There was a post in the Raging Heroes thread that I think might warrant a thread of it's own, maybe.
Saxon wrote: Everyone and his wife has underestimated the demand for female soldiers... once these factions expand with bikes etc, and add-ons will come...
Anyone who is following this kickstarter and participates in the HHHobby should be pretty pissed disappointed with Games Workshop.
There is no reason anyone should have underestimated the demand for female infantry. There have been dozens and dozens of threads on this on Dakka Dakka alone; where there was page after page of people saying they wished there were more female models in 40k. 30 years, and no female guardsmen! It's mind boggling. They have left, literally, millions of dollars on the table in squandered opportunity. Moreso, they have utterly and totally failed the gaming community in this arena.
It's not like they can't do it. The Dark Eldar line shows it's totally possible for them to make good looking and gender-diverse models. They just decided we didn't want them; and they decided so because, presumably, they didn't feel like making them.
Rightfully, someone smaller and faster got there first and are now reaping the rewards of this overripe demographic, moving models at literally Forge World prices with minimal complaints (and those are generally about shipping and the minutiae of the Kickstarter, not the sculpts base price or quality).
Do you think this will influence 40k, and WHFB? Have you found other games systems do better in this, and have been more or less successful? Infinity, I believe, already is pretty well represented in gender. Share with the class.
I'd include Female Cadians in my army, were I to run IG. Makes complete sense from a fluff standpoint (they "draft" EVERYONE on Cadia) and would add diversity to models.
Not sure what that picture has to do with the post. Also, not sure why we are supposed to be mad at GW for them not producing female minis. Yeah, it a market they are missing out on, but not sure why we would be mad about that.
pretre wrote: Not sure what that picture has to do with the post.
It's a reference to the film Serenity. The operative at one point... well; it's a good movie so I won't spoil it for you, if you choose to watch it.
pretre wrote: Also, not sure why we are supposed to be mad at GW for them not producing female minis. Yeah, it a market they are missing out on, but not sure why we would be mad about that.
Because Games Workshop is supposed to be serving us, yes? I mean, yeah, they're supposed to be making monkey for their stockholders as their first responsibility, just like every other good corporation. But that's underpinned by bringing us the products we want to buy. They have utterly failed to do so, and they have done so despite gross evidence that there is a market waiting to be tapped. Maybe "mad" might not have been the best word. Perhaps "disappointed" should have been used?
If you're a kid whose only FLGS is a gee-dubs, which is I believe a fairly common occurrence, wouldn't you wish they had released first party models that you could use in the store?
We should be pissed at GW? Only if you're trying to introduce politics into the game by saying it's not gender equal. And I hope to god you're not. That is literally the only reason to be "pissed" or anything resembling "angry" at GW for not doing female guardsmen.
You're looking for "gamers were left wanting by GW", not "gamers should be pissed at GW".
Ouze wrote: Because Games Workshop is supposed to be serving us, yes? I mean, yeah, they're supposed to be making monkey for their stockholders as their first responsibility, just like every other good corporation. But that's underpinned by bringing us the products we want to buy. They have utterly failed to do so, and they have done so despite gross evidence that there is a market waiting to be tapped. Maybe "mad" might not have been the best word. Perhaps "disappointed" should have been used?
You have the relationship a little backwards, I think.
GW have no specific obligation to provide us with what we want. They produce models. If we like them, we buy them. If we don't, then for the most part we don't.
You don't have some god-given right for any company to produce exactly what you want. You do have the right to seek what you want elsewhere if one particular company isn't giving you the product you want.
Getting mad because one particular company isn't making what you want? That's time to step away from the keyboard for a while, seriously.
Because Games Workshop is supposed to be serving us, yes? I mean, yeah, they're supposed to be making monkey for their stockholders as their first responsibility, just like every other good corporation. But that's underpinned by bringing us the products we want to buy. They have utterly failed to do so, and they have done so despite gross evidence that there is a market waiting to be tapped. Maybe "mad" might not have been the best word. Perhaps "disappointed" should have been used?
Stop ranting. You are using hyperbole to greatly overstate things with WAY to much emphasis. How the hell have they utterly failed to bring us the products we want to buy? The fact they are in business says otherwise. Come back with real evidence that sales would increase, which basically means showing a substantial increase of sales within a line once female models are introduced into an all male line.
I've no problem with female models, but do have a problem with someone up in arms over nothing.
Ouze wrote: Because Games Workshop is supposed to be serving us, yes? I mean, yeah, they're supposed to be making monkey for their stockholders as their first responsibility, just like every other good corporation. But that's underpinned by bringing us the products we want to buy. They have utterly failed to do so, and they have done so despite gross evidence that there is a market waiting to be tapped. Maybe "mad" might not have been the best word. Perhaps "disappointed" should have been used?
If you're a kid whose only FLGS is a gee-dubs, which is I believe a fairly common occurrence, wouldn't you wish they had released first party models that you could use in the store?
If you're a kid that only has a GW, I doubt I'd give two salty gaks if there were female models in my tiny soldiers army.
As much as I'd welcome some female infantry, I couldn't care less. Not a single bit. Does it have anything to do with misogyny? Naw. I just don't care enough to worry about it. I'd rather they had no females than a bunch of gakky looking females.
As to that market, I don't think it's as large as you think it is, especially if they're outfit as they SHOULD be if they're in the 40k universe: Looking pretty much exactly like their male counterparts with perhaps a slimmer face, a ponytail, and small chest bump. And please, don't pretend that the only draw of the Raging Heroes line is that they're females. A good portion of it is that they're good looking and/or shapely females.
I'm wondering if the few female IG mini's that they had produced in the past were a form of market research to determine how female Guardsmen were to be received.
Also remember that if they went with female guardsmen in a boxed set, it'd have to be a completely different set of sprues and moulds for a female model (different proportioned body parts compared to a male's), which means less interchangeability. That, combined with those who want only an all-male army, would detract from the option of making a mixed kit. Why? Because GW likes us to know that their females are females. If you've ever seen a real-life female soldier wearing body armour and a helmet, you'd be hard-pressed to tell her apart from her male counterparts. But GW would like us to "know" that they're female by giving their armour "chest bumps" as cincydooley said, like we have had for the past (Female Commissar, SoB..).
pretre wrote: Not sure what that picture has to do with the post.
It's a reference to the film Serenity. The operative at one point... well; it's a good movie so I won't spoil it for you, if you choose to watch it.
pretre wrote: Also, not sure why we are supposed to be mad at GW for them not producing female minis. Yeah, it a market they are missing out on, but not sure why we would be mad about that.
Because Games Workshop is supposed to be serving us, yes? I mean, yeah, they're supposed to be making monkey for their stockholders as their first responsibility, just like every other good corporation. But that's underpinned by bringing us the products we want to buy. They have utterly failed to do so, and they have done so despite gross evidence that there is a market waiting to be tapped. Maybe "mad" might not have been the best word. Perhaps "disappointed" should have been used?
If you're a kid whose only FLGS is a gee-dubs, which is I believe a fairly common occurrence, wouldn't you wish they had released first party models that you could use in the store?
I've seen serenity and I still don't get what he as to do with this. I think Jubal Early would make more sense, comparing his opinion of women to GW's
As far as I can see OP isn't calling GW a bunch of sexists, simply saying that more gender diversity among the kits would make them more interesting and could be a potential money-spinner, given that a quick Google search will show that htere are a lot of people out there willing to spend money to get 28mm female infantry. I agree.
GW have certainly missed a trick by not at least trying to take advantage of that interest. Even if they only produced a head sprue, I think they'd be flying off the shelves.
The lack of female models in 40K isn't even fluffy. BL stories are loaded with female characters. Tau, Eldar and Dark Eldar don't discriminate based on gender. The Imperial Guard will take anyone who can hold a lasgun the right way round. The other armies are either all-male (Marines) or essentially genderless. For an example of well-done depictions of female IG, take a look at the Only War books: female soldiers who are recognisably women without straying into ludicrous territory. If the sculptors were careful they could easily replicate this.
Victoria Lamb is supposed to have some female kits on the drawing board. Looking forward to seeing what she comes up with.
There is no reason anyone should have underestimated the demand for female infantry. There have been dozens and dozens of threads on this on Dakka Dakka alone; where there was page after page of people saying they wished there were more female models in 40k. 30 years, and no female guardsmen! It's mind boggling. They have left, literally, millions of dollars on the table in squandered opportunity. Moreso, they have utterly and totally failed the gaming community in this arena.
...
They just decided we didn't want them; and they decided so because, presumably, they didn't feel like making them.
I'm not sure that you're not over-representing the demand for female soldiers, and the nature of opportunity costs. What Raging Heroes is doing is great, and I'm signed on for it, so I'm certainly not trying to say there is no demand. However, to say that it's a missed opportunity is not as simple as the question "to make them or not to make them", it's "to make them, or make something else". I think it's pretty obvious that the mature hobbyist is no longer GW's core target market. People who post on dakka are probably of far less interest to GW than the countless numbers of 12-15 year old boys who will play for 2-3 years and then discover real (not miniature) girls.
If female soldiers were really a huge ripe market, SoB would probably not have been relegated to a magazine-supplement codex and mail-order-only models. And so while it's possible that they left some money on the table by not making female guard, I reckon that money is minimal compared to what they'd make by doing another box of space marines.
It's not like they've not been busy. They've completely redone the necron and dark eldar lines in the last few years, along with a rapid-succession of releases across the board. Which of these releases would you have cut for yet-another-IG-sprue? What's more, would doing so cannibalize sales from their own other line? Each pack of female cadians they sold would be a pack of existing cadians that they're not selling.
Redbeard wrote: If female soldiers were really a huge ripe market, SoB would probably not have been relegated to a magazine-supplement codex and mail-order-only models. And so while it's possible that they left some money on the table by not making female guard, I reckon that money is minimal compared to what they'd make by doing another box of space marines.
These are both really good points, though I'd hasten to add that the lack of success that Sisters has seen has many other factors as well - weak rules, expensive models that are metal only, haven't been updated in forever; etc etc. I'm not sure they're the best example to use.
But I hadn't considered that they simply would have made more money just by making more giant vehicles for proven armies, for example. Perhaps the sales of the Stormraven and the other SM flyer were simply more profitable routes to go.
pretre wrote: Not sure what that picture has to do with the post.
It's a reference to the film Serenity. The operative at one point... well; it's a good movie so I won't spoil it for you, if you choose to watch it.
No, I get what the pic is from and the reference. I may be slow, but I don't get what it has to do with the topic.
Because Games Workshop is supposed to be serving us, yes? I mean, yeah, they're supposed to be making monkey for their stockholders as their first responsibility, just like every other good corporation. But that's underpinned by bringing us the products we want to buy. They have utterly failed to do so, and they have done so despite gross evidence that there is a market waiting to be tapped. Maybe "mad" might not have been the best word. Perhaps "disappointed" should have been used?
One might argue that they haven't brought enough of the products we want to buy. Obviously, they are still bringing us the products we want to buy. And disappointed is much better.
I've always been under the impression that if I wanted female minis, aside from the ones that are already provided by GW, I would be able to use a second party source to accquire them.
It's like getting mad at McDonald's for not selling General Tso's chicken.
Is it really that big a deal though? I mean, you can't actually see that much detail on a mini, could you actually ping a female cadian from a male cadian when they wear helmets and body armor?
Maybe GWs approach was simply that with IG for example, you would hardly be able to notice a difference, they wear helmets and uniforms. I've seen birds IRL military formations, and you can't tell the difference from 50 yards if they are wearing webbing, body armour, helmets and shades.
You could arge that raging heros and such are more sexist and gak, because they are pardoies of how combat women should look.
You know, less combat, and more skin showing/tits hanging out.
Frankly I think IG and such are more than acceptable being almost gender neutral, I mean, I like the sisters because they actually look violent and generally except for a few sculpts just look like guardsmen in power armour with a bit more hair.
Maybe they could add some long haired muscular catachan chicks, but as cincy says, I hardly think its a major issue.
A human wearing armor and a helmet is going to be pretty generic. The idea that women need sexualized armor which distinguishes gender with curves and boobplates is kinda part of the problem.
I have yet to see many people who sculpt female heads actually well, but except for the musclebound catchans, most of the other humanoid soldier models could easily be women under all that armor.
All they need to do is kinda remove the fake 'bewb armor' from the models and not make poses of people firing a gun like they are a sexy maid and then they may have some real female models worth buying.
Personally, I find a want for 'females' different from 'cheesecake' and I don't want cheesecake. I find most of the raging heroes concepts absurd. No one is going to fire a heavy chaingun with a shirt which allows underboob to poke out. It is insane. No cyborg automoton is going to have a low-cut boob exposure.
No one needs armor with Boobs on it. In war they will have unisex armor and just wear a sports bra that keeps everything out of the way.
I have been wanting Fantasy Females much like how WOW has female designs for all their characters. You can have a Female Orc without her being a bad joke or an over-sexualized cheesecake mold. I would rather realistic females which are in normal unit assortment where if it makes sense, have orcs with men and women in it.
I am not sure I agree that pandering cheesecake models to adult men shows that GW missed a market for 'female' models when it kinda just boils down to men wanting cheesecake and not making true realistic dual-gender representation for rank and file.
Redbeard wrote: If female soldiers were really a huge ripe market, SoB would probably not have been relegated to a magazine-supplement codex and mail-order-only models. And so while it's possible that they left some money on the table by not making female guard, I reckon that money is minimal compared to what they'd make by doing another box of space marines.
These are both really good points, though I'd hasten to add that the lack of success that Sisters has seen has many other factors as well - weak rules, expensive models that are metal only, haven't been updated in forever; etc etc. I'm not sure they're the best example to use.
But I hadn't considered that they simply would have made more money just by making more giant vehicles for proven armies, for example. Perhaps the sales of the Stormraven and the other SM flyer were simply more profitable routes to go.
I seem to recall a period of time when all the Catachan guard minis (this was before I believe they had Cadians...) were all metal. Point is, if there's a demand, GW can make the go from metal->plastic.
Kanluwen wrote:I have the Sisters of Avelorn/Shadow Warrior kit.
There is a significant difference in terms of the body. It's not illustrated well in the pictures.
Can you deny with a straight face that all plastic male and female Dark Eldar as well as all male and female models from the Shadow warrior kit share exactly the same lower body from the waist downward?
Can you deny with a straight face that in real life, male and female bodies look different from the waist downward?
And I am not even talking about the mess of a sculpt that GW presents for female elven heads for the Avalorns.
NAVARRO wrote:I'm mad at them because they discontinued their only sexy babes!
