That's exactly why I feel there's so many other things that belong at the front of that list. Miniatures are pretty low on the long list of real world things chipping away at women's esteem and percieved status.

Since I left the Philippines myself and my family have endured quite a bit of trouble. People have called me "stupid chink" even though I'm Filipino, I've had a rock thrown through my window, my tires slashed and my brother in-law got beat up by a group of guys "for taking their jobs."

The one place I can say that I have been absolutely 100% accepted without a single issue ever, was in the miniature wargaming community.

But I have noticed one thing. The acceptance stops the second you disparage what they are into. This is people's hobbies and when someone comes along to tell them their tastes are sexist or immoral guess what happens?

The discussion stops. No one will budge.

So if you want miniatures that appeal to you when it comes to depicting female soldiers, the way to go about doing that isn't to tell everyone around you that their tastes are sexist. It's 100% counter productive.

That's what gets feelings dismissed. Accusing other people of immorality. If you even imply contempt for someone else's tastes, they will stop caring what you have to say so very, very fast.

 Peregrine wrote:
You don't need to provide a detailed response to it, but you can't just keep saying "It's all about wanting model X and not having it" when there are other serious problems.

In the context of GW miniatures (not the hobby as a whole, and I qualified that when I said it) I do feel it is very much wanting a certain model and not having it rather than sexism or some bigger problems. If it were sexism then GW wouldn't have female models scattered through all the Elvish/Eldar races. In fact I think if you actually went through, you'd find GW make very few "cheesecake" models compared to non "cheesecake" female models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Fafnir wrote:
Men are promoted to be dominant, independent, and acting; while women are promoted to be submissive, dependent, and passive. Essentially, men DO, women ARE.

It's a good think no actual women I know act like that and no men I know treat them like that.

 Ouze wrote:
Also, "Sisters of Battle are pretty prominent"? I'd disagree pretty strongly. They're as barely supported as it's possible to be on the tabletop while still actually being in the game. They're a hair above Squats, frankly.

I think if you looked back over their history, what with the White Dwarf updates and whatnot, that you'd realize how hyperbolic this statement is.

 DemetriDominov wrote:
The most successful women in 40k are the eldar - tall, beautiful, and arrogant. The most unsuccessful women in the universe are squats - short, fat, and unattractive. You're right, you really don't have to look very hard.

Before I bother typing out a thoughtful response to your posts I'd like to know if you were being serious in the quoted text.

agustin wrote:
Snip

See, what you described there is having some perspective on actual injustice.

Something that is sadly lacking in the majority of this thread.

 Melissia wrote:

 Somedude593 wrote:
in the end if i like it im going to do it and feth what anyone else thinks...

So I like punching people in the face, so I'm gonna punch you in the face and feth what you think about it. If you don't like it, that's cool, but it doesn't matter because it's really all about how you see it. If you see me punching you in the face as a bad thing, well, that's your problem, not mine. Why so sensitive?

A mindset completely and utterly ignoring how others feel about your actions is stupid.

Someone was seriously butt-hurt when they said this.

And before we start talking about unrealistic looking and dressing female miniatures in the hobby, I would like to just point out how unrealistic it is in the first place for a woman to be running around fighting men in melee.

theGABE995 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Somedude593 wrote:
in the end if i like it im going to do it and feth what anyone else thinks...

So I like punching people in the face, so I'm gonna punch you in the face and feth what you think about it. If you don't like it, that's cool, but it doesn't matter because it's really all about how you see it. If you see me punching you in the face as a bad thing, well, that's your problem, not mine. Why so sensitive?

A mindset completely and utterly ignoring how others feel about your actions is stupid.

Someone was seriously butt-hurt when they said this.

And before we start talking about unrealistic looking and dressing female miniatures in the hobby, I would like to just point out how unrealistic it is in the first place for a woman to be running around fighting men in melee.

Now that's just sad. Go with that logic, tell us some other things women can't do. Balance a check book maybe? Any math related material really I mean there's men around for that so she shouldn't worry herself right? I know multiple females who I'd happily put up against a solid 85% of the men I know in hand to hand, with the remaining 15% being people like Matty (a member of a military elite) or are competitive fighters who've been swinging since they could walk and tear apart every threat they run into just as a general rule of thumb. Throw weapons into the mix and you're just leveling the playing field for women. That's the modern reason for a woman to carry a gun, it doesn't matter how big and tough you are, if she's got you on the wrong end of a pistol you're done. Far future military equipment such as power swords, chain swords, etc will only continue to level out that playing field for a trained soldier, and you'd be flat amazed with some of the crazy gak a determined individual with a rifle and a bayonet can do.

Thinking about it. in certain cases women may even have an advantage. Now a human in general isn't really going to hold up to say Orkz in close combat but there's actually an argument that a smaller, faster and thus harder to hit for an Ork's more lumbering strength based fighting style. (The difference between practiced martial arts and drunk rednecks having a punch up).

Then again we're talking about open melee combat period which is about as realistic as a tank made out of faerie cake is combat effective.

theGABE995 wrote:

Someone was seriously butt-hurt when they said this.

And before we start talking about unrealistic looking and dressing female miniatures in the hobby, I would like to just point out how unrealistic it is in the first place for a woman to be running around fighting men in melee.

"before we start talking" might be a ship that sailed 20 pages ago.

As for Melissa's original post, I think the only real problem with it was that it equated (for hyperbolic effect) real injustice (being punched in the face) with liking miniatures that have prominent breasts. Her actual point that we need to take into consideration the interests of others is actually pretty valuable. This is part of the problem with approaching this discussion from the perspective that liking miniatures that have prominent breasts is bad, it doesn't take into the consideration the interests of others and instead assigns them a negative moral value: sexism.

As for you realism point, we're dealing with fantasy and sci-fi here, so it's perfectly plausible to shrink the physical disparity between men and women to produce a kind of fictional underpinning that gives design space for competent female warriors. One could argue that with the advent of guns and modern training, women may actually be the more competent warriors.


[

As Manchu and others have touched on, the real problem in this thread is that people are talking past each other, mainly because there is fundamental disagreement on what the problem actually is. Roughly, the positions boil down to;

-One position is that there isn't enough variety in the available models, forcing women (or males interested in using female models) to use poor or pin-up style models out of a paucity of options. The people that hold this position don't want the pin-ups to disappear, they just want there to be more options.

A second position laments the very existence of pin-up models and that they are enjoyed by anyone. This side casts aspersions on people that do enjoy pin-ups, and regards the very existence of pin-ups as a form of oppression/sexism.

Now, I'm quite firmly in the first camp, as it appears most of the reasonable voices posting here (as does Melissa, unless I very much misunderstand her position). But there are posts in here of the second camp, and it is worth noting that the original article that prompted this is firmly in the latter category (the author, Lillian Cohen-Moore, dismisses KD:M as "patently sexist, exploitative and offensive miniatures").

I agree completely that there should be more options, more varieties of figures available and a greater number of female characters (in general, some companies are far ahead of others...). To me, that Jon troy Nickel can follow his passion and produce, as he says, "beautiful 3D women" is a wonderful thing and something that should be encouraged.

I also firmly and completely reject Lillian Cohen-Moore's notion that JTN and the other people behind KD:M are "disturbing and discouraging". Or that the content is "astoundingly sexist material" and "pointedly sexist artistic content". Finally, I utterly reject the notion that KD:M is ultimately funded by "consumers who... want sexist miniatures"*.

