means either the community you're in is very different or you didn't look very hard.
I've seen this same fight with almost exactly the same grog pushback in RPG art. For a long time it was impossible to find non-sexualized females there, and even now it's pretty hard to find depictions that aren't in some way sexualized though things seem to be improving there along with depictions of people of color. The odd thing to me with is that boob plate in power armour (or really any bulk armour) just comes off as dumb. The main differences should be heads for things like female Cadians, Sisters, or Craftworld Eldar. Anyone who's been to a military post recently has seen a female security guard and it's immediately obvious that even that light (for 40K) body armour they're wearing covers up their secondary sex characteristics pretty well. Power or terminator armour should be unnoticeable without an open head. That's probably why there are a decent number of complaints about the fetish style attire on the Sisters.
mattyrm wrote: Remember those Feminista UK chicks who wanted to ban any magazines which had partially disrobed women on? They hated things like Stuff and FHM, even if it was only partial nudity.
Did they go after Cosmo and Vogue, too?
Apple fox wrote: Eh what ? Do you think women wouldn't be interested in wargaming ?
I think it would be an extraordinarily small proportion.
Do you think there are not men into trashy romance novels ?
I think it's an extraordinarily small proportion. I think they're clearly overwhelmingly marketed to women (in what I presume you would describe as a sexist fashion), and everyone seems to be pretty okay with this.
But if you compare it to romance novels well you have plenty of choice for books and literature.
And there are plenty of choices in tabletop gaming. My girlfriend loves herself some Settlers of Catan.
But at end to attribute a gender to that lack of interest is realy sexist.
Then nature is sexist. Pretending that every single leisure activity in the world would appeal equally to both genders if only that damn rotten patriarchy hadn't gotten in there first and propagandized everything is absurd.
Oh so miniture wargaming is for men then, got cha..
There isn't much about it that's masculine that isn't attributive buy culture.
Also there is plenty of romance style novels written more for men.
Apple fox wrote: Oh so miniture wargaming is for men then, got cha..
No idea who it's "for," but it's pretty clear who likes it more.
There isn't much about it that's masculine that isn't attributive buy culture.
Uh huh. Sure.
Tell you what, if you're so certain there's an army of under-served female would-be wargamers out there, it sounds like you've just recognized a multi-million dollar market. I wish you joy of the insane money you'll be making after receiving a small start-up loan to get your can't-fail business going.
I'm never going to understand why you guys think a business would prefer to remain "sexist" - and yes, it deserves the quotes - than make more money. If the market existed, it'd be served.
I am simply saying that it is a man's duty to protect his family and his country.
Why? Why is it not duty of everyone who is capable?
That's not the same as "well she's a woman so obviously she's ditsy". Hell, my friend's girlfriend likes me because I'm one of the few people she talks to who doesn't assume that, being a woman, she's a dumbass.
Oh, how mighty progressive of you!
Similarly I have male friends who couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag, but that doesn't change anything - men are still men, women are still women.
So people should be treated differently regardless of their individual capabilities based on their gender alone? Do you realise that this is what sexism means? I'm sure you wouldn't dare to suggest same practice regarding ethnicity.
Seaward wrote: Tell you what, if you're so certain there's an army of under-served female would-be wargamers out there, it sounds like you've just recognized a multi-million dollar market. I wish you joy of the insane money you'll be making after receiving a small start-up loan to get your can't-fail business going.
I'm never going to understand why you guys think a business would prefer to remain "sexist" - and yes, it deserves the quotes - than make more money. If the market existed, it'd be served.
I think it'd be an interesting venture for sure, but I don't think it's sustainable.
And Crimson, a mod has already used his mod voice to drop said subject.
MetalOxide wrote: I would make a rubbish soldier; I am not physically strong and I wouldn't have the heart to kill someone, there are plenty of women who are far more suited for it than me.
Don't worry mate, I am a colossus of the battlefield and count as ten men, so I can carry you!
Secondly, don't sell yourself short, if some big bloke in a vest was booting your door in every morning and forcing you to train, I bet you would get fit pretty quickly. Men will always be better suited to it than women, by simple biological engineering.
You are much stronger than equally unfit women who are the same height and weight as you, this whole bad-ass women thing is a Hollywood construct which has the unfortunate side effect of making of tiny skinny gorgeous women who look like Scarlett Johansson get drunk and then pick fights with men and promptly get knocked out. In my thirty some years of drinking heavily in some of the worlds most honking places I've seen women throw punches at men on countless occasions, and on every single one of them, the women have always gotten chinned, usually with one blow, after they have been allowed to throw 20+
Ive also seen some get chinned after only throwing one or two as well mind, or get twatted for no good reason, some blokes are not very pleasant, but the result is always the same. If women are so strong and tough, why is hitting a woman so (rightly) reviled? Its because it is bullying, picking on someone naturally weaker.
And even if some militant feminist turns up and mentions someone like Gina Carano, a man of equal height and weight would absolutely punch her face in, regardless of whether she beat Tatum Channing in a movie.
Apple fox wrote: Oh so miniture wargaming is for men then, got cha..
No idea who it's "for," but it's pretty clear who likes it more.
There isn't much about it that's masculine that isn't attributive buy culture.
Uh huh. Sure.
Tell you what, if you're so certain there's an army of under-served female would-be wargamers out there, it sounds like you've just recognized a multi-million dollar market. I wish you joy of the insane money you'll be making after receiving a small start-up loan to get your can't-fail business going.
I'm never going to understand why you guys think a business would prefer to remain "sexist" - and yes, it deserves the quotes - than make more money. If the market existed, it'd be served.
It could be that certain attributes of the existing market, on the selling end, are creating artificial limitations. The mistake is to assume "all things being equal" as inherent to markets.
Manchu wrote: It could be that certain attributes of the existing market, on the selling end, are creating artificial limitations. The mistake is to assume "all things being equal" as inherent to markets.
Then, as I said, someone can make an enormous killing with female-oriented tabletop wargaming miniatures.
I think that we've never seen such an approach is likely indicative of how successful the people in the actual industry believe it would be. If there's no consumer demand, your product's not going to sell, no matter how PC it is.
Well, I'm interested seeing how Victoria's female soldiers will sell. They're pretty much the reasonably attired and non-sexualised female models many people have been asking for. (Though if my girlfriend is any indication, some women might be more interested sexy male miniatures, rather than sensibly clad female miniatures...)
Crimson wrote: Well, I'm interested seeing how Victoria's female soldiers will sell. They're pretty much the reasonably attired and non-sexualised female models many people have been asking for.
If I were a betting man I'd wager that they do well (and hopefully well enough for Victoria Lamb to sculpt female variants for all of her sci-fi army model ranges). It will be nice to have a multi-part miniature range with appropriately attired (for combat) females that can be used as a counter point to the argument that war gamers only want pin-ups in their armies.
Crimson wrote: (Though if my girlfriend is any indication, some women might be more interested sexy male miniatures, rather than sensibly clad female miniatures...)
This reminded me of an interaction between me and my girlfriend a few years back. My girlfriend was very involved with the initial Horus Heresy novels and liked one of the characters enough that I was almost able to talk her into starting a 40k army. It was around the time the current Space Wolves miniatures were released and the character she liked was attached to the Luna? Wolves, so I thought a Space Wolf army would be the logical suggestion to make. She took one look at the Space Wolf models' heads and rejected them outright because they were not "beautiful" enough. Perplexed by the comment I asked her to elaborate. Her explanation was that in the novels the Space Marines were described as being so perfect that they had an other worldly beauty to them--and that striking beauty was not represented in the miniatures so she wasn't interested in having an army of "ugly" raging Space Vikings.
So, long winded anecdote aside, I think there is something missing in the offerings of miniatures that makes grabbing the attention of some female gamers' difficult. It might be not enough beauty in the miniatures for some women, or it may be too much cleavage for others. I hope discussions like these will become less necessary in the next 10-15 years as more women enter into the gaming industry and produce products appealing to both men and women. It will take a leap of faith for some companies, but hopefully offerings like those of Victoria Lamb will pave the way for others to make war gaming less of a boys club and more welcoming to women.
LOLwtfHH novel was she reading. IIRC the early novels (e.g., Horus Rising) talked about how weird looking SM were to "motrals." Think she may have read the beauty part into it.
You saw this:
Spoiler:
She saw this:
Spoiler:
Then again, 40k does have Sanguinius and Fulgrim -- pictured below:
mattyrm wrote: this whole bad-ass women thing is a Hollywood construct which has the unfortunate side effect of making of tiny skinny gorgeous women who look like Scarlett Johansson get drunk and then pick fights with men and promptly get knocked out.
Well, it is me, or is getting drunk before picking fight a stupid, stupid, stupid idea ? Personally, I'd rather start fight sober, against drunk people. If they did drugs, it's even better. If they have already passed out, it's a sure win !
xruslanx wrote: It's not sexist, since men and women are not the same. Men do not have wombs, and women do not have the capacity for physical exertion that men do. Men are physically and emotionally more inclined towards warfare than women are, why shouldn't our culture expect them to be warriors?
Black people shouldn't be able to vote. That's not racist, since black people and white people are not the same. Black people have black skin, and are not as intelligent as white men. See, I even included some actual, real difference between black people and white people, so the other difference I speak about must be true too ! Or maybe that's just some stupid racist bs. How could I know ?
Crimson wrote: I'm sure you wouldn't dare to suggest same practice regarding ethnicity.
I guess you mean race. Ethnicity is used a lot as an euphemism, but it's not what it means ! For instance, my ethnicity is French, but according to, say, Adolf Hitler, my race would be Jewish. Ethnicity is about culture, race is about some physical characteristic. (Not that I'm arguing for discrimination based on culture, of course, but I guess you were thinking about approximately just what I said above.) (Also, very bad example because “Jewish race” is a joke, given the phenotypal diversity between Jews. Seriously, Jews from Russia and Falasha being the same race ? How could anyone ever believe that bs? )
Riquende wrote: Everybody else, please don't conflate xruslanx's views with that of the majority of the UK.
Don't worry pal, we have TFG about everywhere else too. Even a friend of mine can spit out quite a bunch of bs on that matter. Well, and on a bunch of other matters too.
I would really like to know, what would you people think about this, if it was some actual official artwork rather than a poorly photoshoped (well, actually gimped) artwork : See, it's an Inquisitor with some bandanna and a cap. It's totally “realistic”, since an Inquisitor in the desert might find the bandanna useful, and maybe she comes from some culture in the Imperium where bandannas and caps are symbols of power. So, yeah, totally realistic. It's also not sexist. And if anyone think it is, I will gimp the picture again to add a cap and a bandanna to the guy too. I have nothing against caps and bandannas. I actually enjoy bands like Six Ft Ditch, who wears lots of them. I would even say that eons of evolution have genetically programmed all men to enjoy caps and bandannas . Is this good, though ? Are those cloth fitted to convey the impression an Inquisitor is supposed to convey ?
I don't know which novels she read, but it was the first four or five in the series. I haven't read them so I can only go off what she said. I think the character she liked was Lokken? Logan? I don't know.
Well done with the Beastly poster. That really got me laughing and hit a little too close to home (she loves crap shows like The Vampire Diaries and The Originals).
Her poor taste in television aside, the minis didn't resonate with her and so she wasn't interested in starting an army. Obviously something is amiss, since we have numerous threads every year with war gamers asking how they can get their girlfriends/wives/daughters into miniature gaming, so there is a desire on male gamers to have more women involved in the hobby. If the minis aren't appealing (for whatever reason) then there is work to be done. If it is a cultural issue (war gaming culture, not Western) then there is work that needs to be done as well. I think the answer lies somewhere between the two issues, in that the minis/artwork portraying women wouldn't necessarily be as heavily criticized if the war gamer culture was perceived to be less male, and female gamers wouldn't be put off on joining the hobby if they didn't have to run the gauntlet of perceived sexism within the miniature war gaming culture.
Gwyidion wrote: I'm confused about why this thread is 17 pages long.
"I didn't read the thread, so I'm going to repeat an idea that has occurred at least once on every single one of those 17 pages".
Oh gosh, if only you were right!! Instead you contribute nothing.
I did read the thread.
My post is correct. I intended it to bring the focus to where it belongs, which is the almighty dollar.
Money is why women are sexually objectified throughout western culture.
It isn't much more complicated than that. The amount of people GW will lose by using cleavage and sexual objectification of women is smaller than the amount of people who will be drawn in to buy their product by the same practice.
All that remains is the debate over the appropriateness of this practice. Of course it marginalizes women, and of course in an equitable world this wouldn't happen.
Gwyidion wrote: The amount of people GW will lose by using cleavage and sexual objectification of women is smaller than the amount of people who will be drawn in to buy their product by the same practice.