Not only that. They alienated the sculptor so much, that he finally fled 1st of June just to save his soul.
GW is a company run by sales numbers, but blind on the reasons.
When they introduced Sisters of battle in the end of 2nd edition, a non psycher army ina psychic massacre game and then under-supported them for so long, they came to the natural conclusion that since they didn't sell good enough, people do not want them because they want to field macho male warriors.
I feel their codex and lack of support were the reasons, but GW does not care for these things, only models selling, in their mind a miniature sells itself the rules just support or prod to selling more of a particular type of model the sales department wants to move.
One more thing to consider is GW is a plastic multiposed models company, they will do anything to cut down costs, and their recent attempts for female models show it, most of the parts making male and female models are the same, one might ignore them on elves that are thinner, but pulling the same stunt on a regular human form will not work, this is another reason for them to not do female models.
What will raging heroes do? show beyond doubt to other companies (as if CB has not done way before that) that there is demand for female models and the old GW mantra of female models selling less is an unsupported, uninformed statement.
GW's female Catachan and Commissar models, on the other hand, were quite blatantly female.
With regards to the former, only because there's already so much skin showing. Realistically speaking, you'd be hard-pressed to tell a female and a male apart when in uniform, webbing, and armor. "Bewb'd armour" does not exist in real life.
Enigwolf wrote: With regards to the former, only because there's already so much skin showing. Realistically speaking, you'd be hard-pressed to tell a female and a male apart when in uniform, webbing, and armor. "Bewb'd armour" does not exist in real life.
We're not talking about realisticnessismitude, though. We're talking about miniatures for a science fantasy wargame that uses exagerated proportions to make the models fit their stylised aesthetic. And within that aesthetic, you most certainly can tell the difference between a male and a female.
GW's Cadians, for example, are quite incontrovertibly male. The exagerated proportions that GW use for human males really doesn't leave any ambiguity there, regardless of how similar the males and females might look in 'real life'.
Saxon wrote: Everyone and his wife has underestimated the demand for female soldiers... once these factions expand with bikes etc, and add-ons will come...
Anyone who is following this kickstarter and participates in the HHHobby should be pretty pissed disappointed with Games Workshop.
There is no reason anyone should have underestimated the demand for female infantry. There have been dozens and dozens of threads on this on Dakka Dakka alone; where there was page after page of people saying they wished there were more female models in 40k. 30 years, and no female guardsmen! It's mind boggling. They have left, literally, millions of dollars on the table in squandered opportunity. Moreso, they have utterly and totally failed the gaming community in this arena.
It's not like they can't do it. The Dark Eldar line shows it's totally possible for them to make good looking and gender-diverse models. They just decided we didn't want them; and they decided so because, presumably, they didn't feel like making them.
Rightfully, someone smaller and faster got there first and are now reaping the rewards of this overripe demographic, moving models at literally Forge World prices with minimal complaints (and those are generally about shipping and the minutiae of the Kickstarter, not the sculpts base price or quality).
Do you think this will influence 40k, and WHFB? Have you found other games systems do better in this, and have been more or less successful? Infinity, I believe, already is pretty well represented in gender. Share with the class.
99 reasons to be !@#$ed with GW.
Females ain't one.
1. If I want female IG, I can get at least a regiment if I so chose. GW has shown time and again that they are not interested in gamers, only in cash. To them, us plebes are unworthy of respect, nor our opinion warranted. You will buy like a good little consumer and enjoy what is put before you.
2. Female "scifi" troopers have been done to death. I participated in a project long ago where I threw in with the female Cadian project many moons ago. It was a success, regardless of personal opinions. I can get them from any number of sources, and if I might be so blunt- The market is full of them. Mongoose, Hasslefree, Raging Heros, the hundred and one offs, Reaper, etc. GW wants to jack around, who am I to rage against the machine. I'll take my business elsewhere. Incidentally- there is nothing stopping me from taking my old cadian girls and casting them.
3. As much as I like some more female scifi troops, that raging hero project looks like a mismatched load of gak. They do not gel as a unit, so in some ways they take away the same old tired and drive home the seriousness of how much of a "real" need that is really out there. I like tank Girl as much as the next guy, but in the way in which this company has outright just rolled out the cliché line of gak, I'm not seeing "Serious" scifi girls, but standard issue box of cheesecake. A couple, sure. Maybe two or three per platoon, not a whole army of mismatched T and A.
3. As much as I like some more female scifi troops, that raging hero project looks like a mismatched load of gak. They do not gel as a unit, so in some ways they take away the same old tired and drive home the seriousness of how much of a "real" need that is really out there. I like tank Girl as much as the next guy, but in the way in which this company has outright just rolled out the cliché line of gak, I'm not seeing "Serious" scifi girls, but standard issue box of cheesecake. A couple, sure. Maybe two or three per platoon, not a whole army of mismatched T and A.
I'm not sure if we're looking at the same Kickstarter,,,
The Jailbirds are mismatched, certainly, but in the same way that GW's Catachans and Penal troops are... They're supposed to be ragtag and non-uniform. But there's still a strong underlying aesthetic that ties them all together. And the other two factions have a very strong theme tying them all together.
Purely design-wise, this Kickstarter is one of the most professional and squared away that I've seen to date.
Agree. The design is great. It just sucks that the management and communication so far has left a lot to be desired. Still early, so here's hoping.
Related, but not entirely--- Have they said which models are in metal and which aren't yet? Or is it listed next to them and I just am blind and don't see it?
Well, it could possibly help with their sales. Imagine having to buy 3 or 4 boxes of IG infantry just so you can build your one gender army with all official models!
... Kinda like how it is for us (sex-deprived) DE players... really...
cincydooley wrote: Related, but not entirely--- Have they said which models are in metal and which aren't yet? Or is it listed next to them and I just am blind and don't see it?
If it's posted, I have not yet seen that either.
Also, going back to the topic - we should maybe not be conflating the Jailbirds faction with the other 2/3rds of the kickstarter.
Baronyu wrote: Well, it could possibly help with their sales. Imagine having to buy 3 or 4 boxes of IG infantry just so you can build your one gender army with all official models!
... Kinda like how it is for us (sex-deprived) DE players... really...
NAVARRO wrote: I'm mad at them because they discontinued their only sexy babes!
GW dropped the ball there
GW has proven again and again they have serious problems sculpting females... so they just say its errrr not what customers want Yeah right!
Gorilla hands and oversized anatomic flaws are less forgiving on a delicate female anatomy sculpt.
Not only did they discontinue these sweet figs, the sculptor who made them has left the company. I need to think of something to do with my box of these...
The Sisters were not very successful when GW released them but a lot has changed since then in terms of the game and who plays it and who might be interested in playing it now.
Current sales of the SoB models is no gauge in potential interest for the reasons we are all familiar with.
Perhaps once GW gets all the big toys for kiddies released they will get back to making real wargaming minis and redo the SoB.
cincydooley wrote: Agree. The design is great. It just sucks that the management and communication so far has left a lot to be desired. Still early, so here's hoping.
Related, but not entirely--- Have they said which models are in metal and which aren't yet? Or is it listed next to them and I just am blind and don't see it?
I thought I had read that the characters would be metal, the others would be resin, but I can't find a quote to back that up.
On topic: I think, Ouze, that you're a bit...intense...in your views on sexism in gaming, but for all that, I agree with your basic opinion on this issue. (Games Workshop needs badly to have some quality female models, and the wargaming community wants these models. The success of the Raging Heroes Kickstarter is decent evidence of that fact.)
Do I think the Raging Heroes Kickstarter will have an effect on Games Workshop? Not really. They are the Galapagos tortoises of the industry. Big, solid, long-lived, and slow to change. I'd like for them to take notice eventually, and I'd like for it to affect the larger gaming community as well.
I think one of the reasons this kickstarter is going as well as it is would be due to GW not producing the figures that people want to buy. People want a Sisters army or female IG. GW hasn't updated the sculpts in many years and they're metal where they can be found. Now a company comes along with figures that fit the need and don't weigh a ton in stuffed into a foam case and you complain? What am I missing here?
Jimsolo wrote: I thought I had read that the characters would be metal, the others would be resin, but I can't find a quote to back that up.
You got it right. They stated it in the kickstarter somewhere. Near the bottom they also have a note about moving to plastic should the KS go really well. What that means exactly, nobody knows. :/
Baronyu wrote: Well, it could possibly help with their sales. Imagine having to buy 3 or 4 boxes of IG infantry just so you can build your one gender army with all official models!
... Kinda like how it is for us (sex-deprived) DE players... really...
Perfect article... It not only shows why the "bewb armor" is impractical and ineffective but would actually hurt or kill the person wearing it.
Cheesecake is just that, and many people see it as pointless trash. Don't confuse the market for female models with that for cheesecake models.
Agreed that cheesecake and female models are not exclusively tied together.
I would love to know what the qualifications of the person who wrote the above article are. I didn't spend too long, but it seems that they are, at best, an artist with an interest in the subject. Not an armorer, not a doctor, not a physicist. I ask, because this, and this exist. And were insisted on by all of my fiancee's fencing instructors, especially when she started with the heavier weapons.
Perfect article... It not only shows why the "bewb armor" is impractical and ineffective but would actually hurt or kill the person wearing it.
Cheesecake is just that, and many people see it as pointless trash. Don't confuse the market for female models with that for cheesecake models.
Agreed that cheesecake and female models are not exclusively tied together.
I would love to know what the qualifications of the person who wrote the above article are. I didn't spend too long, but it seems that they are, at best, an artist with an interest in the subject. Not an armorer, not a doctor, not a physicist. I ask, because this, and this exist. And were insisted on by all of my fiancee's fencing instructors, especially when she started with the heavier weapons.
~Eric
Anyone with any background in martial arts, military service, or law enforcement knows that male and female body armor are different.
Trying to convince people who live entirely within what they think things "should be like" is utter futility.
Anyone with any background in martial arts, military service, or law enforcement knows that male and female body armor are different.
Trying to convince people who live entirely within what they think things "should be like" is utter futility.
I haven't really been following so I might be wrong, I just like to read your posts.
But, aren't most people that are arguing otherwise basically saying that the armour isn't really different "enough" to really identify it in a mini?
I mean, in that case, they are entirely correct right?
Nerds into wargaming seem to be fixated on the armour showing off a pair of massive jugs, and that obviously isn't the case.
Now, you and I both know that they are different in reality, because girls have different body armor in the military and you served in the USMC and I STRADDLE THE BATTLEFIELD LIKE A MIGHTY COLOSSUS, but if we are just discussing how it is represented on the tabletop, then the differences actually are negligible aren't they?
I mean, sure girls have different ballistic vests, fencing armor and possibly even plate mail, but its not cut in half down the middle and then bolted together to leave a nice gap for some great cleavage and some sexy abs, and I think thats the point people are wanting to make!
It's going to be rather more obvious that the torso under the vest is shaped rather differently than that of your average man. This may be hard to do at 25mm scale, which I think was the reason for the exaggerated features on SoB armor.
Perfect article... It not only shows why the "bewb armor" is impractical and ineffective but would actually hurt or kill the person wearing it.
Cheesecake is just that, and many people see it as pointless trash. Don't confuse the market for female models with that for cheesecake models.
Agreed that cheesecake and female models are not exclusively tied together.
I would love to know what the qualifications of the person who wrote the above article are. I didn't spend too long, but it seems that they are, at best, an artist with an interest in the subject. Not an armorer, not a doctor, not a physicist. I ask, because this, and this exist. And were insisted on by all of my fiancee's fencing instructors, especially when she started with the heavier weapons.
~Eric
My ex- was a national fencer - those hard plates are worn below the thick, padded suit and armour they wear. It's more to prevent any injuries should the point break through both layers and/or if the blade snaps. It's designed with modern fencing and "casual safety" in mind as opposed to actual combat.
Edit:
mattyrm wrote: and you served in the USMC and I STRADDLE THE BATTLEFIELD LIKE A MIGHTY COLOSSUS
I got a decent chuckle out of this after seeing your Dakka rank.
Nerds into wargaming seem to be fixated on the armour showing off a pair of massive jugs, and that obviously isn't the case.
But there is a difference between "stripper" and "recognisably female". I think there is a gap in the market for female characters who look plausible within the role and genre they're meant to be in, by artists who understand that you don't have to default to "sexy" to make a woman look impressive or interesting.
But that example of a 'female breastplate' was the equivalent of a 'cup'. So every male model who wears a cup needs a giant, exterior, over exaggerated, penis-shaped massive piece to make the model look male?
By time you wear anything over the 'female cup' you won't even see the 'bewbs' and the outer armor for a fantasy-armor would be either a regular breastplate or a corseted breastplate, and in scifi, would be flack armor, which has slightly different dimensions, but not one to accentuate female curves like in the cheesecake models we see.
Make those models. At 28mm the distinction is almost non-visible, just slightly different body dimensions. That is what GW should sneak into their sprues, not more bewbs.
nkelsch wrote: So every male model who wears a cup needs a giant, exterior, over exaggerated, penis-shaped massive piece to make the model look male?
Please don't put words in my mouth. You sited that article as the be-all-end-all argument as to why those types of armor don't exist. I asked (and still haven't heard) what the author's qualifications were to write it. Then posited a reason that it might not be the be-all-end-all that you thought.
Make those models. At 28mm the distinction is almost non-visible, just slightly different body dimensions. That is what GW should sneak into their sprues, not more bewbs.
There are a few of those out there. But when we (as wargamers, especially sci-fi/fantasy ones) discuss females in armor, we are usually not talking about an armored vest over baggy clothes. I agree that these have their place (and it looks like Hasslefree are making at least a couple).
Also, a lot of folks have fallen back on the position that the people who want visually distinct female models are just looking for cheesecake (or are socially slowed mouth-breathers who just want to see miniature "bewbs"). Which is wrong, and usually when espoused, done so in the most offensive way possible.
Hasslefree has other female sci-fi models in body armor that are pretty much what I have been asking for (other decent examples are Sedition Wars Vanguard {although some take issue with their posing} , and Mantic's Void Siren female Dreadball team). These are armored, and visually discernible from the male models at a distance of a couple of feet, which would be the typical distance that these models are viewed at.
Enigwolf wrote:
My ex- was a national fencer - those hard plates are worn below the thick, padded suit and armour they wear. It's more to prevent any injuries should the point break through both layers and/or if the blade snaps. It's designed with modern fencing and "casual safety" in mind as opposed to actual combat.