The great problem with the way things are going, of course, is that the people in the first group, who want more options, are... winning. As costs plunge and artists are increasingly able to enter the marketplace, more and more options are becoming available. The simple fact is, like they used to say about the weather, we can now say "don't like the miniatures you have available? Just wait a minute." Gone are the days when a single company stood over the miniature marketplace like a colossus; technology, globalization and the ability of people with an idea to pull in money have irrevocably changed the marketplace for the better. Seriously now, if a pair of young women from Wichita, KS can pull in almost $30,000 to start the line of miniatures they want, the only barriers now are motivation.

The reason this is a problem is that the people in the second group don't want more, they want less. Does anyone really think that Mrs. Cohen-Moore would be able to dredge up some encouraging words for the women behind JunkRobot? Their models make KD:M stuff look subtle and restrained. So as the market becomes more and more open, the second group is going to become more and more shrill and angry, even as the first is more and more satisfied with the evolving situation.

So, is there a problem in the modeling hobby? Sure, but how we define it completely determines whether one sees it as getting better, or getting worse.





*Note, her phrase is "I’d like to see the miniatures market catch up to consumers who don’t want sexist miniatures", that is, as opposed to the troglodytes that funded this...

I read the article Buzzsaw linked the first time he linked and I think that's actually a good point. It really comes down to a question that I think the /real/ debate is about. The goal posts for what is and isn't sexism seem to move around a lot and I think that's because we're still trying to define what will honestly be a /very/ thin line. What is objectification vs. art? Is this http://i00.i.aliimg.com/img/pb/172/676/292/292676172_178.jpg art or sexism? (probably wouldn't click that at work, no worse then a KD model though). If it's objectification or creepy (and frankly I think a dozen odd of those things in someone's room are creepy as hell. but that's personal experience with the types of people who own them) what makes this model any different? http://www.zbrushcentral.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=181137 (The Twilight Knight Pin Up from KD)

I honestly think my original intent with the thread got lost a little. It was originally more introspective then I think it came out. Then the "feminazi" crowd came out and frankly I hate those guys. I mean the first response to the thread was the usual "nerd blow off" argument when this type of thing, or other accusations of issues in our overarching community like violence, comes up. So even trying to have a rational discussion about it "Is this actually a problem? It seems like it might be" half the posters responding had their backs up and were growling from the word go. That usually indicates an issue.

For myself I /like/ cheesecake. If anyone was still selling them for less then a fresh kidney I'd probably collect original WW2 Pinup art. Most of the Kingdom Death models were a little OTT for me for anything but the start of a fantasy armor themed playboy spread but the Twilight Knight I posted above is on my potential buy list. She's a little more reasonably armored then her companions and I still enjoy the old school Heavy Metal art, where the White Speaker Pin up and even some of the female models within the main range had more a pandering "yo! sex appeal here!" feel to them.

With that said I'm right on board with Melissia, I think the issue isn't the cheesecake, it's that except for a rare few examples, cheesecake seems to be the default setting for the community. Like I said in the OP for the thread I'm transitioning to a hobby painter from an army builder (unless the Necrons manage to draw me in so I have at least one xenos faction XD) so I want to paint fun models and stick'em in the display case with my army. I want to combine my ability (limited as it is) with the sculptor and create something beautiful. Each mini is a tiny piece of art right? Well the majority of female minis that meet my unreasonably high standards are cheesecake, and I can't help but wonder what that says to a person coming into my home for the first time. One pin up? Probably not terrible, especially if it's well done, a case full of them? Anecdotes aside it's probably a different story.

But then again, the sales info from Reaper and the like doesn't lie, someone quoted a sales stat of 10 to 1 cheesecake models to let's call them "modest" models, but is it because the latter is usually worse in quality to the former? Or because the purchasers just want to enjoy some T&A with their D&D game? You could probably make a solid argument for BOTH those things to be true. I've certainly noticed the quality's poorer on the whole if you step off planet cheescake for female minis.

So am I the problem? Probably not. Are most of us? Probably not. Is there a problem for our little sub culture within the nerd culture, and for nerddom and society on the whole? Yes. Undoubtedly. Now where do we go from here?

That's the other interesting thing that thread brought up on it's own that looks past the minis and into the culture. "Well this is a man's hobby" or "It's not natural for women to be into stuff like this" despite several lady wargamers contributing their thoughts and experiences about resistance they've seen or experienced with in the community, personal feelings on things like the minis and basically sharing the female point of view on A. obstacles on adding more women to the ranks of wargamers and B. how to remove those obstacles.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I mean the first response to the thread was the usual "nerd blow off" argument when this type of thing,

Your original post included material (especially in that you linked to the article by MCM calling KD:M "sexist, exploitative and offensive miniatures") that morally impugns those who enjoy that kind of content as sexist. What should someone's response be when someone tells them that stuff they like is morally wrong and suggests that the industry/hobby might have a problem? I think the first response and the tendency you pointed out in the original post for people to just blow it off is a perfectly appropriate response.

You can't have a discussion when one side thinks the other are immoral and opens up with that. It's just not going to work. That's WHY you got that first response like that.

If you want people to engage in a real discussion, don't open up by impugning their character. Here's a later post of yours, also from the first page, in reaction to Sean O'Brian:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Well now we're into the meat and potatoes of the issue. The companies provide the goods but it's the masses at large who buy them, so we the masses are at fault for driving the consumption of the product. The same could be said for Nerd Culture's sexism issue on a whole. How do we correct that? Who should correct that? Is it the corporation's responsibility? Ours? Should we just not care and say it is what it is? I agree with Melissia's point on that last argument but I suppose it is on the table.

Look at your language. ""we the masses are at fault" "At fault" for what exactly? Buying products people enjoy? Oh, you go on to explain. It's the sexism of Nerd Culture! Oh, and we need to fix that!

Now imagine you've just been told you are "at fault" and what you like is part of "Nerd Culture's sexism issue."

Back to your latest post:

So am I the problem? Probably not. Are most of us? Probably not. Is there a problem for our little sub culture within the nerd culture, and for nerddom and society on the whole? Yes. Undoubtedly.

Or maybe in this case, sculptors are making figures they enjoy and people who want to own them, paint them and maybe play a wargame with them are buying and enjoying them. As Buzzsaw pointed out, there has never been an easier time to have a vision for some miniatures and then bring that to fruition in the form of cast product. So we're going to see more stuff like Statuesque but also more stuff like JunkRobot and KD:M.

I don' t think we need moralizing crusaders on this issue at all, but as Buzzsaw pointed out, the openness of the market is going to mean that the crusaders are going to have more and more reason to complain rather than less in their attempt to control what other people enjoy. And of course people who do like the new products are going to give the usual "nerd blow off" because why should they take this moral imperialism seriously when they're being told what they like is "sexist, exploitive and offensive"?

-a

agustin wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I mean the first response to the thread was the usual "nerd blow off" argument when this type of thing,

Your original post included material (especially in that you linked to the article by MCM calling KD:M "sexist, exploitative and offensive miniatures") that morally impugns those who enjoy that kind of content as sexist. What should someone's response be when someone tells them that stuff they like is morally wrong and suggests that the industry/hobby might have a problem? I think the first response and the tendency you pointed out in the original post for people to just blow it off is a perfectly appropriate response.