No problem. Just keep all of it into the Slaanesh and possibly Dark Eldar side. That's where they rightfully belong. And I'm pretty sure the boob-windowsitor is too tame to bring in anyone, and still too ridiculous not to put off some people.
Then why are you asking why it's more complicated then it is as the last line of your post? There are literally hundreds of posts in this thread with different perspectives.
Gwyidion wrote: The amount of people GW will lose by using cleavage and sexual objectification of women is smaller than the amount of people who will be drawn in to buy their product by the same practice.
No problem. Just keep all of it into the Slaanesh and possibly Dark Eldar side. That's where they rightfully belong. And I'm pretty sure the boob-windowsitor is too tame to bring in anyone, and still too ridiculous not to put off some people.
Slaanesh and DE contain pretty good examples of how art, models, and media in general can depict barely-clad female bodies without being sexualized.
Another example is the SI body issue when they have naked female athletes. Nude, not sexualized.
The difference between sexualized depictions of individuals and non-sexual depictions of individuals in sparse clothing is not subtle - at all. The differences between the inquisitor and catachans in this thread is the perfect example of these differences.
The inquisitor is more covered than the IG catachans, but the inquisitor is undeniably more sexualized. She is passive, breasts accentuated, wearing armor-ized versions of modern lingerie instead of adapted versions of male armor.
The IG catachans are wearing less clothing, but are active, attacking, displaying power, are the sole characters in the media, and are even facing the point of view directly, as opposed to at an angle.
Rather than abstract design conventions which contribute to the inquisitor's outfit (the overall pseudo-gothic style of 40k), this image accesses the brain-stem of the viewer; it is not processed by higher brain function.
Gwyidion wrote: Slaanesh and DE contain pretty good examples of how art, models, and media in general can depict barely-clad female bodies without being sexualized.
I disagree, especially with Slaanesh.
Gwyidion wrote: Another example is the SI body issue when they have naked female athletes.
SI ?
Gwyidion wrote: The difference between sexualized depictions of individuals and non-sexual depictions of individuals in sparse clothing is not subtle - at all.
Yeah. Since you read the thread, I posted picture of two very obvious depiction of non-sexual nudes. One from what is maybe the only official GW artwork featuring a frontal view of a fully nude woman.
So I think I'm able to make the distinction by myself, but thank you anyway.
Gwyidion wrote: Another example is the SI body issue when they have naked female athletes.
SI ? .
Sports Illustrated.
Although the contention that the females in that issue are are "Nude, not sexualized"; is a little... dubious. Well, the latter element, anyway - what sport does Kate Upton partake of?
xruslanx wrote: I am simply saying that it is a man's duty to protect his family and his country.
Maybe in 1914 it was, and we can see where it got them. What passing-bells for those that die as cattle? indeed. I'd much rather follow a rather different heroic example.
I apologize, upon searching, it is ESPN's body issue, not SI. I conflated the two publications.
The body issue is intended to feature the physique and fitness of world-class athletes.
The images are quite distinct from SI's swimsuit edition. I won't attach them here, as i'm posting from work. The subjects of the photos are still naked.
I haven't read the whole thread (stopped at page 12 or so), but I am curious... ...if oversexualization is the problem keeping girls away from 40k and Fantasy, why don't we see more women playing historicals?
Flames of War has a female Russian tank-driver Hero (Mariya) who is pretty freaking awesome, and her model is just a woman in tanker's overalls climbing out of the driver's hatch (if you must model her at all; a T-34 with a closed hatch would work fine).
My Russian artillery staff teams come with women as radio operators; the only reason you can tell they're women is that they have longer hair poking out from under their caps.
Needless to say, neither of these is sexualized yet women are MORE conspicuously absent from Historical gaming than from Fantasy/Sci-fi!
Most men are more aggressive than most women, most men are stronger than most women. Still, some women are more aggressive/stronger than some or even most men. To judge individuals based on the averages of some they group they happen to belong is bollocks. It's like banning all Asians from playing basketball because on average they're rather short.
Well, that's just how I was raised. You might be cool hearing a bump in the night and sending down your pregnant girlfriend to investigate it, but I'm not. I don't even understand your viewpoint really - you must put considerable effort into not differentiating or grouping men and women, certainly my culture is full of (usually accurate) gender stereotypes. Maybe Finland is some fantasy wonderland where women are build like gak brick houses and men are dainty or something.
Really? Look, your just going w-a-a-a-a-a-y too far there. And as for your cultural point? Well, whilst i see it as my duty as the English Gentleman that i am, there are women serving n the armed forces. Women are, although ill admit not as much as men, performing the dangerous jobs. And if my ex went down to investigate a bump in the night she would go armed with a sword or a bat and i would not like to be the one on the recieving end. Trust me, she is vicous when roused.
So, your cultural point is balls.
As for the rest of you:
There are non over sexualised female fantasy figures out there. In My example below 2 of the figures are female. Take a good long look.
These are Forsaken Bane troopers, for Darkage, another grimdark post-apoc game. The Forsaken is the religous nutcase faction. Make of this what you will.
Going from "A counterpoint, with qualification" and "An anecdote" to "Your argument is balls" is quite a leap, isn't it? I would certainly take my pistol or rifle, which I own but my girlfriend does not know how to operate, to investigate a burglar rather than sending her or even expecting the same from her. So bam, counter-anecdote.
As for your first point, yes, women are performing the dangerous jobs. But as you yourself say, not as much as men.
How many women play Darkage? Must be lots since they don't suffer from the oversexualization like they do everywhere else.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I haven't read the whole thread (stopped at page 12 or so), but I am curious...
...if oversexualization is the problem keeping girls away from 40k and Fantasy, why don't we see more women playing historicals?
Flames of War has a female Russian tank-driver Hero (Mariya) who is pretty freaking awesome, and her model is just a woman in tanker's overalls climbing out of the driver's hatch (if you must model her at all; a T-34 with a closed hatch would work fine).
My Russian artillery staff teams come with women as radio operators; the only reason you can tell they're women is that they have longer hair poking out from under their caps.
Needless to say, neither of these is sexualized yet women are MORE conspicuously absent from Historical gaming than from Fantasy/Sci-fi!
I'd imagine it has something to do with the perception of miniature war gaming that both men and women have. Miniature war gaming is generally considered an activity appropriate only for males. Coupled with the historic elements of warfare which, and I don't have any statistics to base this statement off of so grain of salt and all that, but I imagine is a field of study that most women choose not to undertake, and you will begin to approach an answer to your question.
Something else to consider is the severe lack of relatable protagonists in historic settings for women. Sci-Fi and Fantasy at least allow for women to be central to the story being told because real world cultural mores can be changed or ignored in those fantastical settings. Unless you focus on very rare outliers the same cannot be said for historic games where women's roles were limited and often took the form of supportive activities not devoted to direct combat. I doubt a rousing game of playing American Civil War Nurses would be as much fun as recreating the Battle of Antietam. Although, bonesaws are cool, so maybe I'd play an ACW Nurses game.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: Something else to consider is the severe lack of relatable protagonists in historic settings for women. Sci-Fi and Fantasy at least allow for women to be central to the story being told because real world cultural mores can be changed or ignored in those fantastical settings.
It has zero to do with cultural mores, and everything to do with the lack of certain physical attributes getting you killed on the battlefield. The reason the Spartans used male soldiers instead of female soldiers isn't "because the patriarchy!"
Unit1126PLL wrote: How many women play Darkage? Must be lots since they don't suffer from the oversexualization like they do everywhere else.
I think this is a forest/trees issue. Fixating on which game ranges have more overly sexualized miniatures is not going to address the larger issue, which is how women perceive gaming as a whole. People generally are not going to want to undertake an activity that is perceived to be a something that the other gender enjoys.
For the guys in this thread have you ever engaged in an activity deemed more suitable for women? Ever take ballet? Make-up lessons at the MAC counter? If you took Home Economics in school were you mocked for it by your friends? I am using tired, cliched examples of "girls" activities to make my point, so apologies for that, but I am trying to show the hurdles that are placed in front of women when it comes to even getting them to approach a game table.
1. Women have to overcome the notion that war gaming is meant for men only.
2. Women have to accept that if they do engage in war gaming they will likely be a minority at gaming events (including pick-up games at the LGS/game club).
2a. Women have to overcome the objectification that often occurs when they enter these spaces.
3. Women have to accept that the industry caters to male interests when generating gaming materials which includes the models and artwork dominating this conversation.
That is a lot to ask someone to endure just to play a game.
I certainly don't engage in activities that make me uncomfortable during my leisure time, so I am not surprised that so many women avoid table top gaming due to the factors listed above.
Now, if some of those factors can be chipped away at and changed, I would imagine that the number of willing female participants in the hobby would grow. It ultimately doesn't matter which game line is more or less offensive to women, what matters is that the culture behind our hobby is generally unwelcoming to women and the cheesecake cover art and busty-babe minis does nothing to alleviate that situation. Which is frustrating. I would be lying if I said I didn't enjoy said artwork and minis, and while I appreciate that rather silly aspect of this hobby I also appreciate that it is doing nothing to help grow the hobby among women and it is likely keeping this niche hobby a marginalized activity for a largely male audience.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: Something else to consider is the severe lack of relatable protagonists in historic settings for women. Sci-Fi and Fantasy at least allow for women to be central to the story being told because real world cultural mores can be changed or ignored in those fantastical settings.
It has zero to do with cultural mores, and everything to do with the lack of certain physical attributes getting you killed on the battlefield. The reason the Spartans used male soldiers instead of female soldiers isn't "because the patriarchy!"
Is that what I said? Did I reference "the patriarchy" at all? No. I was simply pointing out that historical settings don't offer a lot of opportunities for women to take leading roles, because you know, history. Women generally didn't have a lot to contribute to the battlefields of yore, so perhaps why women aren't flocking to historical games is because there is nothing for them to identify with.
Sci-Fi and Fantasy settings can allow women to be gun and sword wielding protagonists because they are set in cultures and worlds where those things are normal. Crack open an old copy of Vampire: The Dark Ages and read the section of female character creation. That RPG was set in a pseudo-historic Europe in the 1200's and as such basically said "if your character is a female you will run up against a lot of social barriers that aren't present in the modern game." If you play D&D or Pathfinder you likely won't have those same restrictions placed on a character unless the DM is specifically introducing real world conventions into the setting, or you are playing with donkey-caves that buy into the -4 strength meme.
Everything you've just said is predicated on there being large numbers of women who would love to play tabletop games but just feel like they can't because there are too many things stopping them.
This just doesn't seem to be the case. Maybe, maybe if we were to do something to mitigate the issues you list, a few more female gamers would start to enter the hobby, but I repeat, if there was a significant female market out there, someone would be tapping it.
The arguments here are a bit fishy. I've given one example, and seen one example, of wargames that would be acceptable to women because they lack the sexual objectification present in other games. These games provide a way into the hobby for women who are truly interested in it, but will not play an oversexualized game marketed to teenagers.
Yet there aren't terribly more women that play them (and in the case of Flames of War, there are actually fewer women locally than fantasy or 40k), which tells me that women aren't interested.
To review: 1) If women are interested, but put off by the oversexualized games, then they could do even a smidgen of research (seriously, 10 mins) and find one of the many that endeavor to not be oversexualized.
2) These less sexual games are not any more popular with women than any of the more sexualized fantasy settings, and in some (admittedly anecdotal) cases, are less popular.
Therefore, women must simply not be interested enough to do the research.
This conclusion means that marketing towards women is a bad idea for wargame companies, because they cannot be expected to make much extra business. The target audience simply isn't interested, and so the marketing decisions would fall flat.
I know that anecdotal evidence isnt worth a grots toss but I have some experience with females and wargames. Most women I showed the models too enjoy the models and paintjobs. However, what put a lot of them off was how difficult it is to get into it (cost was the biggest factor cited). Modeling and how stupidly complex the rules are were additional factors.
My theory is that females just arent into wargames as games. Different tastes in hobbies and all that.
Note, I am not saying girls arent capable of learning the rules. They probably dont have the desire to. Also , when I say "women" I mean those that dont play wargames. I am not saying those that do arent women I just dont want to type "women who dont play wargames".
Note, I am not saying girls arent capable of learning the rules. They probably dont have the desire to. Also , when I say "women" I mean those that dont play wargames. I am not saying those that do arent women I just dont want to type "women who dont play wargames".
That you had to tie yourself in knots to cover yourself like that is testament to how daft this thread has gotten in places.