Yeah, I know. I have watched the odd match or two and there was more than one fall, with no catastrophic injury. Which, given the hypothesis of the article quoted, and the fact that these are worn in close proximity to the skin, should not be the case. I concede that the fact that these are plastic plays a role in the lack of injuries.
TL;DR: Not everyone who wants visibly female models is looking for cheesecake (or "bewbs"), so please stop reducing the discussion to that.
Perfect article... It not only shows why the "bewb armor" is impractical and ineffective but would actually hurt or kill the person wearing it.
Cheesecake is just that, and many people see it as pointless trash. Don't confuse the market for female models with that for cheesecake models.
The current GWIG and SMs are beefcake. If people like that exaggerated male form they may also relish the exaggerated female form.
Or not.
Yes, there probably is the opportunity to do "realistic" female soldiers, but they also need to be recognisably not male soldiers, or what is the point? I don't think that can be achieved just be making them a bit shorter. There has to be something done with the body form to make it female without being cheesecake.
nkelsch wrote: So every male model who wears a cup needs a giant, exterior, over exaggerated, penis-shaped massive piece to make the model look male?
Please don't put words in my mouth. You sited that article as the be-all-end-all argument as to why those types of armor don't exist. I asked (and still haven't heard) what the author's qualifications were to write it. Then posited a reason that it might not be the be-all-end-all that you thought.
Yeah I think most people that frequent the forum realized a long time ago that almost every time a sentence starts with "So every..." it winds up being a strawman.
mattyrm wrote: Now, you and I both know that they are different in reality, because girls have different body armor in the military and you served in the USMC and I STRADDLE THE BATTLEFIELD LIKE A MIGHTY COLOSSUS, but if we are just discussing how it is represented on the tabletop, then the differences actually are negligible aren't they?
We're just getting around to this on this side of the pond, actually. Females have been wearing the 'male' plate carriers/vests since the start of the late unpleasantness, and we're finally issuing a 'female' version. The issue, of course, ain't the bewbage, but the fact that they're designed for the longer male torso and thus tend to either dig into the female's hips or jut up into the chin when mounted up.
Has the company that made Infinity ever said much about it?
I was looking through their website a couple of weeks ago and they're one of the few miniature companies that seem to have (in my mind) a sensible ratio of male to female minis. It might be only 1 in every 4-6, but you definitely notice the presence.
Admittedly, they do tend to suffer from the Hawkeye problem...
Alternatively, I'm wondering about the popularity of the Dreadball Void Sirens team, compared to the other season teams.
Truth be told, the Raging Heroes models seem a bit too stripperific to me.
... I don't get the hawkeye problem, trying to pose a male in a female sexy pose looks stupid because the bodies are different so is what is regarded as "sexy", I feel it fails to convey what they wanted to convey.
PsychoticStorm wrote: ... I don't get the hawkeye problem, trying to pose a male in a female sexy pose looks stupid because the bodies are different so is what is regarded as "sexy", I feel it fails to convey what they wanted to convey.
It's a feminist blog on tumblr, they typically miss the mark on a lot of things. Nothing new to see in that case.
I didn't like it to be honest, I understand the exercise but keeping the original costume is too problematic, they should try fully clothed and keeping the spirit and not the form of the original design.
Interesting that I'd just read this thread earlier, then, while going through a bunch of stuff that a friend gave me when he moved and had gotten out of the hobby, I found something I'd not even known I had. A nice, pristine, female Commissar.
shade1313 wrote: Interesting that I'd just read this thread earlier, then, while going through a bunch of stuff that a friend gave me when he moved and had gotten out of the hobby, I found something I'd not even known I had. A nice, pristine, female Commissar.
I am not persuaded the cheesecake raging heroes are going to resonate with a lot of female gamers. Women I have talked to like the wood elfs sculpts because they are pretty and feminine, over the top stuff that appeals to teenage boys is not all that appealing to them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grot 6 wrote: Nobody wants to see a meh hero. She better be stacked, she better show leg and be in shape.
So then, you linked to a picture of two over weight cos play women because you think their weight problem is entertaining in some way. You do realize this is a wargaming forum, right. Have you ever been to a tournament or in a hobby shop full of 40K gamers? What percentage of 40k players would you say are over weight? Obese even?
JWhex wrote: I am not persuaded the cheesecake raging heroes are going to resonate with a lot of female gamers. Women I have talked to like the wood elfs sculpts because they are pretty and feminine, over the top stuff that appeals to teenage boys is not all that appealing to them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grot 6 wrote: Nobody wants to see a meh hero. She better be stacked, she better show leg and be in shape.
So then, you linked to a picture of two over weight cos play women because you think their weight problem is entertaining in some way. You do realize this is a wargaming forum, right. Have you ever been to a tournament or in a hobby shop full of 40K gamers? What percentage of 40k players would you say are over weight? Obese even?
So I made these two examples up now? They aren't real? Entertaining as in- Argue about semantics, or Entertain because art doesn't imitate life?
Percentages of what sells is what you really need to cry me a river over. Cheesecake= $$$$. THAT is the point. No one is going to buy miniatures of my two stellar examples, so don't take this in any other direction and cry foul like you have an issue. YOU being clever made my point about the look of real people as opposed to figures, exactly.
shade1313 wrote: Interesting that I'd just read this thread earlier, then, while going through a bunch of stuff that a friend gave me when he moved and had gotten out of the hobby, I found something I'd not even known I had. A nice, pristine, female Commissar.
Score!
What.
I'm just not sure which IG army to paint her up for. I don't want to alter her to fit into the Renegade/Chaos IG army, she lacks the gasmask for DKoK, and as it stands, she'd be the sole Commissar in my Elysians.
Percentages of what sells is what you really need to cry me a river over. Cheesecake= $$$$. THAT is the point.
Cheesecake may = $$$$, but that doesn't mean GW or PP should alter their business model to sell cheesecake, especially since their audience includes kids. PP has very reasonable female models, and outside GW's daemonetts (which I have seen banned in stores due to complaints) the female models GW makes are also basic.
People claim anyone not making female rank and file is leaving money on the table, but I do not think Hasslefree miniatures will sell 400k of their realistic rank and file. People apparently want T&A with absurd stripper poses and that is best monopolized on by fringe specialty mini makers, not companies trying to produce a core line of miniatures for customers which include kids.
So then, you linked to a picture of two over weight cos play women because you think their weight problem is entertaining in some way. You do realize this is a wargaming forum, right. Have you ever been to a tournament or in a hobby shop full of 40K gamers? What percentage of 40k players would you say are over weight? Obese even?
The particular shops I go to with 40k gamers have very few obese people. Though that of course does not preclude them from ridicule as well. Obesity in general is a bad thing but fun to make jokes about.
Percentages of what sells is what you really need to cry me a river over. Cheesecake= $$$$. THAT is the point.
Cheesecake may = $$$$, but that doesn't mean GW or PP should alter their business model to sell cheesecake, especially since their audience includes kids. PP has very reasonable female models, and outside GW's daemonetts (which I have seen banned in stores due to complaints) the female models GW makes are also basic.
People claim anyone not making female rank and file is leaving money on the table, but I do not think Hasslefree miniatures will sell 400k of their realistic rank and file. People apparently want T&A with absurd stripper poses and that is best monopolized on by fringe specialty mini makers, not companies trying to produce a core line of miniatures for customers which include kids.
Yes, but this is where the conversation is going to leave the realms of gaming and go into the heady realm of philosophy. I mean, I think that the current GW models are fine, but who are you, or militant feminists to decide exactly what should and shouldn't be sold in stores?
I mean, I don't buy cheesy baps out models, I only play SM, and I don't like the look of the slutty models, I'm so fond of the fluff, I like the soldiers to look like proper gritty, grimy, fighting women. Such as Mira in SM, although, she was a veteran, Id have made her a bit uglier and added a few scars personally, but hey.. each to their own surely?
On this topic, and innumerable other ones, I absolutely hate the holier than thou attitude of many people in society. Be it militant feminists, gay rights campaigners, or anything else. I certainly believe that women should be more empowered, and that we should probably go for a middle ground between ridiculous dress like a post box militant Islam and ridiculous FHM boobs out all over the place Western society, but I don't think that its a black and white issue, or that blokes who like to read FHM (I would rather read a toothpaste tube frankly) are "wrong" or should be purged from the earth.
Different strokes for different folks, I certainly don't want a commissar in suspenders, but Jesus, its hardly pronography is it? Nobody is talking about Brother Vinnis truly ridiculous "Ukrainian slave girl" here, its just, sexy birds in knickers and unzipped jackets and that isn't it?
I personally think she's a nutcase. I also don't personally believe that I, or anyone else, has the right to interfere with someone saying something that I may find offensive or objectionable. I'm not fond of the notion that people have a right to be protected from things that offend them.
Yes, but this is where the conversation is going to leave the realms of gaming and go into the heady realm of philosophy. I mean, I think that the current GW models are fine, but who are you, or militant feminists to decide exactly what should and shouldn't be sold in stores?
I don't have a problem with them existing, but I do not think it is 'wise' for companies making mainstream models for an audience which includes kids to expand their universe to 'cheesecake' or 'pornographic' models simply because money can be possibly made there. It isn't smart business. Of all GW's models, the bare-chested human-looking daemonettes with nipples crossed a line in our area which made stores take action. The newer ones are less human, less realistic, void of exposed nipples and have a more abstract daemonic look which is more reasonable for a model line who includes kids and teens. GW got real feedback about it, and I think it is interesting as it was referred to as GW's *ONLY* sexy model they have ever made... That is kinda the point. GW doesn't make sexy models. And consumers give retailers feedback who give companies feedback.
I think that it is fine if people want to make and buy models, I just disagree that it should be forced into mainstream model lines or manufacturers. I think a large number of the Raging heroes models are absurd for no reason. Their newest unlock is an amazingly cool tank-hunter, armor clad female in a reasonable pose with awesome weapons... And a pointlessly absurd 'bewbplate' for no reason. If that was just a featureless armor plate, the model would still be feminine and cool, but the need for bewbplate ruins the model.
Some people like it, more power to them. I just don't agree that GW or PP need to learn a lesson from this KS and instantly release a line of cheesecake female models to please a select group of adults who can simply go elsewhere to get what they want.
As for the lady suing about magazines... I don't know the laws in the UK, if she has legal ground, it is up for her to make a case in court.
In the US, those magazines already have to come bagged with a black cover to hide the cover and block access to the interior. So the law already requires pornographic materials to be censored if displayed or sold in stores. People get what they want, people who don't want to be exposed to it, are not, the world keeps spinning.
nkelsch wrote: and I think it is interesting as it was referred to as GW's *ONLY* sexy model they have ever made...
The slave girls from the 3rd edition Asdrubael Vect model beg to differ.
Just repeating what someone in the thread stated and it happens to be the model which retailers declined to stock and didn't allow in stores and have since been re-sculpted into a less provocative design.
nkelsch wrote: As for the lady suing about magazines... I don't know the laws in the UK, if she has legal ground, it is up for her to make a case in court.
In the US, those magazines already have to come bagged with a black cover to hide the cover and block access to the interior. So the law already requires pornographic materials to be censored if displayed or sold in stores. People get what they want, people who don't want to be exposed to it, are not, the world keeps spinning.
Yeah you're getting lads mags confused with porn mate, en easy mistake though obviously.
In Britain, a "lads mag" is like FHM or Maxim or something, its nothing like porn, its just birds in bikinis and fashion and sport and gak. The porn is already sold the same way in the UK as it is in the US.
Its why I take issue with her, its fine to say that about porn, but not women in bikinis. How is showing a really attractive woman in a bikini making "women" sex objects? Its just showing sexy people as sex objects.. which they are!
If you are very sexy, then you are surely by definition a sex object to people that find your sex attractive? I mean, you are loads of other things as well.. a father, a mother, a butcher, a baker, a good or bad driver, but you are an object of lust to people that find you attractive, it just seems a really silly thing to say, and I don't think womens mags with blokes with six packs on the cover makes me feel like "men" are all sex objects either.
There's female Eldar guardians without over-exaggerated features (and because I have many of the old Guardian+metal bits Dire Avengers, many of my Dire Avengers are female too). And Howling Banshees... they don't have high heels or exposed T&A.
Breotan wrote: I want to punch this entire discussion thread in the face. Is this really what get's you guys up in arms? Cheesecake?
First world problems...
First world problems? First world problems are agonizing over losing weight meanwhile wondering which large value meal from McDonald's you want next right after you boycott Walmart for uncompetitive wages while wearing made in third world nation clothes.
Breotan wrote: I want to punch this entire discussion thread in the face. Is this really what get's you guys up in arms? Cheesecake?
First world problems...
So there is no point in discussions pretty much anything because there is genocide in Africa? As long as there is kids dying in the street from Aids somewhere in the world there is no reason to discuss miniatures or opinions on them?
Yakface should know this info so he can shut down dakkadakka immediately and donate every penny used to run this server to solve real problems.
Breotan wrote: WarOne, I'm pretty sure arguing sexism in regards to tiny toy soldiers qualifies as First World Problems.
Not to belabor a very silly point, but it is passing possible for someone to have, say, deep policy discussions about the impact of IP law on the development of sustainable antiviral regimes in light of genome drift in sub-Saharan Africa's HIV subtype distributions...
and also like talking about tiny little soldiers.
How about we all agree to limit out discussions of matters to the relevant discussion areas, and in that spirit, talk about miniatures, oh, say, here? What with it being a miniature gaming forum and not our actual jobs.
______________________________________________
And to contribute to this thread (which in fairness is also rather silly), I must say that the really great thing about the TGG campaign is that it presents 3 different archetypes of females.
The Jailbait division, the Kurganovas who bare a rather remarkable resemblance to what might be regarded as real tactical gear.
And the Iron Empire, where femininity is drowned in armor as dehumanizing as Darth Vader's.
It's often said by feminists that they don't want to take anything away, and yet...
Yet is always seems that the only thing they can see is the thing they don't want. TGG would seem an ideal project from a feminist perspective: I can think of no other gaming system that will offer such a continuum of options for representing female characters.