You can't have a discussion when one side thinks the other are immoral and opens up with that. It's just not going to work. That's WHY you got that first response like that.

If you want people to engage in a real discussion, don't open up by impugning their character.

Someone was mean to me so it's time to behave poorly? Yes I linked the article because it's what spurred the desire to have a discussion. Is the writer OTT? Yep, does she have a point? She certainly seems to think so, and just blowing it off like gamers always do the violent video games crowd seemed a poor idea in general. I promise I'll never think highly enough of the rest of Dakka that they'll have the ability to get past the specter of potential insult ever again.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Well now we're into the meat and potatoes of the issue. The companies provide the goods but it's the masses at large who buy them, so we the masses are at fault for driving the consumption of the product. The same could be said for Nerd Culture's sexism issue on a whole. How do we correct that? Who should correct that? Is it the corporation's responsibility? Ours? Should we just not care and say it is what it is? I agree with Melissia's point on that last argument but I suppose it is on the table.

Look at your language. ""we the masses are at fault" "At fault" for what exactly? Buying products people enjoy? Oh, you go on to explain. It's the sexism of Nerd Culture! Oh, and we need to fix that!

Now imagine you've just been told you are "at fault" and what you like is part of "Nerd Culture's sexism issue."

And yet it's exactly a valid point for what was being discussed at the time (oh no! context!), that was a direct response to why the market has the products it has now. Probably could have used a better choice of words but life happens. As to Nerd Culture having a sexism issue, you can deny that all you want, it's a free planet and you can ignore reality all you want.

Back to your latest post:

So am I the problem? Probably not. Are most of us? Probably not. Is there a problem for our little sub culture within the nerd culture, and for nerddom and society on the whole? Yes. Undoubtedly.

Or maybe in this case, sculptors are making figures they enjoy and people who want to own them, paint them and maybe play a wargame with them are buying and enjoying them. As Buzzsaw pointed out, there has never been an easier time to have a vision for some miniatures and then bring that to fruition in the form of cast product. So we're going to see more stuff like Statuesque but also more stuff like JunkRobot and KD:M.

I don' t think we need moralizing crusaders on this issue at all, but as Buzzsaw pointed out, the openness of the market is going to mean that the crusaders are going to have more and more reason to complain rather than less in their attempt to control what other people enjoy.

It's funny how you point fingers about inflammatory language and casting aspirations on people but do the same thing yourself. I just said I like cheesecake, not as much as apple pie but it's a decent desert now and then nor has any one to my knowledge in this thread said the cheesecake needs to go away, that includes our female posters.

Personally, I think that the GW-universe's abject horror at the notion of female Space Marines is as close to my threshold of sexism as I can take. While people are readily accepting of pink Orks, counts-as silver painted skeletons as Necrons, and Chaos Grey Knights, but plop down one genetically enhanced female super soldier in power armor and the great crying and gnashing of teeth ensues.

I’m in the ‘wish there was more variety in female minis’ camp. It’s hard to justify saves greater than a 6+ when the mini is topless.

 eledamris wrote:
Personally, I think that the GW-universe's abject horror at the notion of female Space Marines is as close to my threshold of sexism as I can take. While people are readily accepting of pink Orks, counts-as silver painted skeletons as Necrons, and Chaos Grey Knights, but plop down one genetically enhanced female super soldier in power armor and the great crying and gnashing of teeth ensues.

And off course you had to pick Space Wolves...

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Someone was mean to me so it's time to behave poorly?

Telling someone to "**** off" is a perfectly reasonable response when someone attempts to impose their morality on you. It's not behaving poorly at all.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
And yet it's exactly a valid point for what was being discussed at the time (oh no! context!), that was a direct response to why the market has the products it has now.

Right. I placed in in context by saying who you were responding to and then brought it right back to products and purchasing in my same post after I told you how you are coming across to those who like the things you are (hopefully inadvertently?) impugning as immoral.

It's funny how you point fingers about inflammatory language and casting aspirations on people but do the same thing yourself.

I'm trying to communicate just how polarizing the position you started with really is. And why people are reacting the way they do. I don't know how to do that without resorting to strong language. Blame it on English being my 3rd language-- sorry! Actually one of the reasons I'm posting in this thread is to practice.

If I were to sum up my position on this issue, it would be:

1) People don't like being told what they like or do is immoral. Whether it's a bible thumper telling them about their sins or a feminist point at them as participating in exploitation, it puts people's walls up and makes them either disengage ("nerd blow off") or answer back.

2) Artists should be able to sculpt what they like and people should be able to buy what they like as long as they are obeying the laws of their jurisdictions. I know I haven't really developed this thought very much, but my main point here is that it's okay for people to enjoy things I find immoral and for there to even be an industry around that as long as it's not actually harming people. And I've seen what real harm looks like, not this made up "it hurts my feelings" or "it makes me uncomfortable" harm.

3) We're talking about toy soldiers and games people play with them. This ties into the "First World Problems" posts I made and my preceding point about real harm. There's a difference between real exploitation of women and MCM's claim that miniatures can be exploitive. I think this conflation between real sexism, exploitation and misogyny and "it made me feel uncomfortable" is a direct result of western affluence and privilege on the part of the feminists.

4) The accusers of sexism are going to lose in the end. The market is becoming more and more accessible and the KD:M and JunkRobot kickstarters, along with Reaper's info, prove that people are going to fund what they like and more and more "sexist, exploitive, and offensive" miniatures are going to be made. There will also be other great miniatures that take a different approach to depicting women (does Statuesque count?), but the proliferation of the type of miniatures you brought up as being problematic in your original post is going to increase.

Am I still being too strong in my language? Let me know.

1. I don't disagree with this point, but it doesn't mean there isn't a problem. Just bringing up "Sexism" in any sense, accusatory or not (and I wasn't trying to be) triggers these reactions. So just by starting the conversation you're stepping on some toes, but the conversation's probably worth having if you have to step on toes and shake things up to have it. That female space marine mini above is a /perfect/ example. You ever want to troll less civil wargaming forums then Dakka? Or hives of scum and villainy like /tg? That's a great way to start. Even in this thread there was a massive negative reaction to the implication there could be or should be or that the fluff could accommodate female space marines. (Again no one's asking for that either, at least not here)

2. Don't think any one here in the thread is saying that still.

3. Being made to feel uncomfortable or unwelcome in a setting is not exactly a new tactic for excluding individuals from somewhere or something. I have a friend who's a female welder and she ended up suing her first shop for discrimination, the entire staff didn't need to do anything direct, just make things uncomfortable to her till working there was miserable. Can't break up the boy's club right? (Her shop settled out of court before it could reach trial, she now has a new shop that's much more open, and does metalworking art on the side)

4. Do we really want them to lose though? I'm not even talking about minis at this point, but over all as a society on the whole better there are people willing to call things out as potentially being harmful or wrong then just letting things ride as they are. The teenage girl who called out magazines targeted at her age group for excessive photoshop for example and got that changed. Are some of these folks a little OTT and do they ride the controversy train a little too much? It's possible, but I'd still rather have them then not.