Unit1126PLL wrote: The arguments here are a bit fishy. I've given one example, and seen one example, of wargames that would be acceptable to women because they lack the sexual objectification present in other games. These games provide a way into the hobby for women who are truly interested in it, but will not play an oversexualized game marketed to teenagers.
Yet there aren't terribly more women that play them (and in the case of Flames of War, there are actually fewer women locally than fantasy or 40k), which tells me that women aren't interested.
To review:
1) If women are interested, but put off by the oversexualized games, then they could do even a smidgen of research (seriously, 10 mins) and find one of the many that endeavor to not be oversexualized.
2) These less sexual games are not any more popular with women than any of the more sexualized fantasy settings, and in some (admittedly anecdotal) cases, are less popular.
Therefore, women must simply not be interested enough to do the research.
This conclusion means that marketing towards women is a bad idea for wargame companies, because they cannot be expected to make much extra business. The target audience simply isn't interested, and so the marketing decisions would fall flat.
People want to play what's avalible to them. Doing research to find less avalible games to get into a hobby that's hostle and uncomfortable isn't something most people would do I would find. Especially when we don't have the same network of people to help us get into them.
Mattyrm do you go to conventions ? Since at least the recent ones in aus I have met loads of women into video games as much as men are.
Not as many as men, but then if the people selling are not interested in potential audience why take interest in them.
Every convention I have been to I have been left stand at one point since it was assumed I wasn't interested. Why men where getting shown the game. Other places where keen to give me a go, and I gave them support.
I would also say that if these threads keep coming up then there must be some people looking for alternative products, and I think slowly it is changing. But I still haven't realy found the alternative products I need, so I haven't been able to buy them.
Note, I am not saying girls arent capable of learning the rules. They probably dont have the desire to. Also , when I say "women" I mean those that dont play wargames. I am not saying those that do arent women I just dont want to type "women who dont play wargames".
That you had to tie yourself in knots to cover yourself like that is testament to how daft this thread has gotten in places.
If there is something that I learned reading Women's Rights dicussions is that they will call you every name in the book and disregard your argument entirely if it can be construed as misogynist.
TheCustomLime wrote: I know that anecdotal evidence isnt worth a grots toss but I have some experience with females and wargames. Most women I showed the models too enjoy the models and paintjobs. However, what put a lot of them off was how difficult it is to get into it (cost was the biggest factor cited). Modeling and how stupidly complex the rules are were additional factors.
My theory is that females just arent into wargames as games. Different tastes in hobbies and all that.
Note, I am not saying girls arent capable of learning the rules. They probably dont have the desire to. Also , when I say "women" I mean those that dont play wargames. I am not saying those that do arent women I just dont want to type "women who dont play wargames".
This is actuly a realy great post One of the bigist issues I have is building and learning the rules, it wasn't something I was used to.
I have to cut my nails when I want to build some of the more fiddly models :0
Learning the rules is allways realy hard without someone to teach outside of the competive enviroment.
Some reason I didn't get the first part :0
But I think it's just that every barrier that men have with these games is adding to extra barriers that most don't have to even deal with.
TheCustomLime wrote: I know that anecdotal evidence isnt worth a grots toss but I have some experience with females and wargames. Most women I showed the models too enjoy the models and paintjobs. However, what put a lot of them off was how difficult it is to get into it (cost was the biggest factor cited). Modeling and how stupidly complex the rules are were additional factors.
My theory is that females just arent into wargames as games. Different tastes in hobbies and all that.
Note, I am not saying girls arent capable of learning the rules. They probably dont have the desire to. Also , when I say "women" I mean those that dont play wargames. I am not saying those that do arent women I just dont want to type "women who dont play wargames".
This is actuly a realy great post One of the bigist issues I have is building and learning the rules, it wasn't something I was used to.
I have to cut my nails when I want to build some of the more fiddly models :0
Learning the rules is allways realy hard without someone to teach outside of the competive enviroment.
It makes you feel any better, I read the rule book cover to cover twice. I still don't understand what warped mind came up with this crap and that expected everyone to memorize it all. I don't even know a lot of it.
More on the topic of sexualization... I honestly don't think it bothers girls as much as you'd think. I'm sure they are used to it by now seeing as how pervasive it is within western culture. I know a woman that actually likes the cheesecake models. I think what bothers them is the attitude us neckbeards take with women. Would you like to go into a place where strangers treated you like an object and acted creepy about their toys? Okay, admittedly, I would love that but I am a shameless twisted fether.
mattyrm wrote: I never met a single girl who likes video games as much as men either, and there are hundreds with no overt cleavage.
The most I can get out of my missus is half an hour on Mario Kart.
That... I think might be a generational thing. I think it's probably true for people that are our age. I am not so sure it will be true for the girls that are now, you know, 12 or 14 or so. My niece spends every waking minute playing PC games (She alternates between Minecraft and L4D2) and my nephew finally had to give in and buy an Xbox just so he could have some gaming time at all.
I understand what you are sauying Ouze, but still... Its so fething obvious that its just the topic.. why do we keep going in circles?
Topic. Nothing else.
Plenty of young women play video games now, but they usually play other type of games, my best mates wife fething loves all the dancing ones, she doesn't mind driving sims either.
Same with my missus, driving, maybe platformers.
She even likes board games too, but gak like Monopoly, not WAR games.
Men love war.
Check out who goes to see Love Actually at the movies - way more women than men.
Check out who goes to see war movies - way more men than women.
It is obviously, and indisputably, a topic that more men are interested in, and so it is obviously more heavily marketted towards them.
Its not the industry, its not humanity, its not a complex ploy to undermine women, its not complicated.
Its a topic that more men are into, across every single hobby ever.
There is no way you can possibly prove otherwise... no matter how much mental gymnastics you use. Even if I brought this topic up with my fething grandmother she would say the same thing, she knows feth all about wargames, but its painfully fething obvious.
How on earth is anybody arguing otherwise with a straight face? :S
mattyrm wrote: Aye. The fact is, women don't like games of all stripes as much as men do.
I never met a single girl who likes video games as much as men either, and there are hundreds with no overt cleavage.
The most I can get out of my missus is half an hour on Mario Kart.
You should come to Japan many female gamers here and in multiplay guys normally don't use overly sexual remarks when playing together. Also More diverse games in Japan.
Also about playing tabletop games, i go to a boardgame event every month and there are girls playing games with figures, but most of these games do not entail the destruction of the opponents forces.
From what i see girls are less interested in games were the sole purpose is to destroy each others forces.
Apple fox wrote: People want to play what's avalible to them. Doing research to find less avalible games to get into a hobby that's hostle and uncomfortable isn't something most people would do I would find. Especially when we don't have the same network of people to help us get into them.
This is a different issue, though, than mere oversexualization. Hostility and discomfort for a woman engaging in a traditionally "male" activity, dominated by (stereotypically) socially inelegant people is the problem. I think the oversexualization is, at worst, a component of this, and at best, a side-effect (as opposed to a cause).
Can't believe I'm doing this, I tried to stay out of this thread as long as II could as it went along its predictable path.
Want a reason why women don't play these type of games as much of men? Just read this thread.
Every second post is a male saying women don't like this sort of stuff because our 1950's sterotype of gender roles is man are all manly man who love war and women are dainty and love their dancing & crafting. Than there are those that are saying that women should just deal with the sexually objectified minatures because that's what makes money.
Doesn't exactly sound like an inviting community for women does it? Why the hell would you want to become a part of something when the people involoved say that this isn't for you just because of what's between your legs. Have you noticed that there are an increasingly larger number of women playing video games over the last few years (yes even outside of casual games) while wargaming has seen no discernible change. Because the video game industry has identified the presentation and objectification of women as an issue and a barrier of entry to many and are trying to rectify it.
Ever stop to think that the reason we are told boys and girls are meant to like different things is because marketing companies have spent a good deal of money the last couple decades telling us that.
There is an amazing video on youtube where a 4 year old girl is having a rant in a toy store about why all the 'girls' toys are pink dollies and why she can't play with the 'boys' superhero toys and vice versa. She has more inteligence than the majority of adults both in this thread and out in the world about how gender roles are full of gak. Especially in this day and age where the lines between gender and sexuality are becoming increasingly blurred.
Apple fox wrote: People want to play what's avalible to them. Doing research to find less avalible games to get into a hobby that's hostle and uncomfortable isn't something most people would do I would find. Especially when we don't have the same network of people to help us get into them.
This is a different issue, though, than mere oversexualization. Hostility and discomfort for a woman engaging in a traditionally "male" activity, dominated by (stereotypically) socially inelegant people is the problem. I think the oversexualization is, at worst, a component of this, and at best, a side-effect (as opposed to a cause).
Yes, that's what we've been saying. Still, even if we can't eliminate the entire problem of the hostile environment, at least we address certain components of it and weaken it through piecewise action. "Solve everything or solve nothing" is a false dilemma.
Doesn't exactly sound like an inviting community for women does it?
The rest of what you wrote wasn't worth replying to, it was yet another post saying that gender roles are nonsense. The fact is, women don't want to wargame as much because they don't want to wargame as much. You can talk about gender roles all you like, that's a fact. My missus hasnt been conditioned to prefer reading over boxing, she just does, shes very much a tomboy and always has been, but she aint a man, and funny thing, men and women are a little bit different, gender roles be damned.
Unless of course, you are saying that the single solitary reason that women aren't beating down the doors at GW is because they are terrified of the "uninviting community" right?
That is as offensive to men as the idea that women are only good for mopping floors! Are you seriously suggesting that the majority of men who play the game would.. well.. act weird? What do you think they would do? Turn into slobbering monkeys and start dry humping their legs when they bent over to pick the dice up?!
Women don't like to wargame as much because women don't like to wargame as much. Its a fact. I guarantee that even if GW suddenly released a range of fully clothed, cammed up Cadian Womens Regiments, and banned anyone under the age of 21 from their stores for fear of childish leering, you STILL wouldn't see women make up more than the current smaller smattering of hobbyists, they just aren't as interested, and there is no way you can possibly argue that the sole reason for that is because society and men are dicks.
The only possible way your argument would make sense, is if you are talking about indoctrination since birth, and that all women inevitably embrace feminine roles because of pressure since they were babies. If you are arguing that, you are taking this already dour conversation to a next level, and I still wouldn't agree with you anyway. I don't believe for a second that If I was stranded and raised by wolves on a desert island when I was 4, I would prefer a doll to a bazooka, I think women have a more nurturing instinct because of 200,000 years of evolution, and men are more aggressive for the exact same reason.
If you think removing all cultural norms would suddenly make women want to go around beating people up, and men want to stay at home and stoke babies, you are ignoring the fact that we are evolved apes.
Non-violent tabletop games do exist, would be nice to see more of them.
I've even seen dungeon crawler rules without hostile monsters (or monsters so powerful they have to be avoided) where the players have to outwit each other by rotating the rooms while avoiding traps and obstacles.
I guess I fall under the "guys that like stuff that should be for girls" category as far as MLP goes, I find that most people are quite accepting of that, so I really don't think its all that difficult for gamer girls to enjoy a male majority hobby.
They aren't mythical creatures, a previous girlfriend of mine was one, she completely modded her xbox case so was pretty hardcore about it too.
Just out of curiosity, I wonder if their is any correlation between the opinions expressed by male posters in this thread and their experience (or lack thereof) in dealing with actual, living, breathing members of the opposite sex?
I agree with Madcat to an extent. Girls and boys have a lot of their tastes defined by what society tells them they should like. It's just how humans are. We are social animals that want to fit in with the pack. However, I also agree with Matt here since I also believe that men and women are just plain different. Sure, the differences may be minor but they are still there. Maybe playing with little mandollies while arguing about what a huge text book says about how to play with them isn't something that appeals to most women.
In addition, I also support the hypothesis that the wargamer culture does keep women out of the hobby. To an extent. Every store I've been to has been nice to girls and there is a regular at my main store. I believe it is mostly the perception of gamer culture that does it.
Though there is a grain of truth in it, as with most stereotypes.
rabidaskal wrote: I wonder if there are 18 page threads in the knitting and crochet forums where women wonder why more men don't get into it.
Because it would go
"I wonder why more men aren't into knitting and crochet?"
"They're not that into it, they prefer paintball, wargames, videogames and things like that."
"Oh well, fair enough I suppose. Boys and their toys eh?"
"Exactly, but at least it gets him out from under my feet a few days a month."
"True dat."
And that would be an end to it.
I think the reason behind this is because, at the heart of it, this is a feminist rights issue. Feminist issues are very, very contentious since they challenge Western Culture's norms.
Of course, the crochet thing is a Masculinist (Hate that word) issue. And about those.. well.. check out the thread about the fish that mutilates male genitals. People openly admit that it's funny to them. If those same fish, say, started ripping apart a woman's private parts and killing a couple then it would be tragic.