And yet, one can still find the complaints of "oh, chainmail bikinis..."
i find this thread, and men's objections to the sculpts, silly because i'm from the beach, where women choose to wear thongs and tiny tops...
every single RH mini has on more clothes than half the women in my town on any given day...
which is a beautiful thing, because i get to flirt with them in the water, and at my shop...
then i come home and paint Space Marines...
as was pointed out before, it's not like we are talking about a line of minis that are nude, and disempowered, like Vinni's slave girls...
these are empowered women, one faction of whom, happen to look like Tank Girl...
seems more Punk than "stripperific"...
the cries of cheesecake for RH, and even Infinity, don't make sense to me...
when did it become wrong for a man to be attracted to women???
when did it become perverse for a man to like pin-ups, and be spoken of as if he was championing Dutch farm animal porn???
i see women who want to be sexy everyday, by their own choice, not because a man told them to be...
if some women are offended by sexy minis, fine...
let them come in here and protest, but i really don't see what has the dudes in this thread up in arms...
personally, i like my ORC trooper with combat heels from Infinity, and i like the RH line...
it doesn't make me treat my girlfriend with any less respect, and i'm sure as hell not going to turn her down to go have a moment by myself in the closet with my Daktari...
Breotan wrote: WarOne, I'm pretty sure arguing sexism in regards to tiny toy soldiers qualifies as First World Problems.
You've got a point.
It would be like my Vietnamese friend getting upset because minis portray Asians in offensive kung-fu poses or as squinty-eyed, buck-toothed midgets. Big name artists keep trying to explain to him that those stereotypes sell better than competent soldiers who happen to be Asian, and besides, there is no other way to differentiate Asians from non-Asians in 28mm scale. You can't see Epicanthic folds across the table. He might as well just say his Cadians are Asian, even if their facial structure looks obviously Caucasian. Purposely-sculpted Asian minis would never sell enough to pay off their masters and molds, and how many Asian wargamers are there, anyway?
He doesn't get that talking about racism and toy soldiers is just a First World Problem.
EDIT: Jah-Joshua, did you just describe the penal legion as empowered? That seems...odd.
Kanluwen wrote: I have the Sisters of Avelorn/Shadow Warrior kit.
There is a significant difference in terms of the body. It's not illustrated well in the pictures.
Females should have wider hips than shoulders.
No matter how badly illustrated the picture is will not change that very very very basic fact.
GW have much to learn about females. There are simply no reason for Avelorn kit to not have better ratio female bodies.
jah-joshua wrote: i find this thread, and men's objections to the sculpts, silly because i'm from the beach, where women choose to wear thongs and tiny tops...
every single RH mini has on more clothes than half the women in my town on any given day...
which is a beautiful thing, because i get to flirt with them in the water, and at my shop...
then i come home and paint Space Marines...
as was pointed out before, it's not like we are talking about a line of minis that are nude, and disempowered, like Vinni's slave girls...
these are empowered women, one faction of whom, happen to look like Tank Girl...
seems more Punk than "stripperific"...
the cries of cheesecake for RH, and even Infinity, don't make sense to me...
when did it become wrong for a man to be attracted to women???
when did it become perverse for a man to like pin-ups, and be spoken of as if he was championing Dutch farm animal porn???
i see women who want to be sexy everyday, by their own choice, not because a man told them to be...
if some women are offended by sexy minis, fine...
let them come in here and protest, but i really don't see what has the dudes in this thread up in arms...
personally, i like my ORC trooper with combat heels from Infinity, and i like the RH line...
it doesn't make me treat my girlfriend with any less respect, and i'm sure as hell not going to turn her down to go have a moment by myself in the closet with my Daktari...
cheers
jah
Hmm and I respect that! a man doesn't get freaked out by female sculpt like some over protective mother,nor does he act like
a 40 year old virgin, nicely said jah.
@Bob: yes, i would consider a woman with a gun to be more empowered then one that is chained up...
though my rant did kind of miss the topic...
in my experience, GW is not very good at sculpting females, so i am not angry (unlike the OP) that GW has left the female Cadians to other companies...
i own most of the females GW has produced, and they are all horrible sculpts, aside from their rarity and collectability...
Lelith is probably their best piece, and the only one i will probably actually paint any time soon...
now that GW lost Juan, who would sculpt good females for them???
Jes does alright, and Darren's new Elf Maiden looks cool...
i know they have Steve Buddle on staff, and he did some great females for his Spyglass line...
i don't know, maybe GW could surprise me and do some good Guard girls...
given their track record with human females, i would say probably not...
i have the female Catachan, and the female Commissar, and they are both pretty bad sculpts, and the Last Chancer girls weren't much better...
Kilkrazy wrote: The fact is, GW are bad at making realistic male sculpts, because they design everything to fit the "heroic 28mm" scale.
GW cannot even make realistic looking SM. Literature and fluff depicts them as having equine features, distorted skulls and facial musculature. I demand realistic looking Genetic Space Freaks™ before we even get to decently proportioned male sculpts, let alone bewbage.
Kanluwen wrote: I have the Sisters of Avelorn/Shadow Warrior kit.
There is a significant difference in terms of the body. It's not illustrated well in the pictures.
Females should have wider hips than shoulders.
No matter how badly illustrated the picture is will not change that very very very basic fact.
GW have much to learn about females.
I've met plenty of women who do not have wider hips than shoulders. I believe it's referred to as inverted triangle body shape and is fairly common, especially among athletic girls.
Hmm and I respect that! a man doesn't get freaked out by female sculpt like some over protective mother,nor does he act like
a 40 year old virgin, nicely said jah.
Productive, try to insult anyone who disagrees with you and paint them as ignorant.
Some of us would rather realistic representations of females in combat. Some of us don't feel the need to sexualize our figure collection which is often used with kids. And no matter how you slice it, It does objectify women, underboob is not empowering and if I had half those minis on my desk at work, I would be cited for sexual harassment.
Look up Brosie the Riviter... Men as well as women were bothered by the situation.
No one is saying these models can't or shouldn't be made, it is more of certain people saying "How dare you not like them or have a problem with them? These are the female models we all want!"
Well they aren't. If there was a full line of realistic females in combat which I wouldn't be ashamed buying for my nieces, I would get them. RH is absurd and not empowering at all. Hasslefree miniature's female sculpts are the perfect example of realistic and equal representations, and that is what I want to see more of. (I totally know hasslefree has all sorts of nude and cheesecake, which is fine, but they also make alternatives which is also good)
I agree with Jah and Lunua though, because it goes back to what I said earlier about the chick wanting to ban lads mags.
Thats FHM, not porn or anything.
We have fething minority rules in our nations, because we have really aggressive, really well organized little mobs who make all the rules, because the majority just don't get up in arms about everything.
At the end of the day, the vast majority of women are not offended by lads mags, or models with their tits out.
So.. what's the problem? If you are a militant feminist, dont play them, dont touch them, don't look at them, and whinge about it so more realistic/masculine models of women get made, but dont proper spit your dummy out about something that most women don't get themselves worked up over.
I don't like T&A models either, I dont own any and I wouldn't buy one, I get nothing out of them considering I play SM and I've got no interest in painting them anyway.. and as for looking, I've got wway better T&A stuff to look at than minis.
I just don't see the massive fuss, and most women don't either lets have it said. I certainly cant understand all the men getting offended on behalf of the tiny amount of women that might be offended, that makes feth all sense at all.
Hmm and I respect that! a man doesn't get freaked out by female sculpt like some over protective mother,nor does he act like
a 40 year old virgin, nicely said jah.
Productive, try to insult anyone who disagrees with you and paint them as ignorant.
Some of us would rather realistic representations of females in combat. Some of us don't feel the need to sexualize our figure collection which is often used with kids. And no matter how you slice it, It does objectify women, underboob is not empowering and if I had half those minis on my desk at work, I would be cited for sexual harassment.
Look up Brosie the Riviter... Men as well as women were bothered by the situation.
No one is saying these models can't or shouldn't be made, it is more of certain people saying "How dare you not like them or have a problem with them? These are the female models we all want!"
Well they aren't. If there was a full line of realistic females in combat which I wouldn't be ashamed buying for my nieces, I would get them. RH is absurd and not empowering at all. Hasslefree miniature's female sculpts are the perfect example of realistic and equal representations, and that is what I want to see more of. (I totally know hasslefree has all sorts of nude and cheesecake, which is fine, but they also make alternatives which is also good)
Glossing over the silly claims presented, the problem with the "realistic" female soldier is...
That figure looks pretty much exactly like my friends in the service. Who are of average human build and very male. The style of male figures has led meany to forget the average infantryman in reality is not a 19' bull-necked juggernaut with biceps like tree trunks. In a universe of He-Man men, a realistic figure like that merely looks like a boy or handsome youth. And thus, in order to have an unquestionably recognizably female character, it must be exaggerated.
Hence, sculpted breastplates and so on, exaggerations in service to a greater goal, of making the female characters recognizable as female.
Hmm and I respect that! a man doesn't get freaked out by female sculpt like some over protective mother,nor does he act like
a 40 year old virgin, nicely said jah.
Productive, try to insult anyone who disagrees with you and paint them as ignorant.
Some of us would rather realistic representations of females in combat. Some of us don't feel the need to sexualize our figure collection which is often used with kids. And no matter how you slice it, It does objectify women, underboob is not empowering and if I had half those minis on my desk at work, I would be cited for sexual harassment.
Look up Brosie the Riviter... Men as well as women were bothered by the situation.
No one is saying these models can't or shouldn't be made, it is more of certain people saying "How dare you not like them or have a problem with them? These are the female models we all want!"
Well they aren't. If there was a full line of realistic females in combat which I wouldn't be ashamed buying for my nieces, I would get them. RH is absurd and not empowering at all. Hasslefree miniature's female sculpts are the perfect example of realistic and equal representations, and that is what I want to see more of. (I totally know hasslefree has all sorts of nude and cheesecake, which is fine, but they also make alternatives which is also good)
Glossing over the silly claims presented, the problem with the "realistic" female soldier is...
That figure looks pretty much exactly like my friends in the service. Who are of average human build and very male. The style of male figures has led meany to forget the average infantryman in reality is not a 19' bull-necked juggernaut with biceps like tree trunks. In a universe of He-Man men, a realistic figure like that merely looks like a boy or handsome youth. And thus, in order to have an unquestionably recognizably female character, it must be exaggerated.
Hence, sculpted breastplates and so on, exaggerations in service to a greater goal, of making the female characters recognizable as female.
Yeah that was my point, with minis, they are so small, you can't even tell the difference between a man and a woman if they are ready for combat.. you can't in real life! I used to see USMC together in Baghdad and from more than 50 yards away you couldn't tell the difference in ballistic goggles, body armour, webbing and such, so what's the point anyway?
Maybe they make them super exaggeratedly female so you can tell the difference on the tabletop?
I just don't see the massive fuss, and most women don't either lets have it said. I certainly cant understand all the men getting offended on behalf of the tiny amount of women that might be offended, that makes feth all sense at all.
It's a sliding scale though.
My wife bought me the first Werner Klocke 'Army Brat' model because I love that figure and she will one day be a counts-as Sly in my imperial guard. My wife rolled her eyes at the model but said 'sure, I can see why you like it, it's cute'.
Then again, she was not amused at the 'eldar rape scene' diorama, because whilst yes you can say these things happen in war, so does 'child covered in agent orange, burning alive' and I'd no more want to see that as a diorama in a fantasy game, some aspects of war are things we'd rather just leave out of our games and painting, no matter how 'dark' we want them. There's a reason why folks want a framed picture of a hurricane or spitfire hanging in the living room and not a well painted oil of Belsen prison camp inmates digging their own graves.
I think the 'tits on armor' is fine, it actually shows they are girls, it's a visual clue for something standing 28mm high. I find bared breasts a bit stupid looking and reeking of that basement dweller stereotype, although strangely I own and am not bothered by the daemonettes, perhaps because they are a succubus/eldritch thing and so the breasts are part of the model's background and lore and make sense.
I think attractive minis is to be expected, it's all mostly harmless. I think certain things, and brother vinni's Ukrainian slave girl, not for it's sculpt, which I find a bit ott, but for it's naming, given the terrible problem of female abduction in the Ukraine, and also it's depiction of an actual woman imprisoned for opposing Russian interests, cross a line of decency that puts the fairly poor reputation of the hobby into a worse light and I find to be in extremely poor taste.
To the raging heroes minis? Haven't seen them 'in the flesh' yet, but I do know I love the drawings, especially the convicts, and I've been a tank girl fan since I bought the first edition of Deadline, she came out of the Riotgrrrl movement and a post-punk sexually liberated, openly violent and fun seeking female youth in the early 90s. Nothing exploitative about it, more liberating really.
I just don't see the massive fuss, and most women don't either lets have it said. I certainly cant understand all the men getting offended on behalf of the tiny amount of women that might be offended, that makes feth all sense at all.
It's a sliding scale though.
My wife bought me the first Werner Klocke 'Army Brat' model because I love that figure and she will one day be a counts-as Sly in my imperial guard. My wife rolled her eyes at the model but said 'sure, I can see why you like it, it's cute'.
Then again, she was not amused at the 'eldar rape scene' diorama, because whilst yes you can say these things happen in war, so does 'child covered in agent orange, burning alive' and I'd no more want to see that as a diorama in a fantasy game, some aspects of war are things we'd rather just leave out of our games and painting, no matter how 'dark' we want them. There's a reason why folks want a framed picture of a hurricane or spitfire hanging in the living room and not a well painted oil of Belsen prison camp inmates digging their own graves.
I think the 'tits on armor' is fine, it actually shows they are girls, it's a visual clue for something standing 28mm high. I find bared breasts a bit stupid looking and reeking of that basement dweller stereotype, although strangely I own and am not bothered by the daemonettes, perhaps because they are a succubus/eldritch thing and so the breasts are part of the model's background and lore and make sense.
I think attractive minis is to be expected, it's all mostly harmless. I think certain things, and brother vinni's Ukrainian slave girl, not for it's sculpt, which I find a bit ott, but for it's naming, given the terrible problem of female abduction in the Ukraine, and also it's depiction of an actual woman imprisoned for opposing Russian interests, cross a line of decency that puts the fairly poor reputation of the hobby into a worse light and I find to be in extremely poor taste.
To the raging heroes minis? Haven't seen them 'in the flesh' yet, but I do know I love the drawings, especially the convicts, and I've been a tank girl fan since I bought the first edition of Deadline, she came out of the Riotgrrrl movement and a post-punk sexually liberated, openly violent and fun seeking female youth in the early 90s. Nothing exploitative about it, more liberating really.
I agree almost entirely, I specifically mentioned BV earlier in the thread, because that gak was massively out of order, especially as it was supposed to be a serving politician, it really stunk of old school Soviet propaganda as well, and I wouldn't buy anything he made, because, yeah, why would a soldier fully have her baps out anyway!?
My point was simply that if smelly basement dwellers want to buy baps out models, then they should be allowed... Obviously I wouldn't say the same about honking rape scenes and such, but I don't think anybody did.