You're fine, but it's worth noting that "Crusader" and "attempting to control" have strong connotations in English. Possibly more so for me more then others, but being spit on and called a "crusader pig" leaves an impression.

 eledamris wrote:
Personally, I think that the GW-universe's abject horror at the notion of female Space Marines is as close to my threshold of sexism as I can take. While people are readily accepting of pink Orks, counts-as silver painted skeletons as Necrons, and Chaos Grey Knights, but plop down one genetically enhanced female super soldier in power armor and the great crying and gnashing of teeth ensues.

Pray do tell, from who does this great greiving come from? Certainly not me thats for sure. I actually have plans for female super soldiers in my forces. Now if people have a problem with that its tough titties for them. I actually welcome diversity. And to all those out there, if me owning a model of a nudy or semi nude hot chick makes me a pervert in your eyes well feth you. If i want at some point in my lidfe to make an army of but naked chicks then thats my problem and it sure as hell dosnt make me a pervert (unless its for an aspect of rule 36[shudder]). As it is if the model is good then i will paint it. It has nothing to do with this sexulisation of women.

This thread has de-railed magnificently. Now that weve all had our slanging match and aired our opinions and/or greivances can we please try to settle into a calm debate? Is it really that hard?

oh and @Melissia im sorry if i offended you, i did not intend to.

 eledamris wrote:
Personally, I think that the GW-universe's abject horror at the notion of female Space Marines is as close to my threshold of sexism as I can take. While people are readily accepting of pink Orks, counts-as silver painted skeletons as Necrons, and Chaos Grey Knights, but plop down one genetically enhanced female super soldier in power armor and the great crying and gnashing of teeth ensues.

That's an awful model though.. Why the feth did they put tit-sockets on the power armour? Tits aren't big enough to require them being worked into the armour.. and I know this because my missus wore plate-mail in the British museum once.

Unless every woman in the future has had Ceramite Breast implants.

When it's done as part of an aesthetic on miniatures, that are pretty damned small, breasts are the easiest way to define the gender. There are examples of bad sculpts and good sculpts.

Is this maybe just a case of Lady Nerds with body issues? Not that I'd know anything about that, being a fine specimen of a young man... raised on alcohol, deep fried food and a strict regime of minimal exercise... *cough*

Does anybody actually treat women any differently by the way they are portrayed in miniature war games/fantasy role play? Really?

 mattyrm wrote:

 eledamris wrote:
Personally, I think that the GW-universe's abject horror at the notion of female Space Marines is as close to my threshold of sexism as I can take. While people are readily accepting of pink Orks, counts-as silver painted skeletons as Necrons, and Chaos Grey Knights, but plop down one genetically enhanced female super soldier in power armor and the great crying and gnashing of teeth ensues.

That's an awful model though.. Why the feth did they put tit-sockets on the power armour? Tits aren't big enough to require them being worked into the armour.. and I know this because my missus wore plate-mail in the British museum once.

Because little nerdy boys want sexy space wimins. But i have to agree, those Breasts are an awful job.....

Oh and high 5 to your missus for wearing plate mail .

That's another point that I don't understand.

"Nerdy boys want sexy space women". Absolute nonsense, it's the rule of cool. Sisters of Battle aren't appealing because they are "sexy". They are appealing because they take the image of a Nun and make it into something cool. They hunt and burn Heretic, Witches and Mutants whilst having an awesomely Gothic aesthetic.

I think the people that want female miniatures to be sexy are woefully in the minority. Like, "get away from me you freak" minority in a hobby that's about collecting plastic model kits that do battle.

 Medium of Death wrote:
That's another point that I don't understand.

"Nerdy boys want sexy space women". Absolute nonsense, it's the rule of cool. Sisters of Battle aren't appealing because they are "sexy". They are appealing because they take the image of a Nun and make it into something cool. They hunt and burn Heretic, Witches and Mutants whilst having an awesomely Gothic aesthetic.

I think the people that want female miniatures to be sexy are woefully in the minority. Like, "get away from me you freak" minority in a hobby that's about collecting plastic model kits that do battle.

Sisters of Battle are not even that appealing to most people at all because the sculpts are terrible and don't fit in to 40k at all. I like minis such as the ones by Kingdom Death, I think the sculpting works is incredible and the minis really have artistic merit, does that make me part of the "get away from me you freak" minority?

 Medium of Death wrote:

"Nerdy boys want sexy space women". Absolute nonsense, it's the rule of cool.

Yeah you have to be right there like.. I mean, really.. you cant see feth all worth looking at on a mini, its not like its because they want to perve on chicks.. its the internet era for feths sake, there are numerous, free and easy ways to see as much tit as you like...why worry about 28mm models?

Actually, I think the same kinda thing about mens magazines. I have literally never bought one. You know.... gak articles and a woman on the front who is a little bit scantily clad?!

I mean, if I want to read something, I read an actual book.

If I want to look at tits, I look at proper pornography!

What the hell is the point in FHM anyway!?

agustin wrote:
As someone who grew up in Manila, putting so much effort into decrying sexism inside of a hobby like miniature wargaming strikes me as being a perfect example of "first world problems."

No, sexism isn't a first world problem, it's a planetary one. The degree on the scale is certainly different to Manila's treatment of women, but prejudice doesn't go away in the first world, it just changes it's tone and tactic. The Philippines are world famous for the treatment of women, for all the wrong reasons, so I imagine this does seem terribly petty by comparison, but it is a cog in a link of continual representation of women as property, sexual objectification and as victims.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

theGABE995 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Somedude593 wrote:
in the end if i like it im going to do it and feth what anyone else thinks...

So I like punching people in the face, so I'm gonna punch you in the face and feth what you think about it. If you don't like it, that's cool, but it doesn't matter because it's really all about how you see it. If you see me punching you in the face as a bad thing, well, that's your problem, not mine. Why so sensitive?

A mindset completely and utterly ignoring how others feel about your actions is stupid.

Someone was seriously butt-hurt when they said this.

And before we start talking about unrealistic looking and dressing female miniatures in the hobby, I would like to just point out how unrealistic it is in the first place for a woman to be running around fighting men in melee.

Now that's just sad. Go with that logic, tell us some other things women can't do..

Ok I'll bite.

On average (per DoD studies, I'll dig up the links later) women cannot throw a hand grenade far enough to take themselves out of the blast radius. Women also due to musculature build can not forced march with gear and pack as far as men. Now before you start screaming these are averages and there are always results on either side of the bell curve.

If you wish to argue either of these points please make sure to cover in your rebuttal the outcry over women being moved to Pull up's for the the USMC's physical fitness test from bent arm hangs. Also please cover the divergent standards in every branches physical fitness tests, one level for men one level for women.

I think we can all agree on FHM being completely pointless and only make you look like a d-bag if you buy one. There's a time and a place, and it's at home for free on the internet.

 MetalOxide wrote:


Sisters of Battle are not even that appealing to most people at all because the sculpts are terrible and don't fit in to 40k at all.

Sculpts are a subjective, but the "don't fit into 40k" just needs to be laughed out the room.

I'd like you to coherently point out were the Gothic Space Nuns don't fit into the Grimdark Universe or Aesthetic of the Imperium.

I'm curious:
What exactly is currently the topic of this discussion?

Also, I've seen "Well, our hobby HAS a sexism problem, can't deny that" thrown around several times.
How exactly? Could somebody elaborate?