I think you're looking a little too hard at the issue, i had begun to write something which I would have then had to spend another 18 pages justifying to some of those involved in this thread.
Let's just say I suspect some people want more women involved in the hobby so they can meet some women and leave it there.
azreal13 wrote: Just out of curiosity, I wonder if their is any correlation between the opinions expressed by male posters in this thread and their experience (or lack thereof) in dealing with actual, living, breathing members of the opposite sex?
I get it. Those of us who don't agree with the manly men must be Nice Guy virgins, amirite?
I happen to know a lot of women who are into board games and would make the jump to tabletop pretty quickly if it weren't for one or two things. My wife, for instance, loves playing Space Hulk and started to learn 40k during Battle for Macragge (she loved the Tyranids). She also plays/played MTG, various RPGs and lots and lots of board games. But the local GW and Brookhurst Hobbies both creep her the hell out. She says the gamers inside those places make her so uncomfortable she isn't willing to go back.
My friend plays Warmachine, but has a similar problem getting his wife interested. She is totes into killing stuff for fun and plays a lot of zombie games, as well as having her own cosplay sith costume and weapons. But somehow gaming night is still about the board games.
I also have a few (female) friends into WoW and other video games and MTG, and cosplay to a big degree, yet they aren't willing to take on TTWGs because they just don't feel as comfortable in that space.
So, yes, some of us know the touch of a woman and somehow still argue unnecessary cleavage is a problem getting our friends and lovers into the game. But these are all anecdotes and not evidence, so whatever.
azreal13 wrote: Let's just say I suspect some people want more women involved in the hobby so they can meet some women and leave it there.
I was thinking the exact same thing.
Some folks see “being a gamer” as their identity, so in a way, it makes a certain kind of sense to want to meet a gamer girl as their significant other, and “live the fantasy”. I mean how can there be a better way to meet girls than if there were more girls involved in gaming?
In a way, it makes me glad that I didn’t meet my girlfriend through these geek circles –lets face it, it’s a really small, and at times extremely cliquey and incestuous little pool of people. Part of me wants to suggest getting out more.
BobtheInquisitor wrote:I get it. Those of us who don't agree with the manly men must be Nice Guy virgins, amirite?
A lot will be though, funnily enough. As a social group, I’d argue gamers have a larger degree of social disfunction, social uncomfortability, and a general lack of social skills and graces, and more of a lack of general life experience than other groups.
Doesn’t mean to say there aren’t plenty ordinary joes and janes with significant others involved with plenty of the above though.
But on the whole, I’m more than a little bit wary of taking a lot of the comments of this community on topics other than “in-game” at face value considering this.
BobtheInquisitor wrote:I happen to know a lot of women who are into board games and would make the jump to tabletop pretty quickly if it weren't for one or two things. My wife, for instance, loves playing Space Hulk and started to learn 40k during Battle for Macragge (she loved the Tyranids). She also plays/played MTG, various RPGs and lots and lots of board games. But the local GW and Brookhurst Hobbies both creep her the hell out. She says the gamers inside those places make her so uncomfortable she isn't willing to go back.
My friend plays Warmachine, but has a similar problem getting his wife interested. She is totes into killing stuff for fun and plays a lot of zombie games, as well as having her own cosplay sith costume and weapons. But somehow gaming night is still about the board games.
I also have a few (female) friends into WoW and other video games and MTG, and cosplay to a big degree, yet they aren't willing to take on TTWGs because they just don't feel as comfortable in that space.
So, yes, some of us know the touch of a woman and somehow still argue unnecessary cleavage is a problem getting our friends and lovers into the game. But these are all anecdotes and not evidence, so whatever.
Im not saying this as a criticism – but its coming across like you and your circle of friends are very entrenched in the gamer community. Would I be right in saying that? (And btw, im not criticising, or complaining, or anything like that). An entrenched community is going to have a very different perception of a subject that someone “looking in”. However, as valid as your point is, I just wouldn’t necessarily take that as an indicator of the population in general. Please see below.
For what its worth, on one hand, we’ve got a handful of girls that play warmachine – one is our pressganger even. A handful. In percentage terms, single digits. A few others might be seen to play boardgames, or rpg’s.
One the other hand, take my girlfriend. And her friends. Proper tomboys. The lot of them. (rugby players). She likes my painted dudes, but really has no interest in painting herself. And although she’ll always show interest, and ask how my game goes, she’s got no interest in playing herself. Video games? Same story. No interest. Board games? Doubt it. Same with my other female friends. (and I’ve got quite a few-certainly more non-gamer girl friends than gamer girl friends) They know I play/paint. They’ll show interest, and compliment me on my dudes if they see them. A few even painted stuff for their brothers back when they were kids. But as a general interest? Nope, sorry.
Funnily enough, she’ll have no issues heading into the FLGS or a GW if I need to pick up stuff, or look around, (gamers don’t scare her at all). But get involved in the hobby, whether its board games, rpgs, video games or TTGs? Nope, just no interest. Cleavage or no, it’s got nothing to do with the issue. Its simply not something a lot of folks are interested in, at all.
The rest of what you wrote wasn't worth replying to, it was yet another post saying that gender roles are nonsense. The fact is, women don't want to wargame as much because they don't want to wargame as much. You can talk about gender roles all you like, that's a fact. My missus hasnt been conditioned to prefer reading over boxing, she just does, shes very much a tomboy and always has been, but she aint a man, and funny thing, men and women are a little bit different, gender roles be damned.
I have anecdotes too: my GF likes all sorts of violent video games and is really good at them, she was a melee lead of a top raiding guild of our server in WoW. I know a tons of girls who like violent video games and RPGs, and one who likes knitting (she still likes those games too, and is the only person I know who practices shooting with a handgun.)
Women don't like to wargame as much because women don't like to wargame as much. Its a fact. I guarantee that even if GW suddenly released a range of fully clothed, cammed up Cadian Womens Regiments, and banned anyone under the age of 21 from their stores for fear of childish leering, you STILL wouldn't see women make up more than the current smaller smattering of hobbyists, they just aren't as interested, and there is no way you can possibly argue that the sole reason for that is because society and men are dicks.
Culture doesn't change overnight, but is changing with video games and tabletop RPGs, so it can with wargames too. And yes, it is quite possible that in any situation more men than women will play wargames, but how large percentage of female players should there be until it is acceptable to stop pandering exclusively to the males?
The only possible way your argument would make sense, is if you are talking about indoctrination since birth, and that all women inevitably embrace feminine roles because of pressure since they were babies. If you are arguing that, you are taking this already dour conversation to a next level, and I still wouldn't agree with you anyway.
That indoctrination absolutely happens, but of course despite that not all women embrace traditional gender roles.
I don't believe for a second that If I was stranded and raised by wolves on a desert island when I was 4, I would prefer a doll to a bazooka, I think women have a more nurturing instinct because of 200,000 years of evolution, and men are more aggressive for the exact same reason.
If you think removing all cultural norms would suddenly make women want to go around beating people up, and men want to stay at home and stoke babies, you are ignoring the fact that we are evolved apes.
Culture affects things massively, but this doesn't mean it is the sole determiner of behaviour. More gender-neutral culture would lessen the different behaviour of genders, but not completely eliminate it. And, still, that is averages, in either case individuals differ and should not be restricted by what an average member of their gender is like. (Also, it is a pretty odd statement that men want to go around beating people up. Furthermore, I know several women that really don't like babies.)
DarkTraveler777 wrote: I'd imagine it has something to do with the perception of miniature war gaming that both men and women have. Miniature war gaming is generally considered an activity appropriate only for males. Coupled with the historic elements of warfare which, and I don't have any statistics to base this statement off of so grain of salt and all that, but I imagine is a field of study that most women choose not to undertake, and you will begin to approach an answer to your question.
Something else to consider is the severe lack of relatable protagonists in historic settings for women. Sci-Fi and Fantasy at least allow for women to be central to the story being told because real world cultural mores can be changed or ignored in those fantastical settings. Unless you focus on very rare outliers the same cannot be said for historic games where women's roles were limited and often took the form of supportive activities not devoted to direct combat. I doubt a rousing game of playing American Civil War Nurses would be as much fun as recreating the Battle of Antietam. Although, bonesaws are cool, so maybe I'd play an ACW Nurses game.
The low appeal of historical games (to both sexes) is also a matter of scale. There's no room for individual characters in most of them. Indeed, Flames of War differentiating between lone heroes is something of an outlier in that field already, the general trend tends to be for uniform hordes/platoons/squadrons of troops. Another thing that drives people of both sexes away is the perception, as you point out, a lot of people have of such games, they're seen as a pastime for reenactors and serious history buffs, not for someone with no more than a passing interest in medieval chivalry. Historical games come across as being about recreating and refighting history, whereas fantasy games come across as making up your own stories with your own characters. The two appeal to very different personalities and interest groups, and there is limited overlap there to begin with. People into napoleonics and ACW tend not to also have Necromunda gangs and a Blood Bowl team. Flames of War has tried to cross this divide by being easier to pick up and more aimed for the "beer and pretzels" crowd, of course.
But get involved in the hobby, whether its board games, rpgs, video games or TTGs? Nope, just no interest. Cleavage or no, it’s got nothing to do with the issue. Its simply not something a lot of folks are interested in, at all.
Very much the same impression here. Funnily enough, she help me from time to time on scenery, but other than that, she just have no interest in the hobby. Sexualisation of women have nothing to do with it, because she didn't go deep enough in the hobby to even realise it was there.
Edit: Also instead of FLGS, they have FLYS (yarn shop)
Maybe we should organize some sort of cross-hobby mixer. As one of the posters said over there: "The creating and crafting and the masterpiece is not restricted to any sex." From the hobby side, it's all art, just different mediums. The application is a bit off though. Once they are done with their project, they get a nice snuggly throw blanket to keep them warm. We get an army to crush the foes of the Imperium of Man.
The Wife does a quite of bit of craft projects, and has war-gamed in the past. But shows no interest in W40k. She does like the painting I do, and is supportive of me in the hobby.
No, you said that the reason for the lack of women on historic battlefields was cultural rather than practical.
What I said was that, with some rare exceptions, there aren't historical examples of women engaging in combat. Now the reasons for that are definitely cultural and those cultural practices were most certainly grounded in practicality, but that doesn't make what I said any less true. Sci-Fi and Fantasy settings aren't tethered to the gender limitations of history. In D&D you can have a female Paladin leading an army of the righteous against a horde of skeletons. You cannot easily find a female figure to rally around in the Battle of Hastings, for example.
And the general sense that women are not interested in violent games (video or table top) is, as Ouze said, likely generational. Anecdote time!
My girlfriend loves violent FPS and RPGs. She also loves games that allow her to explore and build things, so the Borderlands and the Bioshock series really resonated with her. She also introduced video games early on to her niece who has taken a liking to games like Mario, Zelda and Metroid. The niece has also been exposed to movies like Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and damn near every Marvel and DC movie that has come out in the last 15 year--and loves them. I don't think the niece has the same perception of games as girls who grew up in the 80's or 90's because she has never been told that certain games (or movies) are only for boys. I imagine a lot of little girls are benefiting from the wider acceptance of geek culture, as well as the relaxing of our cultural notions of what is and is not acceptable interests for boys and girls to have, and developing a taste for hobbies like gaming (video and table top).
The idea that guys want more women in the hobby so that they can chase tail is rather silly (and likely a none too subtle jab at some of the posters in this thread). I am sure there are some guys who have that goal, but I think the vast majority would prefer to have table top gaming be more widely accepted and inclusive, allowing them to have more opponents and less stigma attached to their interests.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: I'd imagine it has something to do with the perception of miniature war gaming that both men and women have. Miniature war gaming is generally considered an activity appropriate only for males. Coupled with the historic elements of warfare which, and I don't have any statistics to base this statement off of so grain of salt and all that, but I imagine is a field of study that most women choose not to undertake, and you will begin to approach an answer to your question.
Something else to consider is the severe lack of relatable protagonists in historic settings for women. Sci-Fi and Fantasy at least allow for women to be central to the story being told because real world cultural mores can be changed or ignored in those fantastical settings. Unless you focus on very rare outliers the same cannot be said for historic games where women's roles were limited and often took the form of supportive activities not devoted to direct combat. I doubt a rousing game of playing American Civil War Nurses would be as much fun as recreating the Battle of Antietam. Although, bonesaws are cool, so maybe I'd play an ACW Nurses game.