I don't see an issue with slutty models is the point is all, and I think we are in the realms of minority rule if we say as much. My missus would think I was a bit of a sad bastard If I bought some of those ridiculous .. er.. I don't even remember the name now.. what was that "boutique horror" Kickstarter that was up a few months back? Tits out Monster horror?
Well, you know what I mean.. I think that gak is laughable for a grown man to want to own personally, but I don't have a problem with its existence, and most women don't either. To answer the thread, then yes there are some negative female representations in gaming, but so what? There are negative male representations too, meanwhile, little girls are having circumcisions at the hands of elderly Muslims IN BRITAIN, Afghan girls are getting acid thrown at them and shot in the head for writing, Africa is rape central.. as many people have said, I just think its a really facile discussion considering exactly what goes on in the world today.
Hmm and I respect that! a man doesn't get freaked out by female sculpt like some over protective mother,nor does he act like
a 40 year old virgin, nicely said jah.
Productive, try to insult anyone who disagrees with you and paint them as ignorant.
Some of us would rather realistic representations of females in combat. Some of us don't feel the need to sexualize our figure collection which is often used with kids. And no matter how you slice it, It does objectify women, underboob is not empowering and if I had half those minis on my desk at work, I would be cited for sexual harassment.
Look up Brosie the Riviter... Men as well as women were bothered by the situation.
No one is saying these models can't or shouldn't be made, it is more of certain people saying "How dare you not like them or have a problem with them? These are the female models we all want!"
Well they aren't. If there was a full line of realistic females in combat which I wouldn't be ashamed buying for my nieces, I would get them. RH is absurd and not empowering at all. Hasslefree miniature's female sculpts are the perfect example of realistic and equal representations, and that is what I want to see more of. (I totally know hasslefree has all sorts of nude and cheesecake, which is fine, but they also make alternatives which is also good)
Glossing over the silly claims presented, the problem with the "realistic" female soldier is...
That figure looks pretty much exactly like my friends in the service. Who are of average human build and very male. The style of male figures has led meany to forget the average infantryman in reality is not a 19' bull-necked juggernaut with biceps like tree trunks. In a universe of He-Man men, a realistic figure like that merely looks like a boy or handsome youth. And thus, in order to have an unquestionably recognizably female character, it must be exaggerated.
Hence, sculpted breastplates and so on, exaggerations in service to a greater goal, of making the female characters recognizable as female.
The feminine aspect of that sculpt is purely the pose. The way the hips are held, in particular. Which is silly, since the appropriate ways to handle infantry weapons change only minutely with respect to gender, and what differences there are exist primarily due to women tending to a lower center of gravity.
mattyrm wrote: I agree almost entirely, I specifically mentioned BV earlier in the thread, because that gak was massively out of order, especially as it was supposed to be a serving politician, it really stunk of old school Soviet propaganda as well, and I wouldn't buy anything he made, because, yeah, why would a soldier fully have her baps out anyway!?
My point was simply that if smelly basement dwellers want to buy baps out models, then they should be allowed... Obviously I wouldn't say the same about honking rape scenes and such, but I don't think anybody did.
I don't see an issue with slutty models is the point is all, and I think we are in the realms of minority rule if we say as much. My missus would think I was a bit of a sad bastard If I bought some of those ridiculous .. er.. I don't even remember the name now.. what was that "boutique horror" Kickstarter that was up a few months back? Tits out Monster horror?
Well, you know what I mean.. I think that gak is laughable for a grown man to want to own personally, but I don't have a problem with its existence, and most women don't either. To answer the thread, then yes there are some negative female representations in gaming, but so what? There are negative male representations too, meanwhile, little girls are having circumcisions at the hands of elderly Muslims IN BRITAIN, Afghan girls are getting acid thrown at them and shot in the head for writing, Africa is rape central.. as many people have said, I just think its a really facile discussion considering exactly what goes on in the world today.
I think you're thinking of kingdom death and that ridiculous 'wetnurse' willy/boobs monster that was really well sculpted but also entirely daft and a bit disgusting. It's telling that it sold out in it's first incarnation as fast as it did.
I personally groan inward when I see that stuff, not because it personally offends, but that it does offend my wife, who's been taking faltering steps into the hobby and who really doesn't like the portrayal of sexual assault as titillation (pardon obvious pun...), I would personally love there to be far more women in wargaming and roleplaying and think they bring much to both hobbies and can see how turned off both my wife and her friends become when confronted with 'boob covered rape monsters' or 'nekkid feth slaves from east europe'.
We are becoming better at this, the stereotypes are dying back, but it's taking a long time, due in part to a continuing adding to the ranks of adolescent males and the continued contributions of some grown men who will never know what it's like to enjoy the company of women, so want tiny erotic dolls to play with. If we could lose the most extreme stuff, the nasty stuff, I don't think many women would begrudge the bubblegum.
On the very last point, there's two sides to that, yes in comparison to real world issues, it's a minor thing, but then again, it can be seen as adding to the overall, reinforcing stereotypes that continue to place women as objects, possessions and property. As I said, I want more women in the hobby, I think they can contribute enormously, we are effectively keeping out about 50% of the population and I would like to see what they could bring to the table, gaming, designing, painting etc, rather than hanging a 'boys only' sign on the treehouse.
I think you're thinking of kingdom death and that ridiculous 'wetnurse' willy/boobs monster that was really well sculpted but also entirely daft and a bit disgusting. It's telling that it sold out in it's first incarnation as fast as it did.
I personally groan inward when I see that stuff, not because it personally offends, but that it does offend my wife, who's been taking faltering steps into the hobby and who really doesn't like the portrayal of sexual assault as titillation (pardon obvious pun...), I would personally love there to be far more women in wargaming and roleplaying and think they bring much to both hobbies and can see how turned off both my wife and her friends become when confronted with 'boob covered rape monsters' or 'nekkid feth slaves from east europe'. ...
With due respect, especially to your wife, the notion that because you find the KD:M aesthetic "daft and a bit disgusting", therefore the quick sellout is an indictment of the consumer is more then just a bit tendentious.
The line of artistic inheritance from Geiger to KD is simple enough to trace, representing as it does a very well established archetype in horror imagery.
Moreover, given the number of people in the comments section of KD:M that said they were a) female and b) enraptured by the models including the female models, it is passing possible that you are not entirely well situated to make pronouncements regarding the likes and dislikes of the female populace.
With due respect, especially to your wife, the notion that because you find the KD:M aesthetic "daft and a bit disgusting", therefore the quick sellout is an indictment of the consumer is more then just a bit tendentious.
The line of artistic inheritance from Geiger to KD is simple enough to trace, representing as it does a very well established archetype in horror imagery.
Moreover, given the number of people in the comments section of KD:M that said they were a) female and b) enraptured by the models including the female models, it is passing possible that you are not entirely well situated to make pronouncements regarding the likes and dislikes of the female populace.
Kingdom Death owes far more to Urotsukidoji than Giger.
Tentacle porn is fairly popular in it's niche, I don't begrudge people indulging in it, I'd just rather they kept it out of the wider wargaming model scene and developed some nice quiet corner of the internet to go swap figures covered in genitals fething each other.
Also, some people on a kickstarter saying they are girls that really like the models (and I don't doubt it, certain KD minis are phenomenally beautiful) does not equal your average 15-30 year old women in the street being stopped and asked 'what do you think of this mountain of tits with a face and three cocks with it's naked female birthing slaves?' having an adverse reaction to it. To suggest that because you found a women somewhere who said 'that's cool' means that I as a man cannot therefore have validity calling it's likely reaction from most women negative, is as silly as it is tenuous.
Hmm and I respect that! a man doesn't get freaked out by female sculpt like some over protective mother,nor does he act like
a 40 year old virgin, nicely said jah.
(nkelsh) Productive, try to insult anyone who disagrees with you and paint them as ignorant.
(me) seriously, nkelsch, how many soapboxes are you standing on...
Luna's post wasn't insulting anyone, or painting anyone as ignorant, but simply respecting my opinion, just as i respect yours...
the problem is that you are stating your opinions as if they are facts...
this is a discussion of subjective opinions, not cold hard facts, and honestly, in my post i was saying that i am the ignorant one...
i honestly don't understand the problem with RH, or even see that there is one...
(nkelsch) Some of us would rather realistic representations of females in combat. Some of us don't feel the need to sexualize our figure collection which is often used with kids. And no matter how you slice it, It does objectify women, underboob is not empowering and if I had half those minis on my desk at work, I would be cited for sexual harassment.
(me) i understand that you would like more realistic female soldier, and i agree...
Hasslefree is doing some great sculpts, as you pointed out...
i don't use my minis with kids, i paint in the privacy of my own home, so have a different perspective
the way i slice it, minis like TGG do not objectify women, because i don't objectify women...
i treat everyone as an individual, and in the culture i live in women of all shapes and sizes embrace their sexuality...
sexuality is a part of daily life, not something to hide in a closet, and should be embraced, in my opinion...
i honestly don't see how a bit of underboob is as offensive as a nude slave girl, or even offensive at all...
breasts are nothing to be ashamed of, but then i live in a culture were breast feeding in public is normal and natural...
having lived in places like South Beach, Holland, Sweden, and France, where women go topless on the beach and in parks, i just don't find myself getting worked up over some underboob...
i totally get your point about work...
work and sexuality don't need to mix unless you work in the sex trade...
fortunately, i own a surf shop, where women come in in tiny bikinis, and men in nothing but board shorts...
my girlfriend gets to enjoy the beefcake, and she's not offended by the cheesecake...
she actually appreciates a beautiful female body just as much as i do...
notice i say appreciate, not drool over...
there is not a single mini at my workplace...
it's not a game store, it's a surf shop...
i leave Lelith, and my Space Marines at home...
Look up Brosie the Riviter... Men as well as women were bothered by the situation.
i did look up Brosie...
drawn by a man...
hmm, interesting...
as to anyone who had a problem with it, they must have missed the point about equality and empowerment...
the woman that came up with the idea says a lot of positive things in her interview, and even mentions a lack of backlash...
(nkelsch) No one is saying these models can't or shouldn't be made, it is more of certain people saying "How dare you not like them or have a problem with them? These are the female models we all want!"
Well they aren't. If there was a full line of realistic females in combat which I wouldn't be ashamed buying for my nieces, I would get them. RH is absurd and not empowering at all. Hasslefree miniature's female sculpts are the perfect example of realistic and equal representations, and that is what I want to see more of. (I totally know hasslefree has all sorts of nude and cheesecake, which is fine, but they also make alternatives which is also good)
(me) i don't remember anyone saying "how dare you not like them", but i do see people saying if you don't like it don't buy it...
anyone shoving their values down the throat of someone else is a bad thing, in my opinion, no matter which side of the equation they are on...
these may not be the female models you want, but some other people obviously don't share your opinion...
i don't find RH minis to be absurd at all, but they are cool (to me), and some of them are sexy...
i don't buy minis for my niece, so i have a different perspective on this issue than you do...
i agree that Hasslefree does a great job of giving us some more realistic female soldiers...
my question is, would you let your niece freely browse their website, knowing they have fully on nude minis???
are you praising Hasslefree's Harem Girls, while attacking RH for producing Witch Elves and Tank Girl look-alikes???
the sculpt you posted below is a great mini, and i definitely hope Kev sculpts more...
i just happen to like a little cheesecake on the side...
None, no impact what so ever. This a mostly male 12 to 30+ audience hobby, so yes females are objectivity, deal with it. It only ever stop beings an issue you get over it.
xxvaderxx wrote: None, no impact what so ever. This a mostly male 12 to 30+ audience hobby, so yes females are objectivity, deal with it. It only ever stop beings an issue you get over it.
Two things here. One, welcome to the thread, are you replying to anyone in particular or just stating something? Two, not everyone in the 12 to 30 male age range think that females are objects, and I am slightly offended that you would put this blanket assumption on everyone in that group.
With due respect, especially to your wife, the notion that because you find the KD:M aesthetic "daft and a bit disgusting", therefore the quick sellout is an indictment of the consumer is more then just a bit tendentious.
The line of artistic inheritance from Geiger to KD is simple enough to trace, representing as it does a very well established archetype in horror imagery.
Moreover, given the number of people in the comments section of KD:M that said they were a) female and b) enraptured by the models including the female models, it is passing possible that you are not entirely well situated to make pronouncements regarding the likes and dislikes of the female populace.
Kingdom Death owes far more to Urotsukidoji than Giger.
In your opinoin. Which I disagree with. I would issue the classic objection of irrelevant, immaterial and unfounded.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Tentacle porn is fairly popular in it's niche, I don't begrudge people indulging in it, I'd just rather they kept it out of the wider wargaming model scene and developed some nice quiet corner of the internet to go swap figures covered in genitals fething each other.
No doubt said individuals will take your recommendation in the high-minded spirit of inclusion with which it is presented.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Also, some people on a kickstarter saying they are girls that really like the models (and I don't doubt it, certain KD minis are phenomenally beautiful) does not equal your average 15-30 year old women in the street being stopped and asked 'what do you think of this mountain of tits with a face and three cocks with it's naked female birthing slaves?' having an adverse reaction to it. To suggest that because you found a women somewhere who said 'that's cool' means that I as a man cannot therefore have validity calling it's likely reaction from most women negative, is as silly as it is tenuous.
Fascinating. This paragraph doesn't seem to be certain whether it's a claim that there are no girls on the interenet, or a claim of inauthenticity with the notion that because the interests of "your average 15-30 year old women in the street" align against this aesthetic, that is to say, that those women that are interested in aforementioned aesthetic are, it would seem, "cornball women".
Furthermore, what conceivable importance ought we to attach to the opinions of the "average 15-30 year old women in the street", as if the opinoin of the average 15-30 year old man on the street would be a fulsome endorsement of miniature gaming in totality? Should the forum simply be shuttered if said man finds (as indeed passing possible they do) that everything of discussion on these forums constitutes a ridiculous affectation unworthy of a man's attention? This hobby as a whole is a niche within a niche within a niche, yet you feel entirely comfortable in relegating the opinions and preferences of thousands upon thousands of people willing to invest millions of dollars to irrelevancy?
Or as Lillian Cohen-Moore put it (only after being called out on her complete ignorance of the topic she was opining about);
It is not forbidden for me to dislike a game, or its aesthetics, nor is it against any rules for backers and others to deeply appreciate and enjoy products I do not. I am not a monolithic voice, I am a single person expressing an opinion. I don't think people who backed this Kickstarter are evil, horrible, or lesser than anyone else. I've talked to backers in the past day who love the game and walked right past the pinups because it was Not Their Thing. That's okay. And it's also okay that other backers bought the pinups. I expressed my opinions about content I found problematic. At the end of the day, I have my opinion, others have theirs, and we all continue to have the ability to hold differing opinions and enjoy different things.