 Medium of Death wrote:
Sculpts are a subjective, but the "don't fit into 40k" just needs to be laughed out the room.

But... their existence is devastating to my portrayal of women being sidelined in 40k! We need to marginalize them as much as possible in this thread!

I think we can all agree on FHM being completely pointless and only make you look like a d-bag if you buy one. There's a time and a place, and it's at home for free on the internet.

 MetalOxide wrote:


Sisters of Battle are not even that appealing to most people at all because the sculpts are terrible and don't fit in to 40k at all.

Sculpts are a subjective, but the "don't fit into 40k" just needs to be laughed out the room.

I'd like you to coherently point out were the Gothic Space Nuns don't fit into the Grimdark Universe or Aesthetic of the Imperium.

agustin wrote:
Since I left the Philippines myself and my family have endured quite a bit of trouble. People have called me "stupid chink" even though I'm Filipino, I've had a rock thrown through my window, my tires slashed and my brother in-law got beat up by a group of guys "for taking their jobs."

The one place I can say that I have been absolutely 100% accepted without a single issue ever, was in the miniature wargaming community.

But I have noticed one thing. The acceptance stops the second you disparage what they are into. This is people's hobbies and when someone comes along to tell them their tastes are sexist or immoral guess what happens?

The discussion stops. No one will budge.

So if you want miniatures that appeal to you when it comes to depicting female soldiers, the way to go about doing that isn't to tell everyone around you that their tastes are sexist. It's 100% counter productive.

That's what gets feelings dismissed. Accusing other people of immorality. If you even imply contempt for someone else's tastes, they will stop caring what you have to say so very, very fast.

So, let me get this straight. You've been prejudged and treated as somehow less than a man for being somewhere the locals don't accept you.

You have been subjected to blatant and outright abuse, and I'm sure subtle digs as well, because of what you look like, not who you are.

You find a haven of acceptance in tabletop miniwargaming.

Someone else says, hey, I feel marginalized in tabletop miniwargaming, even though I like that hobby and participate just like you. But there is an institutional underlying prejudice about me because of what i am, what I look like, not who I am.

And you say GTFO. If you say anything bad about it, you deserve what you get. My haven can't be yours.

Wow.

MetalOxide wrote:
I think we can all agree on FHM being completely pointless and only make you look like a d-bag if you buy one. There's a time and a place, and it's at home for free on the internet.

...

I disagree

 Monster Rain wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
Sculpts are a subjective, but the "don't fit into 40k" just needs to be laughed out the room.

But... their existence is devastating to my portrayal of women being sidelined in 40k! We need to marginalize them as much as possible in this thread!

I guess you're right. They haven't been mentioned in any of the New Codices and haven't had a rules... update... recently... oh... wait.

Even stepping away from the 40k aspect for a minute. If we zoom out and take in the bigger picture of "Modelling Hobby" it becomes even more of a non starter as i'm sure more model kits of gender-less Aeroplanes and Tanks are sold rather than figures.

This is such a niche problem, if it is even really a problem, that I don't know how it got to this many pages so quickly.

I don't think exaggerated proportions on female models or their state of undress is sexism. I'd imagine anybody who would have that perspective is probably heterosexual.

I say that because quite a few of the male models I see in this hobby have exaggerated muscles, bulging cod pieces, strong chins and are in a extremely "manly" pose.

The only models you see that don't really look like male models are either evil or undead or sick.

I'm sure if you were a gay male you'd say "WOW, they are really objectifying men with these models". Most of us aren't gay, so we don't think that.

Also, you should understand...table top gaming as well as computer games are an escape and time consumer for alot of males that for one reason or another aren't able to find female companionship currently. Alot of those guys are pretty revved up when it comes to female imagery, so they are more likely to actually notice how hot a SOB mini is...maybe gay hobbyists think Sigvald is super hot...I dunno.

Anyway, I think it's a non(made up) issue personally.

Late to the party here. To address the OP on the original question- My answer could go many ways but I am in a tired frame of mind and here's the short answer.

There may be a problem, and in fact there probably, even almost certainly is. But the feths I give > 0. I don't play for realism, obviously, I'm a 40k player. I don't play for the benefits with women. I play to have an army of Superhumans/ Fungal Gorillas/ Intergalactic Locusts/ Space Elves kill each other off. The amount of flying feths I give about sexism in a game where 1 in 10000 players are women, would not be enough to ever be notable.


The next time I have a conversation and this comes up IRL it will go like this.

"So what's your view on sexism in Wargaming?"
"I don't give a gak. "
"But is it not a problem, that these nerds are all playing with skimply dressed warrior women with swords and guns who worship a corpse with no independent thought, and are not contributing much to society?"
Edited for image content MT11

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
...Someone was mean to me so it's time to behave poorly? Yes I linked the article because it's what spurred the desire to have a discussion. Is the writer OTT? Yep, does she have a point? She certainly seems to think so, and just blowing it off like gamers always do the violent video games crowd seemed a poor idea in general. I promise I'll never think highly enough of the rest of Dakka that they'll have the ability to get past the specter of potential insult ever again....

It's funny how you point fingers about inflammatory language and casting aspirations on people but do the same thing yourself. I just said I like cheesecake, not as much as apple pie but it's a decent desert now and then nor has any one to my knowledge in this thread said the cheesecake needs to go away, that includes our female posters.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
...
4. Do we really want them to lose though? I'm not even talking about minis at this point, but over all as a society on the whole better there are people willing to call things out as potentially being harmful or wrong then just letting things ride as they are. The teenage girl who called out magazines targeted at her age group for excessive photoshop for example and got that changed. Are some of these folks a little OTT and do they ride the controversy train a little too much? It's possible, but I'd still rather have them then not.

You're fine, but it's worth noting that "Crusader" and "attempting to control" have strong connotations in English. Possibly more so for me more then others, but being spit on and called a "crusader pig" leaves an impression.

KalashnikovMarine, with all due respect (and I do mean that, as you are clearly well meaning and sincere here), the problem with this line of big picture, maybe Cohen-Moore went too far but she had good intentions thinking is it obscures what has really happened. Which is, and I'm using big type to make this crystal clear for the person skimming the thread;

Adam Poots did what everyone claims they want and she crapped all over him anyway.

KD:M is exactly what people in my "first group" classification, and what most of the posters in this thread, call for: he put the pin-ups, the cheesecake, on the side. The pin-ups are not part of the game, they don't have any rules, they are simply something extra that people can buy if they want.

It's also important to note that when Mrs. Cohen-Moore's gets called out on this, she quickly shifts her tune: it's never a good sign in an article that there is an "Update", where the author uses terms like " I ackowledge[sic] that was not a deft employment of language skill", and "newswriting is vastly different from opinion columns. I am not obligated to interview people". Also not a good sign when the update is longer then the original article. Note also that, despite being called on the carpet for not knowing what she was condemning, she doesn't back down. She remains firmly rooted in the camp that KD:M is irredeemably sexist and "disappointed" in the team behind it.

It's been mentioned "Are some of these folks a little OTT and do they ride the controversy train a little too much?" Let's be clear, that's not what happened here. Mrs. Cohen-Moore made what she considered to be a very, very serious accusation... based on nothing. Based on mistakes. She falsely accused Adam Poots and his collaborators, pinned the scarlet "S" on them... and then just walks away from it with "I am not obligated to interview people".