The low appeal of historical games (to both sexes) is also a matter of scale. There's no room for individual characters in most of them. Indeed, Flames of War differentiating between lone heroes is something of an outlier in that field already, the general trend tends to be for uniform hordes/platoons/squadrons of troops. Another thing that drives people of both sexes away is the perception, as you point out, a lot of people have of such games, they're seen as a pastime for reenactors and serious history buffs, not for someone with no more than a passing interest in medieval chivalry. Historical games come across as being about recreating and refighting history, whereas fantasy games come across as making up your own stories with your own characters. The two appeal to very different personalities and interest groups, and there is limited overlap there to begin with. People into napoleonics and ACW tend not to also have Necromunda gangs and a Blood Bowl team. Flames of War has tried to cross this divide by being easier to pick up and more aimed for the "beer and pretzels" crowd, of course.
Great point! To be honest I have avoided games like Flames of War because I do not perceive myself as enough of a history buff to participate and I do not want to run afoul of players who nit pick every detail of a miniature army.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: Sci-Fi and Fantasy settings aren't tethered to the gender limitations of history.
Because they're not tethered to reality, where you frequently have to do things like carry wounded individuals back from the line, march under heavy load, engage in contests of strength with your enemy, and so on.
No one's disputing that plenty of women like videogames, violent or otherwise. No one's disputing that plenty of women like tabletop games. What's being disputed is the notion that there's this huge female audience out there that would absolutely love miniature tabletop wargaming if only it weren't for those darn sexist sculpts! That's patently ridiculous.
And, since we're doing anecdotes, my girlfriend's favorite sculpts to paint for me are the cheesecake ones.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: Sci-Fi and Fantasy settings aren't tethered to the gender limitations of history.
Because they're not tethered to reality, where you frequently have to do things like carry wounded individuals back from the line, march under heavy load, engage in contests of strength with your enemy, and so on.
No one's disputing that plenty of women like videogames, violent or otherwise. No one's disputing that plenty of women like tabletop games. What's being disputed is the notion that there's this huge female audience out there that would absolutely love miniature tabletop wargaming if only it weren't for those darn sexist sculpts! That's patently ridiculous.
And, since we're doing anecdotes, my girlfriend's favorite sculpts to paint for me are the cheesecake ones.
Yeah exactly, like birds would suddenly flock to play Wargames if it wasnt for the tits.
I know gak loads of women, none of them are interested in my war gaming, not because of tits, but because its war. Funny thing, they arent as into Arnie films and war movies either.
Like I said ten pages ago, its simply a topic they are less interested in, it doesn't matter what hobby you are talking about, yet just because a small percentage of women DO like war movies, war games, and war in general, it invalidates a point that nobody made anyway?
As you say, nobody is questioning that some girls like it, but most dont, and its got nothing to do with baps or wargames and everything to do with the subject.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: Sci-Fi and Fantasy settings aren't tethered to the gender limitations of history.
Because they're not tethered to reality, where you frequently have to do things like carry wounded individuals back from the line, march under heavy load, engage in contests of strength with your enemy, and so on.
What exactly are you trying to argue here? It appears to me that you are being intentionally obtuse in order to argue a point that is not related to my original statement. In that statement I said that women may not like historic games because there are few if any personalities for them to identify with for reasons that are historic fact, and Sci-fi and Fantasy settings are not constrained by those same historic facts. There are more opportunities in fantastical settings for women to have agency and drive a story forward. Simple as that.
The merits of women on the battlefield is for another discussion and not something I referenced when making my original statement.
And really, do we have those battlefield realities that you listed in our games? Mostly, no. I don't recall having to drag my dead Praetorians away from a failed assault in 40k, or any rules in Warmachine that require my army to spend hours loading coal into my Warjacks' furnaces. Hell, even in Battletech, which loves to make rules for every possible situation, doesn't require those aspects of warfare to be represented. Because we are playing games not recreating accurate-down-to-the-last-detail battlefields.
So, please let it go. We are talking about the representation of women in gaming, not women in war.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: What exactly are you trying to argue here? It appears to me that you are being intentionally obtuse in order to argue a point that is not related to my original statement. In that statement I said that women may not like historic games because there are few if any personalities for them to identify with for reasons that are historic fact, and Sci-fi and Fantasy settings are not constrained by those same historic facts.
If that'd been what you actually said, we'd be all good. Unfortunately, you decided to use the term "cultural mores," which propagates a lot of bs myths. If you're abandoning that position, then fair enough.
As you say, nobody is questioning that some girls like it, but most dont, and its got nothing to do with baps or wargames and everything to do with the subject.
Which begs the question why don't women like the subject. The answer, in my opinion, is multi-faceted and includes a lot of the issues brought up in this discussion.
It isn't because women just don't like war. Absolute statements like that are silly.
Women are plenty capable of being nasty, violent beings, just like men. So something else has to be creating the disparity between the number of men who like table top war games and the much smaller number of women who also enjoy the hobby. It isn't just a natural division among the sexes.
mattyrm wrote: Yeah exactly, like birds would suddenly flock to play Wargames if it wasnt for the tits.
I know gak loads of women, none of them are interested in my war gaming, not because of tits, but because its war. Funny thing, they arent as into Arnie films and war movies either.
Like I said ten pages ago, its simply a topic they are less interested in, it doesn't matter what hobby you are talking about, yet just because a small percentage of women DO like war movies, war games, and war in general, it invalidates a point that nobody made anyway?
As you say, nobody is questioning that some girls like it, but most dont, and its got nothing to do with baps or wargames and everything to do with the subject.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: What exactly are you trying to argue here? It appears to me that you are being intentionally obtuse in order to argue a point that is not related to my original statement. In that statement I said that women may not like historic games because there are few if any personalities for them to identify with for reasons that are historic fact, and Sci-fi and Fantasy settings are not constrained by those same historic facts.
If that'd been what you actually said, we'd be all good. Unfortunately, you decided to use the term "cultural mores," which propagates a lot of bs myths. If you're abandoning that position, then fair enough.
mattyrm wrote: Yeah exactly, like birds would suddenly flock to play Wargames if it wasnt for the tits.
I know gak loads of women, none of them are interested in my war gaming, not because of tits, but because its war. Funny thing, they arent as into Arnie films and war movies either.
Like I said ten pages ago, its simply a topic they are less interested in, it doesn't matter what hobby you are talking about, yet just because a small percentage of women DO like war movies, war games, and war in general, it invalidates a point that nobody made anyway?
As you say, nobody is questioning that some girls like it, but most dont, and its got nothing to do with baps or wargames and everything to do with the subject.
I dunno why this is so hard to grasp.
As I've posited, perhaps limited experience of the subject matter is a factor!
As you say, nobody is questioning that some girls like it, but most dont, and its got nothing to do with baps or wargames and everything to do with the subject.
Which begs the question why don't women like the subject. The answer, in my opinion, is multi-faceted and includes a lot of the issues brought up in this discussion.
It isn't because women just don't like war. Absolute statements like that are silly.
Women are plenty capable of being nasty, violent beings, just like men. So something else has to be creating the disparity between the number of men who like table top war games and the much smaller number of women who also enjoy the hobby. It isn't just a natural division among the sexes.
Oh yeah, I wasnt intending to make it an absolute, obviously plenty of women like war stuff, just not as many as men do. As I said, I just think the sexes are a bit different, I dont think that even without societal pressures women would like Arnie films quite as much as men for example.
mattyrm wrote: Yeah exactly, like birds would suddenly flock to play Wargames if it wasnt for the tits.
I know gak loads of women, none of them are interested in my war gaming, not because of tits, but because its war. Funny thing, they arent as into Arnie films and war movies either.
Like I said ten pages ago, its simply a topic they are less interested in, it doesn't matter what hobby you are talking about, yet just because a small percentage of women DO like war movies, war games, and war in general, it invalidates a point that nobody made anyway?
As you say, nobody is questioning that some girls like it, but most dont, and its got nothing to do with baps or wargames and everything to do with the subject.
I dunno why this is so hard to grasp.
As I've posited, perhaps limited experience of the subject matter is a factor!
Maybe it's you with a lack of experience. Times are changing . Just like with gaming in other mediums
I've never understood why people have an issue with there being a difference between the genders. Difference doesn't equate to one or the other being superior. Difference is just that. Difference is a neutral issue by itself, not a positive or a negative.
It's perfectly ok for people to be different. It's perfectly ok for those differences to be a result of gender. Those differences in gender as represented in behavior are more than more issues of socialization. The brain chemistry and functionality of male and female brains (as examined by things like CAT scans and EEG readings) are different. Neither one is better or worse, just different. Those functional and chemical differences in the brain are, of course, going to cause differences in behavior.
mattyrm wrote: Yeah exactly, like birds would suddenly flock to play Wargames if it wasnt for the tits.
I know gak loads of women, none of them are interested in my war gaming, not because of tits, but because its war. Funny thing, they arent as into Arnie films and war movies either.
Like I said ten pages ago, its simply a topic they are less interested in, it doesn't matter what hobby you are talking about, yet just because a small percentage of women DO like war movies, war games, and war in general, it invalidates a point that nobody made anyway?
As you say, nobody is questioning that some girls like it, but most dont, and its got nothing to do with baps or wargames and everything to do with the subject.
I dunno why this is so hard to grasp.
As I've posited, perhaps limited experience of the subject matter is a factor!
Maybe it's you with a lack of experience. Times are changing . Just like with gaming in other mediums
I've never understood why people have an issue with there being a difference between the genders. Difference doesn't equate to one or the other being superior. Difference is just that. Difference is a neutral issue by itself, not a positive or a negative.
It's perfectly ok for people to be different. It's perfectly ok for those differences to be a result of gender. Those differences in gender as represented in behavior are more than more issues of socialization. The brain chemistry and functionality of male and female brains (as examined by things like CAT scans and EEG readings) are different. Neither one is better or worse, just different. Those functional and chemical differences in the brain are, of course, going to cause differences in behavior.
And there's nothing wrong with that.
And no one realy disputes differences.
We like difernt things, and want difernt things from the hobby. Doesn't mean there isn't some of us who want to be able to get into it more.
mattyrm wrote: Yeah exactly, like birds would suddenly flock to play Wargames if it wasnt for the tits.
I know gak loads of women, none of them are interested in my war gaming, not because of tits, but because its war. Funny thing, they arent as into Arnie films and war movies either.
Like I said ten pages ago, its simply a topic they are less interested in, it doesn't matter what hobby you are talking about, yet just because a small percentage of women DO like war movies, war games, and war in general, it invalidates a point that nobody made anyway?
As you say, nobody is questioning that some girls like it, but most dont, and its got nothing to do with baps or wargames and everything to do with the subject.
I dunno why this is so hard to grasp.
As I've posited, perhaps limited experience of the subject matter is a factor!
Maybe it's you with a lack of experience. Times are changing . Just like with gaming in other mediums
Yeah...
No.
So how can you bring it up in this thread at all, if you can simply say such.
Do we know how woman are treated in this fictional world? Maybe the artwork is within the context of the universe?
I myself get annoyed by the way anime/video game girls are portrayed.. But in this instance maybe the artist was working with what was established as part of the 40k culture which would make fluff correct?
I was referring to my "lack of experience," which I am uniquely qualified to assess, and doubt many would find it "lacking" under most criteria you could reasonably apply.
It was speculation on my part about others, I don't need to qualify speculation in any way, shape or form.
I was referring to my "lack of experience," which I am uniquely qualified to assess, and doubt many would find it "lacking" under most criteria you could reasonably apply.
It was speculation on my part about others, I don't need to qualify speculation in any way, shape or form.
Why speculate at all then, unless you are trying to legitimise your points via it. Which I see it as nothing but the same as, I know lots of women therefore I can speak for how they think.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
-Shrike- wrote: I agree with Mattyrm on basically all counts. Women, in general, just aren't as interested in war as men! FFS, why is this so difficult to grasp?
I was referring to my "lack of experience," which I am uniquely qualified to assess, and doubt many would find it "lacking" under most criteria you could reasonably apply.
It was speculation on my part about others, I don't need to qualify speculation in any way, shape or form.
Why speculate at all then, unless you are trying to legitimise your points via it. Which I see it as nothing but the same as, I know lots of women therefore I can speak for how they think.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
-Shrike- wrote: I agree with Mattyrm on basically all counts. Women, in general, just aren't as interested in war as men! FFS, why is this so difficult to grasp?
Since no one has missed it.
I speculate because this is a thread in Dakka Discussions where we, you know, discuss things.
If my tangent isn't to your liking, then I'm afraid the problem doesn't lie with me.
I was referring to my "lack of experience," which I am uniquely qualified to assess, and doubt many would find it "lacking" under most criteria you could reasonably apply.
It was speculation on my part about others, I don't need to qualify speculation in any way, shape or form.