With due respect, especially to your wife, the notion that because you find the KD:M aesthetic "daft and a bit disgusting", therefore the quick sellout is an indictment of the consumer is more then just a bit tendentious.
The line of artistic inheritance from Geiger to KD is simple enough to trace, representing as it does a very well established archetype in horror imagery.
Moreover, given the number of people in the comments section of KD:M that said they were a) female and b) enraptured by the models including the female models, it is passing possible that you are not entirely well situated to make pronouncements regarding the likes and dislikes of the female populace.
Kingdom Death owes far more to Urotsukidoji than Giger.
In your opinoin. Which I disagree with. I would issue the classic objection of irrelevant, immaterial and unfounded.
The very same argument is entirely appropriate to your statement, which leaves me boggling at your deploying it.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Tentacle porn is fairly popular in it's niche, I don't begrudge people indulging in it, I'd just rather they kept it out of the wider wargaming model scene and developed some nice quiet corner of the internet to go swap figures covered in genitals fething each other.
No doubt said individuals will take your recommendation in the high-minded spirit of inclusion with which it is presented.
I doubt they will, since instead they seem to want to share their grubby little interests with the rest of us and they have you to valiantly defend them.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Also, some people on a kickstarter saying they are girls that really like the models (and I don't doubt it, certain KD minis are phenomenally beautiful) does not equal your average 15-30 year old women in the street being stopped and asked 'what do you think of this mountain of tits with a face and three cocks with it's naked female birthing slaves?' having an adverse reaction to it. To suggest that because you found a women somewhere who said 'that's cool' means that I as a man cannot therefore have validity calling it's likely reaction from most women negative, is as silly as it is tenuous.
Fascinating. This paragraph doesn't seem to be certain whether it's a claim that there are no girls on the interenet, or a claim of inauthenticity with the notion that because the interests of "your average 15-30 year old women in the street" align against this aesthetic, that is to say, that those women that are interested in aforementioned aesthetic are, it would seem, "cornball women".
As fascinating as your inability to construe meaning. Let me repeat it in simpler terms...
The rest of the class had moved on to discussion of women, miniatures and their depictions of women. So, no, we were not talking about the group of women who would like to see giant boob monsters in the act of putting their three long penises up some naked and dead eyed captive slave girls, unless you're going to ascertain that that group of women is anything like a majority or even a majority in the hobby? Because I'd ascertain right back that you were talking absolute dog gak.
Furthermore, what conceivable importance ought we to attach to the opinions of the "average 15-30 year old women in the street", as if the opinoin of the average 15-30 year old man on the street would be a fulsome endorsement of miniature gaming in totality? Should the forum simply be shuttered if said man finds (as indeed passing possible they do) that everything of discussion on these forums constitutes a ridiculous affectation unworthy of a man's attention? This hobby as a whole is a niche within a niche within a niche, yet you feel entirely comfortable in relegating the opinions and preferences of thousands upon thousands of people willing to invest millions of dollars to irrelevancy?
Thousands of people buy Chindos, concentration camp memorabilia and Justin Beiber records. Also, because you're being entirely shifty with your wording, I'll repeat what I said earlier, many of KD miniatures are excellent, beautiful sculpts. If I'd had a few bucks kicking around at the time, I might have signed on myself, I wouldn't have bought the giant raping titmonster though, because I think it's crass and unpleasant, you, (sorry, you) were the one who then jumped about on my head and said 'but all these ladies signed up for KD', which is great, and in no way is a counter to my claim that the giant raping titmonster with it's slaves is a poor thing to show to a prospective female gamer, on average.
Or as Lillian Cohen-Moore put it (only after being called out on her complete ignorance of the topic she was opining about);
It is not forbidden for me to dislike a game, or its aesthetics, nor is it against any rules for backers and others to deeply appreciate and enjoy products I do not. I am not a monolithic voice, I am a single person expressing an opinion. I don't think people who backed this Kickstarter are evil, horrible, or lesser than anyone else. I've talked to backers in the past day who love the game and walked right past the pinups because it was Not Their Thing. That's okay. And it's also okay that other backers bought the pinups. I expressed my opinions about content I found problematic. At the end of the day, I have my opinion, others have theirs, and we all continue to have the ability to hold differing opinions and enjoy different things.
I give less than two gaks what that lass said, she had a problem with the bubblegum T&A modelling of KD and others, I don't, my wife doesn't, we both have a problem with depictions of forced penetration and sexual violence, the point I've been making this thread down.
You have insinuated in your responses to me that I am actually squeamishly balking at nudity or have no appreciation for art and have, in doing so, utterly missed my point.
I'll repeat it for you. Sexual violence and it's depiction has no place in mainstream commercial miniature making, or should not have, and is directly offensive to and off-putting to most women, including those within the hobby, seeking to learn more about minis and wargaming, or the wider female populace and if you think you can swing that around somehow or again try to equate what I've said to reactionary horror or claim some form of intellectual high ground based around notions of 'art', you are entirely delusional.
When I was a 12-30 male I didn't lust after big breasted wargame figures, perhaps because I was busy pinching copies of Men Only from the newsagent (or buying them when I got old enough).
Personally, with respect to the Kingdom Death aesthetic, what caught my eye when I was reading the description of the setting is "nightmare" horror, and I find that the unreal and surreal qualities of many of the miniatures fit in that idea, where they wouldn't as a more tangible kind of horror or fantasy.
Kilkrazy wrote: When I was a 12-30 male I didn't lust after big breasted wargame figures, perhaps because I was busy pinching copies of Men Only from the newsagent (or buying them when I got old enough).
Grate now go tell NASCAR they take out the pretty ladies when interviewing drivers.
Its a fad, its a selling tool, its a stereotype people either grow out of or flat out dont pay attention to/dwell on. The only relevance it has is the one artificially being given here.
With everything you can find online today, do you really think an expensive toy soldier with big boobs that a very diminute percentage of the population will ever hear about is relevant?.
Kilkrazy wrote: When I was a 12-30 male I didn't lust after big breasted wargame figures, perhaps because I was busy pinching copies of Men Only from the newsagent (or buying them when I got old enough).
I hope you placed them in the correct location of under a shrub near a railway bridge when you were finished. I found a mostly unused Razzle in such a location once and have since learned that most others of the pre-internet times found gentlemen's literature in similar locations at an impressionable age.
shade1313 wrote: Personally, with respect to the Kingdom Death aesthetic, what caught my eye when I was reading the description of the setting is "nightmare" horror, and I find that the unreal and surreal qualities of many of the miniatures fit in that idea, where they wouldn't as a more tangible kind of horror or fantasy.
As a being of nightmare, the Wet Nurse fits.
So would a giant, child-sodomizing, skinless newt covered in toothed cocks, along with a slew of bare bottomed little boys. Should they make one? Would you buy it? Cos it's 'art' right?
shade1313 wrote: Personally, with respect to the Kingdom Death aesthetic, what caught my eye when I was reading the description of the setting is "nightmare" horror, and I find that the unreal and surreal qualities of many of the miniatures fit in that idea, where they wouldn't as a more tangible kind of horror or fantasy.
As a being of nightmare, the Wet Nurse fits.
So would a giant, child-sodomizing, skinless newt covered in toothed cocks, along with a slew of bare bottomed little boys. Should they make one? Would you buy it? Cos it's 'art' right?
filbert wrote: If there's one thing that the digital age has helped usher in, it's the death of good quality hedge grumble....
Reassuringly, on a train to London shortly before leaving the Isles, I spied a copy of some glossy rag beneath a buddleia bush, just outside Reading, open to a full spread image of a young lady on a piece of exercise equipment. It made me quite nostalgic.
shade1313 wrote: Personally, with respect to the Kingdom Death aesthetic, what caught my eye when I was reading the description of the setting is "nightmare" horror, and I find that the unreal and surreal qualities of many of the miniatures fit in that idea, where they wouldn't as a more tangible kind of horror or fantasy.
As a being of nightmare, the Wet Nurse fits.
So would a giant, child-sodomizing, skinless newt covered in toothed cocks, along with a slew of bare bottomed little boys. Should they make one? Would you buy it? Cos it's 'art' right?
Well, aren't we the prickly one.
Not really, would you buy it?
Take a while to paint the little boys with their bleeding arses? Mix some glossy red and brown to paint the giant newt's hook covered member?
Or would you blanche at that? Is it still 'art', if KD made it, it would likely be a great sculpt.
I'm demonstrating 'the line', they crossed it for me when they made a giant rape monster, perhaps they only cross it for you when they make a giant rape monster of kids, or men but for some reason a giant rape monster of women is ok with some of us?
shade1313 wrote: Personally, with respect to the Kingdom Death aesthetic, what caught my eye when I was reading the description of the setting is "nightmare" horror, and I find that the unreal and surreal qualities of many of the miniatures fit in that idea, where they wouldn't as a more tangible kind of horror or fantasy.
As a being of nightmare, the Wet Nurse fits.
So would a giant, child-sodomizing, skinless newt covered in toothed cocks, along with a slew of bare bottomed little boys. Should they make one? Would you buy it? Cos it's 'art' right?
Former Royal Marine in hot water with his neighbours after naming home gym the 'Choir Boy Grooming Room'
10 Jun 2013 09:10
NEIGHBOURS' fears are allayed after owner explains the reasoning behind the unusual choice of title for his workout area.
Seriously though, while there are not many people who think that FHM should be banned because it mentally warps people, there are not many people who don't think that mental rape demon porn is entirely acceptable either, and if you try to claim otherwise you are living in wackyland, I find that the "would my granny kick off if she saw it" test works, and a model with its tits out wouldn't even get a tut, a giant spiky rape demon would get me covered in scalding tea and brayed with a walking stick.
Take a while to paint the little boys with their bleeding arses? Mix some glossy red and brown to paint the giant newt's hook covered member?
Or would you blanche at that? Is it still 'art', if KD made it, it would likely be a great sculpt.
I'm demonstrating 'the line', they crossed it for me when they made a giant rape monster, perhaps they only cross it for you when they make a giant rape monster of kids, or men but for some reason a giant rape monster of women is ok with some of us?
I wouldn't, and I'm not likely to get the Wet Nurse either. It's a nightmare, but not to my particular tastes. I didn't keep up with the KS, and if it was confirmed in there that it's a "rape monster", then I'd have a problem with it. But I don't recall reading that bit in the very little amount of fluff on the piece that I saw on KD's site. It nurses the creatures of the Holy Lands, and takes the children of human women upon birth. It's a nightmare, and a horrifying visual in a surreal way, and all the tits and dicks aren't titillating to see, nor does that seem to be the intent of them.
Oh, by the way, that's a heck of a conclusion you jumped to, taking my opinion all the way from a comment about how the Wet Nurse fits the aesthetic of nightmare horror to being okay with women being raped by monsters. Classy type of arguing there.
shade1313 wrote: Personally, with respect to the Kingdom Death aesthetic, what caught my eye when I was reading the description of the setting is "nightmare" horror, and I find that the unreal and surreal qualities of many of the miniatures fit in that idea, where they wouldn't as a more tangible kind of horror or fantasy.
As a being of nightmare, the Wet Nurse fits.
So would a giant, child-sodomizing, skinless newt covered in toothed cocks, along with a slew of bare bottomed little boys. Should they make one? Would you buy it? Cos it's 'art' right?
Well, aren't we the prickly one.
Not really, would you buy it?
Take a while to paint the little boys with their bleeding arses? Mix some glossy red and brown to paint the giant newt's hook covered member?
Or would you blanche at that? Is it still 'art', if KD made it, it would likely be a great sculpt.
I'm demonstrating 'the line', they crossed it for me when they made a giant rape monster, perhaps they only cross it for you when they make a giant rape monster of kids, or men but for some reason a giant rape monster of women is ok with some of us?
Ah, the virtue of time. Here I was all set to point out the logic holes, poor thinking, close-mindedness and other elements of your reply to me, all in an effort to point out that your line of thinking was not worth taking seriously...
Then you do it all for me!
A happy division of labor.
Don't mistake me, what you've said is clearly the only objective view of things. In fact, your statement above is verily steeped in inescapable logic, so pointed and strong surely only a creature of stone could remain un-penetrated. Why you're turgid with (rhetorical) force. I'm all aquiver.
Take a while to paint the little boys with their bleeding arses? Mix some glossy red and brown to paint the giant newt's hook covered member?
Or would you blanche at that? Is it still 'art', if KD made it, it would likely be a great sculpt.
I'm demonstrating 'the line', they crossed it for me when they made a giant rape monster, perhaps they only cross it for you when they make a giant rape monster of kids, or men but for some reason a giant rape monster of women is ok with some of us?
I wouldn't, and I'm not likely to get the Wet Nurse either. It's a nightmare, but not to my particular tastes. I didn't keep up with the KS, and if it was confirmed in there that it's a "rape monster", then I'd have a problem with it. But I don't recall reading that bit in the very little amount of fluff on the piece that I saw on KD's site. It nurses the creatures of the Holy Lands, and takes the children of human women upon birth. It's a nightmare, and a horrifying visual in a surreal way, and all the tits and dicks aren't titillating to see, nor does that seem to be the intent of them.
Oh, by the way, that's a heck of a conclusion you jumped to, taking my opinion all the way from a comment about how the Wet Nurse fits the aesthetic of nightmare horror to being okay with women being raped by monsters. Classy type of arguing there.
It's almost as if the argument hinged on emotional intensity rather then logic. Almost...
I wouldn't, and I'm not likely to get the Wet Nurse either. It's a nightmare, but not to my particular tastes. I didn't keep up with the KS, and if it was confirmed in there that it's a "rape monster", then I'd have a problem with it. But I don't recall reading that bit in the very little amount of fluff on the piece that I saw on KD's site. It nurses the creatures of the Holy Lands, and takes the children of human women upon birth. It's a nightmare, and a horrifying visual in a surreal way, and all the tits and dicks aren't titillating to see, nor does that seem to be the intent of them.
Oh, by the way, that's a heck of a conclusion you jumped to, taking my opinion all the way from a comment about how the Wet Nurse fits the aesthetic of nightmare horror to being okay with women being raped by monsters. Classy type of arguing there.
My classy argument, your reluctance to label the model for what it is, tomayto, tomarto...