Let's be crystal clear: Adam is doing what everyone says they want, having the actual game pieces be precisely equivalent in gear and seriousness (within the limits of actually expressing identifiable gender), and putting the cheesecake on the side. For example;


You don't need the Rawhide Dame to play a female in Rawhide armor. You don't need one, period. If you want one, you can have one... but you have to pay extra. So in this discussion, it cannot be avoided that one side wants more options, and one side wants fewer options. Mrs. Cohen-Moore flat out says this: ""Equalizing" the images of sexual consumption just exploits men too. Exploitation isn't suddenly okay when we're doing it to two parties. It just means more sexism." So, in fact, this entire discussion was spawned by someone that "said the cheesecake needs to go away".

EDIT: Bugger it, not worth it, I'm not willing to put in the time to argue.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Now that's just sad. Go with that logic, tell us some other things women can't do. Balance a check book maybe? Any math related material really I mean there's men around for that so she shouldn't worry herself right?

Lets not get overly silly now. The physical disparity between men and women is a reason why some don't want female models in their armies, and IMO that's not sexism. It can be as simple as an aesthetic choice or a choice of how one perceives their own army.

They can't urinate standing without getting some on their legs. They can't get someone else pregnant. But to be honest, I can't urinate standing up without getting some on my leg, and I sure as hell can't balance a check book.

 Debbin wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Now that's just sad. Go with that logic, tell us some other things women can't do. Balance a check book maybe? Any math related material really I mean there's men around for that so she shouldn't worry herself right?

Lets not get overly silly now. The physical disparity between men and women is a reason why some don't want female models in their armies, and IMO that's not sexism. It can be as simple as an aesthetic choice or a choice of how one perceives their own army.

They can't urinate standing without getting some on their legs. They can't get someone else pregnant. But to be honest, I can't urinate standing up without getting some on my leg, and I sure as hell can't balance a check book.

They can't lift 200kg over their heads. I can't lift 200kg over my head either, but then I don't think there should be me-marines any more than I think there should be fem-marines

 Deadshot wrote:
The amount of flying feths I give about sexism in a game where 1 in 10000 players are women, would not be enough to ever be notable.

MAYBE we should start wondering why that is.

As for myself, I'm all for equality and heavily against sexism (you know, the one where "one gender is handled worse than the other", rather than the pseudo-sexism that says "women are threated worse than men"). Naturally most sexism goes against women which for me is a severe problem. But it's a problem of society as a whole and needs to be battled in the scale of society as a whole. To do that, naturally we need to start small.

When I joined a Death Watch group, all was good and fun until someone shot out a sexist remark which I won't elaborate here and my immediate reaction was very much "Dude, what the hell!?" to which our GM mentioned such behaviour is common to which I answered "Well that's disgusting." Long story short, it ended right and there and never came up again during any game since. Problem solved.

40k and Fastasy on a whole are design-wise very much against sexism (Matt Ward butchering Sororitas left and right is a wholly different matter) because we have men and women in full armour or equal amounts of no armour (see Dark Eldar) and there are about two units in a state of severe undress (Sister Repentia and Dark Elf Witch) and those two have clear reasons why (punishment and styled arrogance, respectively) so I see no problem there.

After reading a good chunk of this, and now unfortunately having to go to class, I agree that there is certainly a sexist problem in nerd culture as a whole, though to what degree it can be debated. personally I'd love to see models on the table that look like lt. Mira from the space marine game (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/10/mira3c.jpg/sr=1)

KalashnikovMarine wrote:Thinking about it. in certain cases women may even have an advantage.

No.

It's just fact of biology. While there are a small, small number of women who have abnormal body types that will make them comparable to men, as an average, no, there's really just no solid advantage to being female in a combat environment. There is so much more to combat than simply aiming a rifle and pulling a trigger. I know that some people like to pretend that there isn't, but it's not the case. The average woman cannot carry the same proportional load, and not the same actual load. It was of no surprise that the first two female volunteers for the School of Infantry for Marine officers did not complete the course and there have been no subsequent volunteers. One of them did not even pass the initial conditioning and strength test.

But that's neither here nor there and irrelevant to the discussion. On this topic, my advice is to not ask the questions you don't want the answers to, lol. Because I'll happily share more if you would like to contest this point. I'll agree that it really has no bearing with 40K or wargames where realism isn't typically the most important thing. Then again, there's a certain amount of irony for asking for "realistic" depictions of an unrealistic model. But I'll let that one go there.


The original article has a fair point. The problem with the fair point is that it ignores the basic facts of marketing. You produce products for a target market. The miniatures wargaming community is almost entirely male. Yeah, there's an imbalance of "sexy' male figures to "sexy" female figures. Why is this? Sexy male figures probably don't sell anywhere near as well. No demand, no production. One can rant and rave about the lack of equality, but there's really no such thing in the business world. Female protagonists in male dominated market segments are always going to be sexualized, for the most part. That's just the way it is. I think some of you still underestimate the value of sex appeal. It may be the Internet era of free and unlimited porn, but there's still going to be the demographic, especially in markets aimed at "nerds", that will purchase these kinds of "sexy" miniatures. If you don't believe me, look at the sheer numbers of them available. It seems like every 2nd Dark Eldar project log uses Hasselfree's harem girls, lol.

Ultimately, if the market would support the creation of more "reasonable" female models, they would exist. I'm not even saying that it's not possible. I'm just saying the state of the market, for now, proves that there is a market for the "sexy" females (and it really isn't that strong either. It's a niche market in a niche hobby).

If people want it to change, commission an artist to make you a range of "reasonable ladies" and then throw it up on Kickstarter. People will throw away money on just about anything these days. I mean, they managed to get $250K for a movie starring Lindsay Lohan and a male porn star. If that can get funded, your ladyfigures can too.

Ultimately, and I know this is an unpleasant thing to consider, but this really does boil down to "I want this, but it doesn't exist, and that makes me mad". This is an industry we're talking about. Not a person. Not an institution. Any product provided to the marketplace is not provided under any obligation. Which means every supplier is going only produce the products that they feel they have a reasonable chance of achieving an acceptable rate of return on. Nobody is "owed" anything. If it does not exist, it is because there is no perceived demand, or the perceived demand falls below the level of profitability that would occur from using the production assets to make something else. It's their capital to risk, not yours.

 derjager7 wrote:
After reading a good chunk of this, and now unfortunately having to go to class, I agree that there is certainly a sexist problem in nerd culture as a whole, though to what degree it can be debated. personally I'd love to see models on the table that look like lt. Mira from the space marine game (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/10/mira3c.jpg/sr=1)

She WAS quality was Mira.. gawd bless'er.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Buzzsaws post made me actually go look at that.. Kingdom death thing, I have to say, its pretty ridiculous to me.

I don't understand being really into that kind of stuff personally.. why are all the birds bursting out of their tiny outfits?

I suppose its a matter of taste, but I prefer fighty chicks to look fighty (See Mira from SM) or perhaps a power armoured sister than..well.. a slightly overweight size 12 bird, literally bulging out of a tiny amount of cloth covering her abnormally sized arse.