Why speculate at all then, unless you are trying to legitimise your points via it. Which I see it as nothing but the same as, I know lots of women therefore I can speak for how they think.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
-Shrike- wrote: I agree with Mattyrm on basically all counts. Women, in general, just aren't as interested in war as men! FFS, why is this so difficult to grasp?
Since no one has missed it.
I speculate because this is a thread in Dakka Discussions where we, you know, discuss things.
If my tangent isn't to your liking, then I'm afraid the problem doesn't lie with me.
Then what does it achieve but try and belittle others that don't hold your views, it's a constant cercle of men saying what women dislike on here without understanding the issues it seems to me.
I was referring to my "lack of experience," which I am uniquely qualified to assess, and doubt many would find it "lacking" under most criteria you could reasonably apply.
It was speculation on my part about others, I don't need to qualify speculation in any way, shape or form.
Why speculate at all then, unless you are trying to legitimise your points via it. Which I see it as nothing but the same as, I know lots of women therefore I can speak for how they think.
-Shrike- wrote: I agree with Mattyrm on basically all counts. Women, in general, just aren't as interested in war as men! FFS, why is this so difficult to grasp?
Since no one has missed it.
I speculate because this is a thread in Dakka Discussions where we, you know, discuss things.
If my tangent isn't to your liking, then I'm afraid the problem doesn't lie with me.
Then what does it achieve but try and belittle others that don't hold your views, it's a constant cercle of men saying what women dislike on here without understanding the issues it seems to me.
No, we understand, we just don't agree.
Neither was I attempting to "belittle" anyone, unless I've touched a nerve here for some reason? I think looking for the reasons behind two clearly very different camps holding quite different opinions is both relevant and pertinent to the discussion.
I was referring to my "lack of experience," which I am uniquely qualified to assess, and doubt many would find it "lacking" under most criteria you could reasonably apply.
It was speculation on my part about others, I don't need to qualify speculation in any way, shape or form.
Why speculate at all then, unless you are trying to legitimise your points via it. Which I see it as nothing but the same as, I know lots of women therefore I can speak for how they think.
-Shrike- wrote: I agree with Mattyrm on basically all counts. Women, in general, just aren't as interested in war as men! FFS, why is this so difficult to grasp?
Since no one has missed it.
I speculate because this is a thread in Dakka Discussions where we, you know, discuss things.
If my tangent isn't to your liking, then I'm afraid the problem doesn't lie with me.
Then what does it achieve but try and belittle others that don't hold your views, it's a constant cercle of men saying what women dislike on here without understanding the issues it seems to me.
No, we understand, we just don't agree.
Neither was I attempting to "belittle" anyone, unless I've touched a nerve here for some reason? I think looking for the reasons behind two clearly very different camps holding quite different opinions is both relevant and pertinent to the discussion.
Quote broke here :(
I actuly don't think you do understand, and it's a bit odd to think that that speculation wouldn't.
Also I am female I am a custermer looking for alternatives, and I understand just how difficult this hobby is to get into when men assume disinterest.
Girls are getting into the gaming space, and at a younger age now. We may enjoy Hobbys in a difernt way sometimes, but we do and will get pushed out constantly.
These threads keep coming up since people now are starting to look at alternatives,
I within my gaming club is the only one playing warhammer/40k. But 1 of 9 playing warmachine now, it's just far More inviting, it isn't perfect for me but its getting there far faster than other company's.
and I will actively avoid places with to much of this, simply to avoid the issues that come up. Better to be in a enviroment that wants me there other than as something to look at.
Weather you want those models or not, I just want alternatives.
But when these threads come up its fairly obvious that this hobby has issues.
I dont see whats belittling about it at all, indeed, most men would like it if their partners played 40k with them, it certainly seems to be a reoccuring fantasy and I dare say most of us (me included!) have at some point, attempted to get our partners to play a game with us if only because nobody else was around!
Apple, you like wargaming, so do plenty of other women, its a good thing, not a bad thing, nobody is unhappy about it, and nobody thinks that you shouldn't be playing, the simple thing we are arguing about is that for some reason, some people seem to think that obscene models are the only reason that warhmmer isnt played by 50% men and 50%women, and as I have said heaps of times, its a proven fact that men like this gak more than women do. It doesn't matter why, I dont want to get into Freudian amateur psychology, so forget the whole "society pressure" or "gender roles" or anything else, all I am saying is that for whatever reason, men are more interested in this topic (war) than women are.
My point is very simple, and very correct. Regardless of any psychology, women are not as interested in things to do with violence as men are.
The same could be said of numerous other hobbies.
Men - Boxing, Rugby, Drinking Beer, Weightlifting.
Women - Netball, Hockey, Drinking cocktails, Aerobics.
What I want to know is,
Do you actually believe that if we somehow eradicated stereotypes and societal pressure, that men and women would be evenly split on absolutely everything? That men and women would make up even numbers in aerobics class? In the audience of the latest Sex in the City movie? At rugby matches? Sure men and women cross over, but there is an obvious difference in what people like thanks to their sex, its completely irrefutable.
Here is a good one, ask ten of your male friends and ten of your female friends to rate how much they liked Predator out of ten, and then do the same with Love Actually, and add all the numbers together.
I guarantee the ladies will score the latter higher and the men will score the former higher. Sure one or two ladies might like to watch Arnie headbutt an alien, and one or two guys might like watching effete British men ponce about in front of women, but there will be an obvious correlation between sex and choice.
And voila, there you have your answer, nudity be damned! (There are no boobs in Predator!)
Both as a female in this hobby and evidently what people want to purchase given what has already been put forward in this thread with regard to the commercial viability of the minis you want to purchase.
You are not persecuted, but neither are you important enough for those whose livelihoods depend on making product that sells to cater to you, at least unless those interests align with other, more viable, ideas.
I do sympathise with you for some of the barriers you encounter while trying to pursue your hobby, but I'm afraid the onus on any minority in any walk of life is to conform to the status quo, because, by definition, you are less of a consideration than the majority.
Is this right? Well, no, not if prejudice or some other artificial method of suppression is at work, but to join a group of any sort, then rail against the nature of the group, when it is unchanged from the time you first became involved, is just futile, and a recipe for a stressful and unhappy life.
As I and others have said, if there really was an untapped market of female wargamers just waiting for the right product, then someone would have developed it by now.
As I and others have said, if you genuinely believe you have spotted this niche before anyone else, then the barriers to bringing either a game or range of miniatures to market are lower than ever before, so go for it!
I for one will be amongst the first lining up to congratulate you on your success if it works out, and will be pleased to see a step towards a greater blend of genders in the hobby, as I'm for variety in wargaming, in all ways, all of the time.
I don't think it will ever truly be even, but what I want is a better and more varied representation within the hobby.
But I would say that the sexism within the hobby is far more a issue.
10 years ago it was constant no girls are on the Internet, and then no girls play these games.
And now it's the same, people talk in such absolute when girls within the hobby are saying that no the violence or competitiveness isn't the only issue and possibly not the bigist.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @azreal I actuly don't think there is some niche female market waiting to be tapped, but I also don't think any company's have tried to realy find the market I am part of outside of a few.
GW when it wants to puts out some good female models, PP does also. And I think they doing ok. Weather there female models sell as well is hard to tell. But certenly I see a high female ratio in the army's that get played.
And I had a guy amazed at how awsome infinity was since he could get a kick ass female unit.
And then the spaceships and other games like it are exempt. I didn't even know reaper exist until I was well into the hobby.
azreal13 wrote: Just out of curiosity, I wonder if their is any correlation between the opinions expressed by male posters in this thread and their experience (or lack thereof) in dealing with actual, living, breathing members of the opposite sex?
Let's ask Apple fox.
Oh, wait, you won't like the result that much .
azreal13 wrote: I speculate because this is a thread in Dakka Discussions where we, you know, discuss things.
Oh, you do, really ?
mattyrm wrote: for some reason, some people seem to think that obscene models are the only reason that warhmmer isnt played by 50% men and 50%women
Who ? Please supply us with some pseudonyms. It shouldn't be hard. I guess you are speaking about people that actually wrote in this very thread, right ?
mattyrm wrote: Do you actually believe that if we somehow eradicated stereotypes and societal pressure, that men and women would be evenly split on absolutely everything?
How can we know without actually eradicating stereotypes and societal pressure ?
You might be surprised by the results. For instance, computer science is seen as mainly a male interest in European countries, it's very different in Malaysia.
I don't think it comes from physiological difference between Malaysian women and European women.
mattyrm wrote: Sure men and women cross over, but there is an obvious difference in what people like thanks to their sex, its completely irrefutable.
Why would it be irrefutable ? Because you have proofs, or because you have rock-hard prejudice ?
You know, I'm half tempted to report you for that, I'm mean, seriously, your entire post is composed of snarky comments and patronising tone.
For a start, in one of the comments you quote, I distinctly referred to male posters, as I was aware of Apple Fox's involvement and knew her take would be different.
Secondly what exactly does "oh you do really?" Add to the discussion?
I repeat what I said a few pages back, your participation in this thread has devolved more or less to the point of mocking other people, while contributing little yourself. Please stop.
Why would it be irrefutable ? Because you have proofs, or because you have rock-hard prejudice ?
Its entirely obvious, you would have to be insane to deny it.
And what prejudice do I have exactly?
And why would I have it? Women should have entirely equal rights in my book, I'm not a theist after all.
Im pro choice, pro womens rights, pro LGBT, pro gay marriage, Im as socially liberal as you can possibly be, I'm simply arguing the point because like Spock, entirely illogical arguments offend my brain, its got nothing to do with prejudice and inequality.
Lets review..
I don't buy cheesecake models, and I prefer women to look like actual soldiers and not battlefield slappers because I am into the fluff.
I wish my missus would play with me, but she isn't into it.
I think that women should play, and I encourage them to.
I am pretty old (in my thirties) happily attached and have been for 7 years, and obviously have no concerns about interacting with, playing with, and competing against, women.
I am merely saying, what is painfully obvious to pretty much everyone, that men are generally more into war films and war games and things associated with war, than women. It really does take fingers in the ears stubborness of the likes of the flat earth society to have your position, its nothing to do with prejudice, Im simply saying its obvious. Why on earth would a grown man with a normal relationship have a prejudice against women playing a hobby?
I know heaps of women, I know heaps of men, the men are more likely to like war movies and the women are more likely to like romantic comedies, surely you understand that these things are not hard and fast rules, and obviously men and women of all stripes can like both, but my view of the world, is the one shared by the vast majority of humanity. If you stopped 100 women of the street and asked them why they arent as interested in war movies and war games as men, 90 would say the same thing, its simply not a topic they are as thrilled about. Its not because of fear of revulsion, its not because they fear hate crimes from men, its not because of misogyny, its not because of semi naked models, its because, they prefer to go hang out with the girls and do other things, like drink some wine and chat, or go to a class, or go shopping, or exercise, or do all of the common sports that women enjoy. How many women like to go to the gym and box their friends, or go to rugby practice? Or when they all get together, instead of watching a DVD with some wine and a plot they like, go and buy a keg of ale and watch Arnold Schwarzenegger movies?
Most men and women, like different things, such is life. No need to worry about it, you are free to do whatever you like without judgement, but why do these differences bother you so much?
On that note, Ive explained why I am bothering to argue the point, I want to know why are you are so offended?
There must be a reason, what is it exactly about common human behavioural tropes that bothers you so much? Does the fact that my missus likes dresses and romantic comedies offend you for some reason?
If you play 40K and you are female, do you really care what the sex of your opponents is?
Cos I dont. It sounds like one of us might be prejudiced, but I dont think its me.
Okay, ive sought of lost track as to what we are discussing/arguing over.
It seems that this thread has become one long slugging match with different people trying to justify their views.
Can we just accept that we differ in them, and leave it at that?
As it is though, i am with mattyrm. So far all ive read of his posts has been entirely logical and made sense.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: Great point! To be honest I have avoided games like Flames of War because I do not perceive myself as enough of a history buff to participate and I do not want to run afoul of players who nit pick every detail of a miniature army.
Historical gamers as a group have a very poor reputation, alas. The stereotype is of basement-dwelling anoraks with replicas of Austerlitz and Waterloo populated with hundreds of tin soldiers, arguing about button color and flag dimensions.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: Great point! To be honest I have avoided games like Flames of War because I do not perceive myself as enough of a history buff to participate and I do not want to run afoul of players who nit pick every detail of a miniature army.
Historical gamers as a group have a very poor reputation, alas. The stereotype is of basement-dwelling anoraks with replicas of Austerlitz and Waterloo populated with hundreds of tin soldiers, arguing about button color and flag dimensions.