So, for me, a giant monster covered in genitals with a big cock about to be pushed into a sleeping, prone and vulnerable woman and with tendrils milking another woman's breasts whilst a third woman kneels before it, also nude, in supplication, is a big rapey monster in poor taste and it as a whole, portrays women as dull eyed victims of this monster, instead of chirpy armored women, with or without big boobs, who could claim to be 'a bit of fun'.
Tell your missus that you'd like her to consider getting into wargaming, or your mum or sister, and show her that picture and see what she thinks of you. Unless you're a Lannister, it's unlikely to be a favorable outcome I think.
Further, I was making the point that lots of (primarily, I'd bet a few million pounds) men bought that mini, men that would likely not have bought it if it was the boy buggering newt I mentioned... because it is a sexualized image and titillates with imagery of vulnerable women being used/raped by a monster.
These things reinforce old stereotypes, these things denigrate women and these things should be left to gather dust by an informed and aware community instead of being quietly fawned over as 'art' by people who should know better.
And again, because this is diverting from the source, I do not label the bubblegum/boob armor/cute female mini in this way, the Raging Heroes stuff looks good and I don't have issue with it, only this unpalatable side of things, when it surfaces and sets our image back 20 bloody years.
shade1313 wrote: Personally, with respect to the Kingdom Death aesthetic, what caught my eye when I was reading the description of the setting is "nightmare" horror, and I find that the unreal and surreal qualities of many of the miniatures fit in that idea, where they wouldn't as a more tangible kind of horror or fantasy.
As a being of nightmare, the Wet Nurse fits.
So would a giant, child-sodomizing, skinless newt covered in toothed cocks, along with a slew of bare bottomed little boys. Should they make one? Would you buy it? Cos it's 'art' right?
Well, aren't we the prickly one.
Not really, would you buy it?
Take a while to paint the little boys with their bleeding arses? Mix some glossy red and brown to paint the giant newt's hook covered member?
Or would you blanche at that? Is it still 'art', if KD made it, it would likely be a great sculpt.
I'm demonstrating 'the line', they crossed it for me when they made a giant rape monster, perhaps they only cross it for you when they make a giant rape monster of kids, or men but for some reason a giant rape monster of women is ok with some of us?
Ah, the virtue of time. Here I was all set to point out the logic holes, poor thinking, close-mindedness and other elements of your reply to me, all in an effort to point out that your line of thinking was not worth taking seriously...
Then you do it all for me!
A happy division of labor.
Don't mistake me, what you've said is clearly the only objective view of things. In fact, your statement above is verily steeped in inescapable logic, so pointed and strong surely only a creature of stone could remain un-penetrated. Why you're turgid with (rhetorical) force. I'm all aquiver.
Take a while to paint the little boys with their bleeding arses? Mix some glossy red and brown to paint the giant newt's hook covered member?
Or would you blanche at that? Is it still 'art', if KD made it, it would likely be a great sculpt.
I'm demonstrating 'the line', they crossed it for me when they made a giant rape monster, perhaps they only cross it for you when they make a giant rape monster of kids, or men but for some reason a giant rape monster of women is ok with some of us?
I wouldn't, and I'm not likely to get the Wet Nurse either. It's a nightmare, but not to my particular tastes. I didn't keep up with the KS, and if it was confirmed in there that it's a "rape monster", then I'd have a problem with it. But I don't recall reading that bit in the very little amount of fluff on the piece that I saw on KD's site. It nurses the creatures of the Holy Lands, and takes the children of human women upon birth. It's a nightmare, and a horrifying visual in a surreal way, and all the tits and dicks aren't titillating to see, nor does that seem to be the intent of them.
Oh, by the way, that's a heck of a conclusion you jumped to, taking my opinion all the way from a comment about how the Wet Nurse fits the aesthetic of nightmare horror to being okay with women being raped by monsters. Classy type of arguing there.
It's almost as if the argument hinged on emotional intensity rather then logic. Almost...
You flutter your fan and adjust your periwig all you want, but until you present something substantive to support you, it's just bitching and claiming some elitist intellectual high ground you've no real claim on.
The points you're making are to hold up a miniature that's labeled, right from the start, as from a line of mature, nightmare themed horror, proclaiming that because it has dick-shaped tentacles that surely there must be rape going on (little bit of psychological male-guilt going on?), and this is horrible for mainstream gaming, when in fact it's NOT a mainstream gaming piece. It's a niche game, specified as being mature themed nightmare horror, made in quite small runs.
I know, I know, you'll say that I'm blinding myself to the obvious rape occurring, or somesuch tripe that assumes you have the slightest clue about me. I say, in counter, that you're engaging in Reductio ad absurdum, at best.
shade1313 wrote: proclaiming that because it has dick-shaped tentacles that surely there must be rape going on (little bit of psychological male-guilt going on?),
You did see the picture of imminent rape that was just posted... right?
edit: To be fair, I suppose that could be consensual sex with a giant titty monster with penis tentacles. Totally.
shade1313 wrote: proclaiming that because it has dick-shaped tentacles that surely there must be rape going on (little bit of psychological male-guilt going on?),
You did see the picture of imminent rape that was just posted... right?
edit: To be fair, I suppose that could be consensual sex with a giant titty monster with penis tentacles. Totally.
Haha..
You can consent while you're curled up in a ball sobbing/asleep/unconscious can't you?
shade1313 wrote: proclaiming that because it has dick-shaped tentacles that surely there must be rape going on (little bit of psychological male-guilt going on?),
You did see the picture of imminent rape that was just posted... right?
edit: To be fair, I suppose that could be consensual sex with a giant titty monster with penis tentacles. Totally.
Don't be asinine with your lovely little sarcastic edit. I absolutely see what MIGHT be an imminent rape. You're the ones who are assuming that penetration is even going to occur. You're also the ones who seem to believe that penis-shaped things rape, as a matter of their basic characteristics. More of that ingrained guilt over being male?
shade1313 wrote: Don't be asinine with your lovely little sarcastic edit. I absolutely see what MIGHT be an imminent rape. You're the ones who are assuming that penetration is even going to occur. You're also the ones who seem to believe that penis-shaped things rape, as a matter of their basic characteristics. More of that ingrained guilt over being male?
I lol'd.
Okay, so you totally don't think giant penis tentacles pointed right at the vagina of a curled up naked woman means anything more than the giant penis tentacle is just enjoying the view. Gotcha.
Sarcastic edit: You know giant penis tentacles don't have eyes, right?
Okay, haven't seen anything since my last post, but I was thinking about the subject, and realized that I've been fixating on the fluff "provides nourishment for monsters and takes children as soon as born" aspect, and whether any penetration by the tentacle takes place, the women included in the piece are vulnerable, naked, violated in terms of their very humanity, even if not actually raped, so I'm looking at the miniature a bit differently.
I think, without the included women, treated no better than livestock, it'd be a better piece. It'd be more in line with what I got from reading the fluff, which did not suggest rape, to me. I think there's room for mature-themed nightmares, but as much as humanity seems to be such a downtrodden group in the KD world, there is just a bit too much of treating people as if they're things in that mini.
I hope that, as I've reexamined it from another aspect than the one I was focused on, and seen other sides of it, that others will do the same.
As the Raging Heroes kickstarter, I'd again ask that people not conflate the Jailbirds faction to the entire project. Do you consider the other 2 factions to be cheesecake as well?
shade1313 wrote: Yep, too much to hope for, from this group of keen wits.
So, even when presented with the image, when everyone else sees something immediately, you won't concede. Instead we are treated to you wriggling.
Have you considered a career in congress?
I'll concede that, yes, there's a good chance that the woman is going to be penetrated. Yes, for whatever purpose, if that occurred, she'd be raped. I don't concede that the presence and appearance of the tentacle automatically means that she WILL be penetrated.
Oh, good. You think you won an argument on the internet. I'm so glad for your e-ego.
That is downright insulting, and if you'd said that to me in person, that would be fighting words.
The key point from shade131 is that the Ragging Knightmares or whatever is very much a niche product for a shadowy corner of a particular genre of overall wargaming. Or you might call it a "boutique" product.
You never see such models in Napoleonics and so on.
Strangely, women are not attracted to Napoleonics anyway, despite the astonishing range of hats.
shade1313 wrote: Yep, too much to hope for, from this group of keen wits.
So, even when presented with the image, when everyone else sees something immediately, you won't concede. Instead we are treated to you wriggling.
Have you considered a career in congress?
I'll concede that, yes, there's a good chance that the woman is going to be penetrated. Yes, for whatever purpose, if that occurred, she'd be raped. I don't concede that the presence and appearance of the tentacle automatically means that she WILL be penetrated.
Oh, good. You think you won an argument on the internet. I'm so glad for your e-ego.
That is downright insulting, and if you'd said that to me in person, that would be fighting words.
Ouze wrote: As the Raging Heroes kickstarter, I'd again ask that people not conflate the Jailbirds faction to the entire project. Do you consider the other 2 factions to be cheesecake as well?
What's really great about the project is the continuum presented. From a marketing standpoint it begs the question of what faction will actually sell, since each represents a distinct aesthetic and attitude towards the concept of a female soldier.
The interesting thing is the way that many people have claimed, based on this campaign and perhaps others such as Relic Knights, KD:M and so on, that there is a vast untapped market for female miniatures. While the data is far too small a set for definitive analysis, it is intriguing, because it really seems to suggest both that there is, and there isn't.
Throw in Bombshell Babes, KD:M, RK, and assume this gets to a nice number such as, say, 1.5 million. Seems like quite a lot in aggregate, 10-12k people paying like $4 million overall.
But does it actually show the opposite? Is a market of 10-12k buyers (which is almost certainly overstating it dramatically, given the overlap in people pledging all of the above) really something that GW would put in the effort to chase, given the amount of work they would need to do? Relaunching something like SoB wouldn't be quite as huge an effort as the Dark Eldar relaunch (since SoB would be able to use vehicle kits from other lines, presumably), but it would be more intensive then, say, Tau (who kept many kits and molds).
If we imagine the market for plastic female figures is around 5k people spread across the world... is it a market GW doesn't care to try and capture?
You flutter your fan and adjust your periwig all you want, but until you present something substantive to support you, it's just bitching and claiming some elitist intellectual high ground you've no real claim on.
Try again.
Yes, this conversation is positively redolent with substance. Because truly, the real heart of intellectual rigor is a variant of the No-true Scotsman that goes "when everyone else sees something immediately"...because it is, of course, impossibly for people to see items and events differently. It's especially impossible when multiple people are actively claiming not to interpret the same thing in the same way.
Clearly, the only possible explanation for these differing opinions is witchcraft. Possibly your opponents are afflicted with a small toad on their stomach, or perhaps the vapors. It might be the vapors, have you checked the vapors?
I would have guessed the market for whole armies of female future soldiers is largely expressed by Sisters of Battle, some Imperial Guard and a few Femarines fans.
There are probably a fair number of people who would buy some figures or some small units of female future soldiers for general use in SFRPGs, as squads in IG armies, and the like. My gut tells me the market for 28mm SF wargames is getting over-saturated, though.
Automatically Appended Next Post: That said, the idea of Kickstarters is to try and sponsor projects which are not clearly commercially viable.
That said, the idea of Kickstarters is to try and sponsor projects which are not clearly commercially viable.
How big of an audience does there have to be to make something 'commercially viable?' I've been a big fan of the theory that the Sisters of Battle get the shaft (infrequent updates to minis, a mockery of a Codex) because their fans represent too small a market for it to be worth GW's time, because that makes sense, even if it's frustrating for the fans of the army.
But how many people do you need to make a living, or a substantial portion of one, off of making female soldiers for wargaming? Raging Heroes seems to do alright, from what I can tell, but I'm just a simple lumberjack, so I don't know all these fancy business concepts some people seem to have such a keen grasp of. Is the number of people interested in their stuff a large enough market that GWshould pay attention, or is it still too small?
Yes, this conversation is positively redolent with substance. Because truly, the real heart of intellectual rigor is a variant of the No-true Scotsman that goes "when everyone else sees something immediately"...because it is, of course, impossibly for people to see items and events differently. It's especially impossible when multiple people are actively claiming not to interpret the same thing in the same way.
Clearly, the only possible explanation for these differing opinions is witchcraft. Possibly your opponents are afflicted with a small toad on their stomach, or perhaps the vapors. It might be the vapors, have you checked the vapors?
Vapors!
I like it when you babble, ridicule and scoff without presenting a solid opposing answer, and I'll take your prancing and capering, without stance or response, as a victory.
That said, the idea of Kickstarters is to try and sponsor projects which are not clearly commercially viable.
How big of an audience does there have to be to make something 'commercially viable?' I've been a big fan of the theory that the Sisters of Battle get the shaft (infrequent updates to minis, a mockery of a Codex) because their fans represent too small a market for it to be worth GW's time, because that makes sense, even if it's frustrating for the fans of the army.
This is a similar argument to why no redo for Dark Eldar for fething years and why the constant upgrading and such for Marines. It seems a self fulfilling prophecy of GW's to say 'we must just make marines because marines sell', well yes they do when they are on the cover of every boxed set, book and poster, kicking ass, their model line constantly upgraded and well tended with many variants to choose and constant encouragement via books and GW staff that they are the mightiest shitkickers in town.
When they finally brainfarted and produced a redo of the Dark Eldar, they sold like hotcakes, because they had been redone well, with attractive mini range and comprehensive release waves. Same with Necrons and we saw similar success with Tau.
If GW did a female army, did one well and promoted it effectively then I have little doubt the release would put RH's project to shame in terms of sales. Just by dint of GW's size and distribution.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: As the Raging Heroes kickstarter, I'd again ask that people not conflate the Jailbirds faction to the entire project. Do you consider the other 2 factions to be cheesecake as well?
If we're considering Cheesecake as Pin-Up, as the sort of artwork you might see on the side of a ww2 bomber, then perhaps? I think the Iron Faction ladies, whilst seeming the least likely, could be seen painted onto a DKoK tank or something.
I don't think either are as cheesecake as the jailbirds and even then, the jailbirds, as I said before, are based fairly strongly off Tank Girl, who's not really cheesecake, but portrayed as a strong female character and icon (ignoring the utterly terrible movie).
So to try and add something else to this conversation, here are some of our own observations.
For the Endless: Fantasy Tactics Kickstarter we offered models as both prepacked sets (with a mix of sexes) and also individual figures. We produced 7 Female miniatures, 8 Male miniatures, and 7 'Monsters'.