But sexist? I suppose its not really.. if there is a market for flesh then it gets serviced, I wouldn't call strippers existence inherently sexist either, be they male or female, they just are what they are, a thing that exists because money can be made from it.

I just don't have any real interest in playing a game so ridiculous personally, but I don't think it should be banned or anything.

 mattyrm wrote:
She WAS quality was Mira.. gawd bless'er.

MattyRM is an actual Imperial Guardsman.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

KalashnikovMarine wrote:Thinking about it. in certain cases women may even have an advantage.

No.

Thank you for the lecture on biology and Marine Corps training standards, since I enforced those standards for a couple years I'm familiar with them. I was also aware of the two females who failed the Infantry Officer's course (O's don't go to SOI) Thankfully I was talking about a game where power armor, psychics and weapons with power fields seem to be the standard so I'm not too worried about anyone's present combat performance. It's also worth noting that Canada has female infantry on the officer and enlisted side who perform up to their standard. A good friend of mine is a senior officer with a Canadian infantry regiment and he informs me he'd happily put his life in the hands of any of his ladies as readily as any of his lads.

Otherwise I basically agree with you. Except where you put down "that's just the way it is" and shrug it off. Why? Blue is for boys, pink is for girls but as was covered earlier in the 1930s pink was a strong, manly color and blue was the perfect color for a little girl. Things change, as has been covered extensively now, KS and other sources of "start up" production and over all lowered costs make that change a lot easier in many respects, especially if you just focus in on the minis. 3D printing's still on the rise so eventually it'll just be a matter of a decent 3D artist who can work in CAD and press a "print" button. Doesn't mean the conversation isn't worth having.

 mattyrm wrote:

 derjager7 wrote:
After reading a good chunk of this, and now unfortunately having to go to class, I agree that there is certainly a sexist problem in nerd culture as a whole, though to what degree it can be debated. personally I'd love to see models on the table that look like lt. Mira from the space marine game (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/10/mira3c.jpg/sr=1)

She WAS quality was Mira.. gawd bless'er.

I'd just kill for IRL officers like that, not often you see a lieutenant who can run a whole freaking war on her own.

Someone brought up a grenade throwing thing, I haven't seen that DoD study, but in my term monitoring the Marine Corp's combat fitness test, in a large mixed gender unit I can say that males and females screwed up in the grenade toss a roughly equal amount percentage wise. (Yes we kept stats on that for the CO). The pull ups thing is also understandable. I'd be up set too if I had had a leg up on promotions for a significant amount of time and the playing field was being leveled. Equality goes both ways.

 Sigvatr wrote:
1) How would they fit in? SoB are ugly and underplayed. Furthermore, what is hte point of women in battle when you got huge space marines to fight? What could they bring to the battlefield? Sandwiches? (sorry.)

2) I don't know about the IG fluff, I only know that there's one female officer in the IG army. Do they still rely on normal reproduction? Are the genetically changed too in a lesser way?

3) What major female models are there?

4) I don't get it.

5) I just imagined a Chaos Warrior kneeling down in front of her, proposing. Jolly. Seriously though, what do you think would happen to women that survive a battle? Chaos Warriors...especially Marauders. Ya think they'll ask them out for a date? Let's just be real here. Have a look at what happened to women after pillaging a village back in the times. Or don't.

The thing is: there are very few people making angry posts / threads about how women are represented now and then and happily lunge at everyone who dares bringing some rationalism in. 99,5% of the players do not care about the issue. At all.

On the IG side, and marine, how would you notice the difference for most of the minis? Shaved genetic freak head in giant powered armor-male or female? Generic ground pounder in helmet and BDUs - male or female?

 Sigvatr wrote:
1) How would they fit in? SoB are ugly and underplayed. Furthermore, what is hte point of women in battle when you got huge space marines to fight? What could they bring to the battlefield? Sandwiches? (sorry.)

This should be pointed out that Space Marines in the fluff is that they are the Angels of Death, it is RARE for an average human to see a space marine, so why wouldn't they enlist females? Especially if you look at the fact that the entire population of Cadia is mobilized and a part of the army.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
1) How would they fit in? SoB are ugly and underplayed. Furthermore, what is hte point of women in battle when you got huge space marines to fight? What could they bring to the battlefield? Sandwiches? (sorry.)

This should be pointed out that Space Marines in the fluff is that they are the Angels of Death, it is RARE for an average human to see a space marine, so why wouldn't they enlist females? Especially if you look at the fact that the entire population of Cadia is mobilized and a part of the army.

The way I see it, a Space Marine chapter is only going to enlist the best of the best and then only the best of those will ever make it through to fully fledged Marine. So you might be able to find a woman who is better than your average man, but that's not what it takes to be a Marine, it takes a woman who is better than 99.99% of men, a much more difficult thing to find. Your equivalent woman to the 1 in 1000 man who has what it takes to be a Marine is going to be zero to none of the available women. Now you could argue in the far future women have evolved the same physical strengths as men... in which case they probably look the same as the men too.

You could also argue that strength doesn't matter in the far future with technology and all that, but that wouldn't fit in to the game world very well IMO because even among Space Marines you have dudes like this who are even stronger again and benefit from it...

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440280a&prodId=prod1460181a

My bad, I meant "Why wouldn't they enlist female" to mean the imperial guard regiments.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
1) How would they fit in? SoB are ugly and underplayed. Furthermore, what is hte point of women in battle when you got huge space marines to fight? What could they bring to the battlefield? Sandwiches? (sorry.)

This should be pointed out that Space Marines in the fluff is that they are the Angels of Death, it is RARE for an average human to see a space marine, so why wouldn't they enlist females? Especially if you look at the fact that the entire population of Cadia is mobilized and a part of the army.

The way I see it, a Space Marine chapter is only going to enlist the best of the best and then only the best of those will ever make it through to fully fledged Marine. So you might be able to find a woman who is better than your average man, but that's not what it takes to be a Marine, it takes a woman who is better than 99.99% of men, a much more difficult thing to find. Your equivalent woman to the 1 in 1000 man who has what it takes to be a Marine is going to be zero to none of the available women. Now you could argue in the far future women have evolved the same physical strengths as men... in which case they probably look the same as the men too.

You could also argue that strength doesn't matter in the far future with technology and all that, but that wouldn't fit in to the game world very well IMO because even among Space Marines you have dudes like this who are even stronger again and benefit from it...

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440280a&prodId=prod1460181a

Dude they are genetically modified down to the cellular level. Plus they are wearing powered armor. Their physical strength is irrelevant. Concepts of Human Males Stronger HURR! doesn't apply 40,000 year int he future.

Again, unless they have a beard, in battle armor you can't really tell the difference. Plus GW (and tiny minies in general) are 8 kinds of messed up proportionally. When everyone's wearing heavy armor and baggy clothing, Its kind of a moot point.

Greenstuff boobs + Space Marines = a lot of happy people who wanted properly armoured female minis...



Dr Thunder could make a killing if he sold female Space Marine conversion packs; there appears to be enough demand for properly armoured female minis, I think this might just solve the problem.

Yeah, I see those flying off the shelves...

 Frazzled wrote:


Dude they are genetically modified down to the cellular level. Plus they are wearing powered armor. Their physical strength is irrelevant. Concepts of Human Males Stronger HURR! doesn't apply 40,000 year int he future.