"The 3rd button on the shirt of that soldier is blue, damit!"
azreal13 wrote: Secondly what exactly does "oh you do really?" Add to the discussion?
I'm not trying to have a discussion with you. Not anymore. I used to. When I had the epiphany that it was useless because you were just ignoring all the long posts I spent plenty of time thinking out and writing, your comment was
azreal13 wrote: Took you 14 pages to figure that one out huh?
Why would I want to have a discussion with you then ? You said it yourself, it would be wasting my time.
“Oh, you do, really” was a sarcastic comment at the obvious difference between what you pretend to do, and what you actually do. Sarcastic comments are all you will get from me, because those are the only one that are enjoyable by themselves, even if you do ignore them, and therefore I won't be wasting my time writing them. I don't care that they add nothing to “the” discussion since there is no discussion.
Now I'd be perfectly okay discussing with you again. All you have to do is answer, or, you know, acknowledge in any way those lengthy arguments I developed in multiple previous messages. If that's too much to ask of you, don't blame it on me !
mattyrm wrote: Its entirely obvious, you would have to be insane to deny it.
Sounds like someone justifying some religious stuff, there is no need for proofs !
I'm teasing you. Given the rest of your message, it's just a misunderstanding about what I'm denying.
Let's elaborate.
mattyrm wrote: I am merely saying, what is painfully obvious to pretty much everyone, that men are generally more into war films and war games and things associated with war, than women.
I agree with that. What I disagree with, very specifically, is :
“Do you actually believe that if we somehow eradicated stereotypes and societal pressure, that men and women would be evenly split on absolutely everything?”
Societal pressure, or societal influence for a less connoted word, is something extremely pervasive and extremely insidious. I really doesn't work on obvious way. And we are all shaped, a lot, by the culture we were brought in. And I don't mean we are shaped into what the culture expects from us, I mean we would likely be very different if brought in a different culture.
It's directly related to the age-old “nature vs nurture” issue.
I did illustrate with computer science, since that's what I'm doing. I can witness first-hand how both among my colleague and among my students, there are so much more men than women. Even though there is literally nothing preventing women from doing computer science. And I never heard any of my female colleague complaining about any kind of discrimination, or anything else, being done, intentionally or not, to make them feel unwelcome. I read some stuff like that from the industry or the “hobbyist” part of computer science, but I'm into the academic side of it, and I think it's a pretty different mindset.
Still, there are very few women. In Malaysia, there are plenty.
I'm pretty sure here prejudice (from the female students part first and foremost) and cultural influence play a huge part in that. I don't see no other reasons that convince me nearly as much. I totally don't buy into any kind of physiological explanation about the brain of females working differently and somehow making computer science less attractive to them.
Anyhow, without evidence, there is nothing irrefutable about the “It's nature, not nurture” answer, is there ?
mattyrm wrote: On that note, Ive explained why I am bothering to argue the point, I want to know why are you are so offended?
Offended by what ?
If I'm to recapitulate the main points spoke of about it this thread :
- I'm not offended by the Boob-windowsitor, I find it stupid and lame. The same way I would find the Gangstasitor (see the illustration I posted some message ago) lame and stupid without being offended by it. I wanted to explain why I find the boob-windowsitor stupid and lame, but I got misunderstood and then ignored.
- I'm offended by discrimination, and it doesn't matter whether it's supposed to be “affirmative action” (still discrimination !) or not. So I'm opposed to women being prevented to serve in the army, and I'm offended too by allowing a woman to enter the firefighter department even when she fails the test.
- I'm convinced there are cultural reasons for women not being more involved into wargaming, and I think that prevalence of cheesy models combined with lack of more neutral representations are both somehow consequences of this and a tiny part of the causes. Both at the same time because things don't just follow a very simplistic pattern when it comes to cultural issues. While I'm totally not offended by the fact men and women have different interests in general, I have to admit I'm a bit offended by the idea that those differences would come entirely from nature rather than culture.
I hope I answered your question and made my opinions clearer.
Also, you didn't supplied the pseudonyms I was asking for. I meant the question seriously, because I think there is a misunderstanding here. Some people, including me, are saying it's a tiny but still existent reason, among many others, for the gender gap. I've not noticed anyone pretending it's the main cause, or even close from it. Actually, I think everyone on the thread agrees that some wargamer's behavior was a way bigger issue than the models.
azreal13 wrote: Secondly what exactly does "oh you do really?" Add to the discussion?
I'm not trying to have a discussion with you. Not anymore. I used to. When I had the epiphany that it was useless because you were just ignoring all the long posts I spent plenty of time thinking out and writing, your comment was
azreal13 wrote: Took you 14 pages to figure that one out huh?
Why would I want to have a discussion with you then ? You said it yourself, it would be wasting my time.
“Oh, you do, really” was a sarcastic comment at the obvious difference between what you pretend to do, and what you actually do. Sarcastic comments are all you will get from me, because those are the only one that are enjoyable by themselves, even if you do ignore them, and therefore I won't be wasting my time writing them. I don't care that they add nothing to “the” discussion since there is no discussion.
Now I'd be perfectly okay discussing with you again. All you have to do is answer, or, you know, acknowledge in any way those lengthy arguments I developed in multiple previous messages. If that's too much to ask of you, don't blame it on me !
We have discussed your arguments. I understand them, I disagree with them, that isn't going to change. Accept it and move on. Please just stop the snarky sniping at mine or other posters' comments, it just makes you sound butthurt and undermines any serious contribution you may make to the conversation at a later date.
EDIT
To address the somewhat wider argument you put forward in your replies to mattyrm, I still think you're partly wrong. We have somewhat of a chicken and egg scenario, does society produce the gender stereotype, or does the predisposition of the genders shape the society? While societal influence is undoubtedly a factor, hence the global variations in gender in educational subjects etc, but the fact remains that men and women are different, both literally and figuratively, to their very bones. Women have organs and chemistry that just aren't found in men. Studies constantly pop up in the news confirming how women interpret data and process environmental information differently to men. So, no, even if all societal influence was magically removed tomorrow, you still wouldn't have a lot more women wargamers.
Oh ok then, so we don't disagree on that much then, simply the bit about nature vs nurture, and that I think its a little bit of an overreaction to the inquisitor picture, I mean, if it could be conceivably seen at any normal social function (that tiny bit of cleavage is obviously fine) then it isnt that big a deal in my book, maybe she just left a dinner party.
I think that obviously there is a large amount of societal pressure, and that young girls would be more likely to play with toy guns if they didn't have dolls thrust upon them, obviously, I just disagree with the severity. I think it clearly is a factor, just less than you seem to think, because I think as a result of our long evolution, men are more aggressive, and women are more nurturing.
Its pretty OT now though, I think we can best some up what we have learned about the representation of women in the industry as follows and see if you agree with me there.
1. Yes, the majority of the models are obviously aimed at men and we could do with more female models which are not hyper sexualized, certainly I and many others of both sexes would be interested in such models.
2. It occurs because the manufactures have said that they sell much better, and men DO make up the majority of the target market.
3. Simply changing the models would not suddenly cause a noticeable influx of female interest in wargaming.
Why would it be irrefutable ? Because you have proofs, or because you have rock-hard prejudice ?
That's not the only thing about mattrym that is rock hard..Badooom- TISH!
I like female models , of both cheesecake and more realistic varieties , but lets face it even the more realistic ones are stylised , pictures of female modern soldiers i have seen they look very similar to men with all the webbing and in the army uniform.
So what people seem to be asking for is stylised models of women that fit in with their particular favourite style , meh ,whatever , I'll use both my khadic winterguard sergeant and my cheescakey pieces as I see fit.
There are many, many models that are female, you just won't find them much with the larger producers of miniatures and that is completely understandable however, hasslefree and reaper both have huge ranges of female miniatures (i'll also spruke darksword - I like em , very 1980s art style which brings back memories of first and second edition D&D ) If you cannot find female figures in them I think you may as well give up.
I think mattrym brings up an important point, the stylisation in wargaming of women exists due to it being a large proportion of men in wargaming, if the gender imbalance does change then the stylisation of women will change. Why is it now that most activities have to be seen to cater to women even if there aren't many women doing it? <--- old dinosaur moment
You have ? I must have missed that. I saw many comments about burqas and women's rights and prudishness, but none about whether boob window actually evokes important parts of being an Inquisitor (in the same way that being nude evokes important part of what it is being Dr Manhattan/a repentia, or how having a funny western hat evoke stuff about Inquisitors are).
If there is any comment defending the narrative relevance of boob window on an Inquisitor, please show it to me.
And please, I don't mean “Could an Inquisitor realistically (whatever the bloody damn hell that might mean) wear that”. Inquisitors could realistically wear a bunch of very stupid clothes that nobody wants them to wear because we want them to wear clothes that evoke to us the awesome part of being an Inquisitor, not realistic ones. For instance, funny western hats that we associate both with badass, taciturn loners and with classic witchhunters (Yeah, the nice hat is explicitly mentioned).
Really, point me to any message in which you address what we naturally associate with boob windows and how that fits an Inquisitor, and I'll retract everything I said.
azreal13 wrote: To address the somewhat wider argument you put forward in your replies to mattyrm, I still think you're partly wrong. We have somewhat of a chicken and egg scenario, does society produce the gender stereotype, or does the predisposition of the genders shape the society?
Yeah, that's a big question. On the same basis, are there less black people with a Nobel prize because they used to be slaves and treated as inferiors, or were they slaves and treated as inferiors because they were less intelligent ?
azreal13 wrote: but the fact remains that men and women are different, both literally and figuratively, to their very bones.
It's a nice coincidence : black people and white people are also literally different to their very bones, as I guess any good forensic could tell !
azreal13 wrote: Studies constantly pop up in the news confirming how women interpret data and process environmental information differently to men.
Just like we have all those old studies about racial differences, which are not really trusted anymore for some reason .
I'm definitely not sold on this being intrinsic differences. So, I'm going to keep by my position that we should get rid of this societal pressure, and if things don't change, you'll be proven right. Too bad we will likely both be dead for a long long time then, since those things don't actually change fast. Biology have already been abused to fit prejudice in the past.
mattyrm wrote: and that I think its a little bit of an overreaction to the inquisitor picture, I mean, if it could be conceivably seen at any normal social function (that tiny bit of cleavage is obviously fine) then it isnt that big a deal in my book, maybe she just left a dinner party.
So, I still didn't made myself clear on that, I see.
I find it lame-looking. I don't argue against it on any kind of political or social basis, I argue against it on an aesthetic and narrative basis. I think it doesn't work to convey what an Inquisitor is supposed to embody. Have you seen my gangstasitor image, and the message surrounding it ? I don't care about the many, perfectly fine reasons why the gangstasitor or the boobwindowsitor could be dressed that way, I know they exists but those Inquisitor still look awful, and that's just not what I want to see !
Except maybe as comic relief, as an illustration in a book that actually describe a funny situation where they are forced into stupid clothing, like this classic and very good episode of Not So Dark Heresy.
mattyrm wrote: Its pretty OT now though, I think we can best some up what we have learned about the representation of women in the industry as follows and see if you agree with me there.
1. Yes, the majority of the models are obviously aimed at men and we could do with more female models which are not hyper sexualized, certainly I and many others of both sexes would be interested in such models.
I agree.
mattyrm wrote: 2. It occurs because the manufactures have said that they sell much better, and men DO make up the majority of the target market.
Here, I only partly agree. I think this is much more true for Reaper, that is going to sell a few, extra-special models that have a need to stand out rather than a big streamlined units, rather than for companies like GW or PP that release big armies for whole factions that needs to have some mass effect, and that comes with a specific ruleset for each model. I'm going to illustrate my point with two units from Privateer Press and Games Workshop :
The first unit is Eldar Guardians.
I'm really convinced the fact that there is some female guardian among them ever had any influence on how good the guardian box ever sold. Rules, fluff and the aesthetic of the whole unit (as opposed to how the female version of the armor was made) were the big sell factors !
The second one is trollkin sluggers.
It's basically the same thing. Trollkin sluggers' main argument is that they are bad-ass trollkin though guys with huge bullet-spewing machineguns. People buy them because they look like that description, and because of the rules. Actually, in both case, I think most people never even notice that there are females among the models. I know I didn't notice anything before buying my sluggers.
So, the difference between sexy female miniatures and normal female miniatures is that the selling point of sexy female miniatures is directly in their sexiness, hence in them being female (because of the market's sexual preference ), while the selling point of normal female miniatures is definitely not related to them being female. It makes any sale comparison hardly fair.