The top 10 Figures picked solo were:
Cleric [F] #1
King Gel #2
Summoner[F] #3
Dragoon [M] #4
Pugilist [F] #4
Archer [F] #5
Chemist [F] #6
Squire [F] #6
Gunsmith [M] #7
Rhapsodist [F] #8
Adept [M] #9
Dwarf Gunsmith #10
With the preset bundles the breakdown is such:
Void Crystal #1 (3F, 2M)
Air Crystal #2 (3F, 2M)
Water Crystal #2 (1F, 2A)
Fire Crystal #3 (1F, 2M)
Miasma Crystal #4 (1M, 2A)
Earth Crystal #5 (3A)
The two bundles with the most female models outsold everything else.
Some of us would rather realistic representations of females in combat. Some of us don't feel the need to sexualize our figure collection which is often used with kids. And no matter how you slice it, It does objectify women, underboob is not empowering and if I had half those minis on my desk at work, I would be cited for sexual harassment.
Oh? One can say the samething.
If dressing sexy objectify women, then so do all the 9 feet tall space marines, all with body builts that make Arnold look like a sissy.
Have you seen Catachans? they have larger arms then their heads!
I care not which gender gets what treatment, double standard annoys me.
Aura likes it so much and is so not offended by it that shes doing fan art at the moment for the Iron Empire, hopefully we'll be able to share it in a few days.
Yep those Raging heroes mini's should be banned, all the nude paintings by the masters should be censored, all the statues in museums and outside should be clothed, and those catwalk models need some more clothes (and food)
I wonder how many people in this thread who are so valiantly crusading against the objectification of women watch pornography, which can easily be argued to be the ultimate expression of that phenomenon.
I would also love to hear their rationalization as to why one is okay and the other is not.
this may have already been stated, but they would need a whole new expensive mould to produce the female figures, maybe they just didn't want to foot the cost in that particular area (maybe they shift more guard, so it's cost effective to just produce men, I dunno)
That said, I wish they did have some decent female minis, maybe a box of 5 for about £6/7 so you could choose to add them in your squads for flavour or build a whole army of them, would be nice, and less sexist.
EDIT; Plus they have sisters of battle, so maybe that's GW's 'women quota' beside the odd models
I'm getting a few of the not-DKoK ladies myself. Mostly just for painting.
On another note, those that keep talking about how Marines and Bare-Chested Manly Men are all objectification of men have made a mistake in their argument. A small logic fallacy called False Equivalence.
I think Shortpacked's most famous (I believe) strip covers this best.
I wouldn't, and I'm not likely to get the Wet Nurse either. It's a nightmare, but not to my particular tastes. I didn't keep up with the KS, and if it was confirmed in there that it's a "rape monster", then I'd have a problem with it. But I don't recall reading that bit in the very little amount of fluff on the piece that I saw on KD's site. It nurses the creatures of the Holy Lands, and takes the children of human women upon birth. It's a nightmare, and a horrifying visual in a surreal way, and all the tits and dicks aren't titillating to see, nor does that seem to be the intent of them.
Oh, by the way, that's a heck of a conclusion you jumped to, taking my opinion all the way from a comment about how the Wet Nurse fits the aesthetic of nightmare horror to being okay with women being raped by monsters. Classy type of arguing there.
My classy argument, your reluctance to label the model for what it is, tomayto, tomarto...
So, for me, a giant monster covered in genitals with a big cock about to be pushed into a sleeping, prone and vulnerable woman and with tendrils milking another woman's breasts whilst a third woman kneels before it, also nude, in supplication, is a big rapey monster in poor taste and it as a whole, portrays women as dull eyed victims of this monster, instead of chirpy armored women, with or without big boobs, who could claim to be 'a bit of fun'.
Tell your missus that you'd like her to consider getting into wargaming, or your mum or sister, and show her that picture and see what she thinks of you. Unless you're a Lannister, it's unlikely to be a favorable outcome I think.
Further, I was making the point that lots of (primarily, I'd bet a few million pounds) men bought that mini, men that would likely not have bought it if it was the boy buggering newt I mentioned... because it is a sexualized image and titillates with imagery of vulnerable women being used/raped by a monster.
These things reinforce old stereotypes, these things denigrate women and these things should be left to gather dust by an informed and aware community instead of being quietly fawned over as 'art' by people who should know better.
And again, because this is diverting from the source, I do not label the bubblegum/boob armor/cute female mini in this way, the Raging Heroes stuff looks good and I don't have issue with it, only this unpalatable side of things, when it surfaces and sets our image back 20 bloody years.
I just saw photographs of a trans woman being savagely beaten by a mob of children. I find your obsessive attempts to make some grand moral stance out of complaining about macabre artwork frivolous and obscene. Not only does it show a severe problem with your priorities, it speaks of a foul desire to repress and censor others into conforming to your own personal, dainty notions of morality.
The nonsense ideas about sexual content being thrown into the mix you're bringing to the table are the sort of thing that makes it impossible for me to take feminism seriously: such outrageous notions cannot be the product of a sound ideology. It's reactionary flailing against an imagined foe, and it seeks to enforce an arbitrary, baseless standard upon others. This is not an acceptable position to take. I don't see it in a particularly more favorable light than I do the ideologues and moralists who whipped those animals into a frenzy in the name of enforcing their own arbitrary standards of conduct. It's more trivial, yes, but the fundamental nature is the same.
And yeah, maybe I am just seeing red over that whole thing right now, but I cannot abide such ideology, whether its target is violent games, macabre art, or LGBT issues.
You flutter your fan and adjust your periwig all you want, but until you present something substantive to support you, it's just bitching and claiming some elitist intellectual high ground you've no real claim on.
Try again.
It's funny, I switched over to a different tab when I reached this point, and had forgotten whose post I was on when I came back; I assumed it was someone talking to you until I scrolled back up, it seemed so perfectly tailored a dismissal of your arguments.
I liked that soldier mini a few pages back. She was cool.
I don't want all female minis to be unambiguously female any more than you'd demand all male minis be "unambiguously male." I just want the female soldiers to plausibly exist and be represented.
I think from the art, raging heroes is going to do many good female miniatures. Some of them will be slightly cheesecake-ish but meh, in the grand scheme of thing a sexualised miniature is not really meaning much , there is more sexualisation in mainstream media.
Anyways, the easiest way to solve this argument is to proclaim " I blame the Patriarchy".
Bullockist wrote: I think from the art, raging heroes is going to do many good female miniatures. Some of them will be slightly cheesecake-ish but meh, in the grand scheme of thing a sexualised miniature is not really meaning much , there is more sexualisation in mainstream media.
Anyways, the easiest way to solve this argument is to proclaim " I blame the Patriarchy".
Or you can just blame it on the money. Sex, and sexualization of women, sells. What better way to get more seed funding from KS?
Kilkrazy wrote: When I was a 12-30 male I didn't lust after big breasted wargame figures, perhaps because I was busy pinching copies of Men Only from the newsagent (or buying them when I got old enough).
I hope you placed them in the correct location of under a shrub near a railway bridge when you were finished. I found a mostly unused Razzle in such a location once and have since learned that most others of the pre-internet times found gentlemen's literature in similar locations at an impressionable age.
Viz Comic did a good strip about an outdoor museum for the preservation of wild jazz mags
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: I just saw photographs of a trans woman being savagely beaten by a mob of children. I find your obsessive attempts to make some grand moral stance out of complaining about macabre artwork frivolous and obscene. Not only does it show a severe problem with your priorities, it speaks of a foul desire to repress and censor others into conforming to your own personal, dainty notions of morality.
Ah, you're going to play the 'sliding scale of evil' game, well pal, I just opened a picture of the killing fields of Cambodia, so I find your suggested outrage over a beaten trans woman frivolous and obscene... Do you see how that works, or rather, is a pathetic strawman, or do you just lack the wit to understand relative distaste?
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: I
The nonsense ideas about sexual content being thrown into the mix you're bringing to the table are the sort of thing that makes it impossible for me to take feminism seriously: such outrageous notions cannot be the product of a sound ideology. It's reactionary flailing against an imagined foe, and it seeks to enforce an arbitrary, baseless standard upon others. This is not an acceptable position to take. I don't see it in a particularly more favorable light than I do the ideologues and moralists who whipped those animals into a frenzy in the name of enforcing their own arbitrary standards of conduct. It's more trivial, yes, but the fundamental nature is the same.
So your counter to my wife and I taking issue with a depiction of rape and the denigration of women through violent sexual depiction is to accuse us of being the sort of people who encourage angry mobs to attack transgender people. That is perhaps the feeblest and lowest attempt at an argument I've read on this thread and trivializes the abuse and attacks on women, trans or otherwise, the world over. It is not 'sexual content' as you so effortlessly belittle it, it's sexual violence, do you not understand the difference? You are arguing from a position where it would be wrong to take any offense, or call for any censure, on anything... and I don't believe for a second you do not have morals or don't find things visually unpleasant, if you were the other, that would make you a sociopath.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: I
And yeah, maybe I am just seeing red over that whole thing right now, but I cannot abide such ideology, whether its target is violent games, macabre art, or LGBT issues.
You flutter your fan and adjust your periwig all you want, but until you present something substantive to support you, it's just bitching and claiming some elitist intellectual high ground you've no real claim on.
Try again.
It's funny, I switched over to a different tab when I reached this point, and had forgotten whose post I was on when I came back; I assumed it was someone talking to you until I scrolled back up, it seemed so perfectly tailored a dismissal of your arguments.
'But it's art', 'If you don't like it, you're for censorship and suppression', 'If you don't like it, it's because you don't understand it', 'You're stupid and we're smart'...
What you and others in this thread have attempted is an artistic/intellectual elitism, that I am somehow ignorant for finding something offensive, as though there is nothing to be offended at, or that it's too far down that 'sliding scale' of evils to take offense at, and I just don't buy it. The reason being I find the above work to be a by-blow, a demonstrative evidence of a prejudice that exists in the hobby towards women and an indicator of an underlying opinion among some male hobbyists and gamers. It is perhaps the most perfect example of what I find wrong with the underlying prejudice among some gamers and if we could take that titmonster with it's rape victims and put just one on a plinth for all time with a plaque that read 'why women won't get into wargaming' (or 'this is why we can't have nice things') I think it would suit.
My original point was that a model like that was damaging to the potential for more female inclusion and a fairly offensive piece to most women. You can prattle about 'art' and 'trans gender's getting attacked by children' (and comparing me to those children, which I am frankly fething furious about), but it doesn't stop the piece depicting a giant tit and cock monster about to penetrate a prone and vulnerable woman and my dislike of it and my ascertation that a great many women viewing it would take a very dim view of it and it's owner. It is what I said it is, a relic of the boy's only club and an insulting and belittling depiction of women as sexualized objects to be victimized and abused. The sooner we speed the process of getting rid of that sort of infantile titillation from the hobby and concentrate on inclusion instead of exclusion, the happier I'll be.
And another point I raised still remains untouched, had it been a violent sexual act of a male monster on prone, vulnerable males, I doubt that anything like as many would have sold, because all of you so valiantly defending it as 'art' are entirely reluctant to just admit it's a 3d representation of tentacle rape. It was designed for and purchased for male sexual arousal about rape and female victimization in sexual violence.
Now, for comparing me to people who victimized and beat a vulnerable person, your ass is going on ignore.
I just saw photographs of a trans woman being savagely beaten by a mob of children. I find your obsessive attempts to make some grand moral stance out of complaining about macabre artwork frivolous and obscene. Not only does it show a severe problem with your priorities, it speaks of a foul desire to repress and censor others into conforming to your own personal, dainty notions of morality.
I'm confused.. I thought that MGS was basically saying that demon rape gak wasn't cool? Why then are you having a go at him?
Your rebuttal of his point actually adds fuel to my argument though, because that was my entire point.
There is really awful gak going on around the world with regards to women's rights, let alone the rights of the trans community, so I will repeat my point.
Men and women get "objectified" in the West to the point that you see them on the cover of magazines with no clothes on, or looking "sexy" or wearing thongs or wet tshirts and winking, but whats the big deal? 99% of people don't find it offensive, and the same goes for minis. I don't care about them, and I don't buy them, but there is no real harm done by a mini of a classically sexy women, with a thin waist and big baps, smoking a cigar and winking.
There is real harm done by other gak, such as genital mutilation, sex trafficking, paedophilia, rape, etc etc etc...
So I don't get it.. surely you see things similar to MGS right? I don't think he was in full agreement with me (almost everything to do with minis is trivial and women should focus on something more important) but surely you and he agree on the most important point.
Are you saying that rape minis are great? Or are you saying that they aren't, but transgender people getting filled in is worse?
See, I think he probably agrees with you on both counts is all..
Kettu wrote: I'm getting a few of the not-DKoK ladies myself. Mostly just for painting.
On another note, those that keep talking about how Marines and Bare-Chested Manly Men are all objectification of men have made a mistake in their argument. A small logic fallacy called False Equivalence.
I think Shortpacked's most famous (I believe) strip covers this best.
Speaking of logical fallacies, you should check out Special Pleading.
There's also the small matter that there are plenty of women who find muscles attractive. Finally, the male who is made "uncomfortable" should be ignored just as dismissively as the people who are offended by cheesecake models. I give that comic a C-.
Kettu wrote: I'm getting a few of the not-DKoK ladies myself. Mostly just for painting.
On another note, those that keep talking about how Marines and Bare-Chested Manly Men are all objectification of men have made a mistake in their argument. A small logic fallacy called False Equivalence.
I think Shortpacked's most famous (I believe) strip covers this best.
Speaking of logical fallacies, you should check out Special Pleading.
There's also the small matter that there are plenty of women who find muscles attractive. Finally, the male who is made "uncomfortable" should be ignored just as dismissively as the people who are offended by cheesecake models. I give that comic a C-.
I concur old chap. Both sexes have to put up with corny magazine covers involving lone men/women surrounded by sexy members of the opposite gender dressed stupidly while they look smug.
Christ.. has nobody seen the Diet Coke ads before!?
That lot seem pretty happy eh?
And you don't see me complaining about it.. I'm still jolly enough to go down the pub on my pogo stick.
That's not true. It can't be true. Red Bull will (eventually) give me wings so that I can fly. And that add in the comic book for getting bigger muscles so that I can kick sand in my bully's face! Also the x-ray glasses!
Sex sells, and the vast majority of people don't find it offensive, be it a sexy lady in a bra holding a bottle of booze, or ten men with a six packs following a woman who wears a certain perfume, so there isn't really any need to worry about sexy miniatures as long as they aren't promoting the mistreatment of people/multi cocked rape demons.
Realistically speaking, you'd be hard-pressed to tell a female and a male apart when in uniform, webbing, and armor. "Bewb'd armour" does not exist in real life. 