We had the comparison between sexy and normal female models sales on Reaper. I don't have any figures, but I'm pretty sure GW has sold way more female Eldar guardian than it has sold those Dark Eldar sexy “slaves”. Because many people wants one or two sexy miniatures, but nearly nobody wants an army of them. Many people wants an army of model though, and won't have any problem with it if even half of the army is female.
mattyrm wrote: 3. Simply changing the models would not suddenly cause a noticeable influx of female interest in wargaming.
I agree.
Bullockist wrote: however, hasslefree and reaper both have huge ranges of female miniatures (i'll also spruke darksword - I like em , very 1980s art style which brings back memories of first and second edition D&D ) If you cannot find female figures in them I think you may as well give up.
Yeah, I got my conclave from PP and Reaper.
Pics :
Bullockist wrote: Why is it now that most activities have to be seen to cater to women even if there aren't many women doing it?
I'm not a woman. I want more realistic female models. For instance, why is there not a single female troll pygmy ? Are those asexual ? And, same question for pureblood trolls and dire trolls ? I'ld like my blitzer or one of my bombers to be female. It would bring more variety. Maybe I'll need to convert one. She'll likely end up barechest and still totally not sexy .
(It's okay, both my warlocks and one of my heavy warbeast are already showing their middle finger to the enemy, so my army is already PG-13 anyway )
More than a decade into online gaming competitively and in that time the two games in which I've interacted with more female competitors than the others also happened to be the most violent and sexually suggestive games. APB:R and TERA.
The more I think about my own experience, and the type of women I've met through these types of hobbies, the more I think the notion that a 'clevage window' being the reason women don't do TTWG is totally ridiculous.
Oh look, it must be that time again, another lengthy post from HSoO. Is this going to go on forever, or are we going to reach a point where you finally concede our viewpoints have a fairly diametrically opposed basis and stop trying to win the discussion?
I suppose once you've actually spent some time in a full blown relationship you'll realise that women do generally view the world around them in a different way, so much so that you will sometimes wonder how they even qualify as the same species as men (as much as I loathe all the namby pamby, self help, liberal nonsense, "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" is so much more than a book title!)
On to your post.
Firstly, you're citing arguments (about Burqas etc) I didn't make, so how on earth can you know if we have discussed your points of you've lost track of who said what?
Secondly, a cowboy hat and a Puritan hat are not the same.
I cannot justify the presence of the "boob window" (which I remain unconvinced of, I think you've misinterpreted the way the clothes are arranged, but for the sake of argument we'll assume you're right) just as you cannot dismiss it's relevance, because we have no bastard context for the image. As has been mentioned. You're assuming its in the middle of battle, but there's really no solid basis for that, any more than there's basis to say she isn't in battle and has just been called out of a dinner party because of a local uprising or was discovered trying to go undercover in a brothel.
This will be the last time I respond to this line of discussion from you in this thread, I really don't see how we can go forward at this point, so feel free to respond, but I won't be.
azreal13 wrote: I cannot justify the presence of the "boob window" (which I remain unconvinced of, I think you've misinterpreted the way the clothes are arranged, but for the sake of argument we'll assume you're right) just as you cannot dismiss it's relevance, because we have no bastard context for the image.
Irrelevant. We do have a context : this picture is alone in the codex with no details about it. It's all the context we need for my criticism. You would have noticed if you had understood it. You did not, and you did not even try, I guess. I'm pretty sure if I were to ask you what is my problem with this illustration, you'll either be completely unable to answer, or say something totally wrong.
You are still using the same old defense all over again, so I'm going to repeat something I just said, but in bold, and with a huge font, hoping it will finally allow you to understand : Inquisitors could realistically wear a bunch of very stupid clothes that nobody wants them to wear because we want them to wear clothes that evoke to us the awesome part of being an Inquisitor, not realistic ones. You are still arguing about how it's realistic for this Inquisitor to be wearing some boob window because of whatever context you may imagine…
azreal13 wrote: This will be the last time I respond to this line of discussion from you in this thread, I really don't see how we can go forward at this point, so feel free to respond, but I won't be.
And then you'll reproach me not to add anything to the discussion .
I have an IQ of around 130. English is my first language. If I'm not understanding your argument, statistically, the fault probably isn't with me.
You post criticising arguments I haven't made, clearly attributing other people's comments to me, yet seem to assume I'm intimately familiar with every word you say? That is somewhat arrogant.
I have made an effort to ignore the tone of your post and consider the content, but I'm afraid the patronising air and aspersions on my intellect are irritating me too much to do so. Superficially, it doesn't appear to make sense.
Fair warning, reply to me in that tone again and I will report you, rule 1 isn't hard to follow, I do my best to stick to it and I expect others to do the same.
That changes everything ! I'm sure you are right and I'm wrong now !
azreal13 wrote: yet seem to assume I'm intimately familiar with every word you say?
I didn't exactly quote something from some message far away in the depth of this thread. I quoted something from my previous message, the one you were answering to. Even though I did say similar things starting as early as page 3.
azreal13 wrote: Fair warning, reply to me in that tone again and I will report you, rule 1 isn't hard to follow, I do my best to stick to it and I expect others to do the same.
What with that “Took you 14 pages to figure that one out huh?” comment you made ? Is that the example of non-patronizing comments I should made ? I could also mention “ Just out of curiosity, I wonder if their is any correlation between the opinions expressed by male posters in this thread and their experience (or lack thereof) in dealing with actual, living, breathing members of the opposite sex? ”
Yeah, I said I felt like you didn't try at all to understand what my arguments are. It's because I've been regularly writing long messages explaining them, to no avail, and I don't think it's because you are not intelligent enough to understand them. So, no “aspersions to your intellect”, but clearly some doubts on your goodwill. If the problem comes from my English, I guess you could tell me which part of my messages are wrong or incomprehensible, but so far, I don't think anyone else has complained about my written English.
You're quoting me out of context, then getting upset about it. Are you sure you're NOT a woman?!
The IQ remark, in conjunction with speaking English, was me trying to explain that it was unlikely to be me failing to understand your point, that it was more likely you weren't expressing it as you intended. It was also because you were throwing around words like "idiotic" in your previous post, so I felt the need to clarify I am far from an idiot.
You have repeatedly, not just recently, posted as if you expect me, or other posters, to be well acquainted with all your arguments when replying, you're just one voice amongst several, over many pages, if you feel that your argument is getting lost amongst others, in those circumstances it would probably benefit everyone if you quickly restated your key points and how they differ from the broader points under discussion.
I don't quite see how my two comments you quote are rude? Except, again, if taken out of context. The "took you 14 pages" comment was qualified by how this was a pointless discussion because neither side was ever going to come around to the other's way of thinking, hence that the whole discussion was a waste of everyone's time, but you appear to have missed that, both in your quote and your comprehension.
As for the other comment, if you've taken that personally then that's all on you, as I wasn't quoting or responding directly to you, and my curiosity remains, I do wonder whether those posters who are married or have had long term, or a number of, relationships vs those posters who have less romantic relationship experience correspond with those saying "women are just different" and those saying "women would be more the same if we evened out all the societal stuff"
azreal13 wrote: You're quoting me out of context, then getting upset about it. Are you sure you're NOT a woman?!
Uh, yeah. Do you need pics to check ?
azreal13 wrote: It was also because you were throwing around words like "idiotic" in your previous post
Which I quickly edited out, before you could answer, and I (apparently wrongfully) thought before you could read it.
azreal13 wrote: I don't quite see how my two comments you quote are rude? Except, again, if taken out of context. The "took you 14 pages" comment was qualified by how this was a pointless discussion because neither side was ever going to come around to the other's way of thinking, hence that the whole discussion was a waste of everyone's time, but you appear to have missed that, both in your quote and your comprehension.
The “took you 14 pages” comment was after I stated nobody seemed to read my messages. And you quoted me saying so. In other word, you were practically saying “Yes, I never read your message, you should have noticed earlier”.
Also, I'm convinced you didn't read that message I was referring too, because else you would doubtlessly have noticed my big brain malfunction, and called me on it .
azreal13 wrote: if you feel that your argument is getting lost amongst others, in those circumstances it would probably benefit everyone if you quickly restated your key points and how they differ from the broader points under discussion.
I doubt it would benefit anyone. I would get frustrated about wasted efforts (and I dare mention how you specifically not only agreed it would be wasted time but also insisted that this should have been obvious to me), and nobody would notice or react. Well, that's what happened every time I tried. And frustration build up until I had to edit my messages afterward to remove expressions like “idiotic”.
But anyway, I just did. I even singled out one sentence, put it in bold with a huge font size. It's here. I'll even rephrase it because it's not well written.
Inquisitors could realistically wear a bunch of very stupid clothes. Even clothes that are so stupid that nobody wants to see an Inquisitor wearing them, like the bandannaquisitor I posted here. What we want Inquisitor to wear clothes that evoke to us the awesome part of being an Inquisitor, not clothes that they could realistically be wearing. Let's see if it benefits anyone, or if it's just going to get me an extra frustration.
Wow. I'm glad I left this particular thread about 17 pages ago. You guys seem to be mostly arguing in circles at this point. Might be time to agree to disagree and call it quits?
Azazelx wrote: Wow. I'm glad I left this particular thread about 17 pages ago. You guys seem to be mostly arguing in circles at this point. Might be time to agree to disagree and call it quits?
I'm trying honest! But HSoO keeps trying to win a discussion, and for whatever reason I'm not in the mood to walk away. Can you see the point he is trying to make about the picture? Cause I think if I understood what he was trying to say i might be able to leave it, but I just don't get what he is arguing (about the pic) and maybe if I crack that I will be able to turn lead into gold or something.
azreal13 wrote: but the fact remains that men and women are different, both literally and figuratively, to their very bones.
It's a nice coincidence : black people and white people are also literally different to their very bones, as I guess any good forensic could tell !
azreal13 wrote: Studies constantly pop up in the news confirming how women interpret data and process environmental information differently to men.
Just like we have all those old studies about racial differences, which are not really trusted anymore for some reason .
I'm definitely not sold on this being intrinsic differences. So, I'm going to keep by my position that we should get rid of this societal pressure, and if things don't change, you'll be proven right. Too bad we will likely both be dead for a long long time then, since those things don't actually change fast. Biology have already been abused to fit prejudice in the past.
1. Straw man. Melanin. That's the only difference. Black skin has a higher concentration of the pigment melanin than white skin.
2. You'd be surprised. That intrinsic difference does exist. Read it up. Men and women are different and process data differently. genetically, chemically and physically, we are extremely different from each other. Even to the extent that the brains of men and women form differently in the womb. It all has an effect. There are as many differences, genetically speaking, between men and both chimpanzees and women. Men are from mars, and women are from Venus. Old nazi pseudo science, and ideas from way back when, (when frankly they knew very little, scientifically speaking) don't really hold water as comparisons.
As to the boobqisitor, meh. You want her to evoke awesome. I think she does that. Yup, I'm immersed. I don't see the issue in what she is depicted as wearing. Wow, she's got cleavage. Get over youself folks, and stop thinking like brain addled teenagers. She can wear what she likes, and no one wants to mess with her. Is boobs the problem, or the perception of boobs? Part of me thinks everyone should go naked, and we'd all lose this silly prudish view of the human body.
I suppose once you've actually spent some time in a full blown relationship you'll realise that women do generally view the world around them in a different way, so much so that you will sometimes wonder how they even qualify as the same species as men (as much as I loathe all the namby pamby, self help, liberal nonsense, "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" is so much more than a book title!)
Oh wow! And this is the man who accuses others of not understanding women! I feel that I'm much more part of the same species with an average woman than I'm with you.
I've been in a relationship (with a woman) for a long time. I work as a teacher and most of my co-workers are women. I see how children of both genders behave. You know what? We are all people. There are some attitudes and behavioural modes that are on average slightly more common in women than in men and vice versa, and that's it. On individual level we are all different in certain ways and similar in others, and gender is pretty bad determiner of those similarities and differences.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
azreal13 wrote: You're quoting me out of context, then getting upset about it. Are you sure you're NOT a woman?!
Well, you are certainly working hard to prove that the people in the hobby are the problem instead of sexualised art/miniatures! BTW, if you find women being upset at you often, you might want to try not being so blatantly sexist. It might help!
.
.
). But still, she said she liked it, but also mentioned how she noticed she was the only girl in the store… and she never mentioned the game again.
) way so modelling is not that impossible for her.
. Most have plate armor, which isn't exactly skintight. I don't see the problem with the posing either. Would you give an example ? I'm especially found of Nicole's “bracing for impact” pose, my favorite crusader 
), but the whole 
), and I have a better understanding of “Muslim culture” than you do (hint : there is no such thing, Islam is a religion). Burqa is not worn in Palestine, except maybe for a statistically insignificant number of women.
.jpg)