Again, unless they have a beard, in battle armor you can't really tell the difference. Plus GW (and tiny minies in general) are 8 kinds of messed up proportionally. When everyone's wearing heavy armor and baggy clothing, Its kind of a moot point.

I dont want to get into this debate, but on a point of order, i will say the following:

you dont need "strength" to become a space marine. the creation of a space marine requires male tissues and hormones though. *shrug*.

and just for the record (getting out of the game-iverse for a second, and beyond theory), men and women are wired completely differently - its actually quite an interesting read as to how far/differently physically, mentally and hormonally we actually are from each other- never mind our brain chemistry, thought patterns, and evolutionary quirks that each sex has gained that set them apart, and so on. its actually quite interesting. Men and women are not always "stand-ins" for each other, like different "skins" for computer game characters with the same stats underneath. the end result is that simply, men are from mars, and women are from venus. Its actually quite a fascinating topic to read about.

And if that's how (ie, requiring male tissues/hormones) the Emperor, the greatest human mind of all time concocted it, well, i cant see us doing much better.

 Frazzled wrote:
Dude they are genetically modified down to the cellular level. Plus they are wearing powered armor. Their physical strength is irrelevant.

Except their physical differences (strength, speed) are highlighted as differences. Obviously you can see it whatever way you want, it's your fantasy land, but I still see it as Marinification of a weakling = stronger weakling, Marinification of a tank = stronger tank. Then power armour augments strength, not over rides it completely thus making it irrelevant. At least that's how I've always seen it.

I dont get it in my opinion. What is wrong with loving the female form? I see this girls in games or models that I "Appreciate"
Does that mean im only going to go after girls that look like the representation? No, it does not. We as a society think that you can only have one and not both. You can either find their personality attractive or their body.
So people think that if you oogle over models that you must not be interested in the person beneath at all.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I dont get it in my opinion. What is wrong with loving the female form? I see this girls in games or models that I "Appreciate"
Does that mean im only going to go after girls that look like the representation? No, it does not. We as a society think that you can only have one and not both. You can either find their personality attractive or their body.
So people think that if you oogle over models that you must not be interested in the person beneath at all.

The 27mm of plastic underneath is what I find the hottest on a 28mm model.

At the end of the day my feeling is that, yes, we could use some more heroic female models perhaps (though they aren't non-existent, there could be more in certain armies).... though for me it comes more down to wanting certain models and those models not existing and it's a bit of a stretch to turn that in to being immoral and sexism.

People think female guardsmen would look like Mira from Space Marine... no they wouldn't. The Imperial Guard fight on many different planets, most likely harbouring harsh conditions; I somehow doubt your average man/woman could survive. I recon the average Guardsman/woman need the build of schwarzenegger to fight in the environments such as Tyranid infested worlds ect.

It appears that quite a few people on this thread wants to see a female with a normal build but in full military gear (sci-fi/fantasy) which is fair enough; it's a step up from chainmail bikinis. The problem is if the armour is the same as men's and they are helmeted there will not be any real difference at all unless you look at the shapes of the faces through a magnifying glass. To rectify the problem the armour could be a little more fitting to show the female form but then people will throw a hissy fit calling the miniature cheesecake just because the armour maybe more slender or give a hint that the mini has boobs.

In the end, guys and girls, it's a hobby full of make-believe worlds and little plastic/metal/resin/restic toys; a 7 foot tall bio-engineered superhuman who fights alens because a corpse guy on a throne told him so is just as silly as talking cheese with a waxed moustache and monocle. Also some of you people, stop taking the moral high-ground just because you like women in uniform rather than chainmail bikinis.

 MetalOxide wrote:
People think female guardsmen would look like Mira from Space Marine... no they wouldn't. The Imperial Guard fight on many different planets, most likely harbouring harsh conditions; I somehow doubt your average man/woman could survive. I recon the average Guardsman/woman need the build of schwarzenegger to fight in the environments such as Tyranid infested worlds ect.

Except that Mira was a Cadian, who's Imperial Guard regiments are under near constant attack by daemons. Unless you're running Codex: Whole Army of Rambos, I think your average guardswoman would fair just as well as your average guardsman...

KalashnikovMarine wrote:A good friend of mine is a senior officer with a Canadian infantry regiment and he informs me he'd happily put his life in the hands of any of his ladies as readily as any of his lads. .

Haha. Well, it's his life.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 MetalOxide wrote:
People think female guardsmen would look like Mira from Space Marine... no they wouldn't. The Imperial Guard fight on many different planets, most likely harbouring harsh conditions; I somehow doubt your average man/woman could survive. I recon the average Guardsman/woman need the build of schwarzenegger to fight in the environments such as Tyranid infested worlds ect.

Except that Mira was a Cadian, who's Imperial Guard regiments are under near constant attack by daemons. Unless you're running Codex: Whole Army of Rambos, I think your average guardswoman would fair just as well as your average guardsman...

I wasn't disputing wether a Guardswoman would fair as well as a Gaurdsman. I was disputing the fact that a Guards woman would not look like Mira. A Guardswoman would be more butch, even if she was a Cadian. Also do you really think if Mira had the physique of the average woman she would really be able to fight of Daemons?

 MetalOxide wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 MetalOxide wrote:
People think female guardsmen would look like Mira from Space Marine... no they wouldn't. The Imperial Guard fight on many different planets, most likely harbouring harsh conditions; I somehow doubt your average man/woman could survive. I recon the average Guardsman/woman need the build of schwarzenegger to fight in the environments such as Tyranid infested worlds ect.

Except that Mira was a Cadian, who's Imperial Guard regiments are under near constant attack by daemons. Unless you're running Codex: Whole Army of Rambos, I think your average guardswoman would fair just as well as your average guardsman...

I would expect that cadians would have to be muscular as well.

Except muscular does not mean Governator levels of bulk either.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 MetalOxide wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 MetalOxide wrote:
People think female guardsmen would look like Mira from Space Marine... no they wouldn't. The Imperial Guard fight on many different planets, most likely harbouring harsh conditions; I somehow doubt your average man/woman could survive. I recon the average Guardsman/woman need the build of schwarzenegger to fight in the environments such as Tyranid infested worlds ect.

Except that Mira was a Cadian, who's Imperial Guard regiments are under near constant attack by daemons. Unless you're running Codex: Whole Army of Rambos, I think your average guardswoman would fair just as well as your average guardsman...

I would expect that cadians would have to be muscular as well.

Except muscular does not mean Governator levels of bulk either.

No, but she is not going to have a petite body with a pretty little face and nicely tide back hair. I admit, I was overexaggerating about schwarzenegger physique.

She'd probably look more like this...

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

KalashnikovMarine wrote:Thinking about it. in certain cases women may even have an advantage.

No.

It's just fact of biology. While there are a small, small number of women who have abnormal body types that will make them comparable to men, as an average, no, there's really just no solid advantage to being female in a combat environment. There is so much more to combat than simply aiming a rifle and pulling a trigger. I know that some people like to pretend that there isn't, but it's not the case. The average woman cannot carry the same proportional load, and not the same actual load. It was of no surprise that the first two female volunteers for the School of Infantry for Marine officers did not complete the course and there have been no subsequent volunteers. One of them did not even pass the initial conditioning and strength test.

.

With a simple google serch it was easy to find information that shows that yes female may have advantages over men in a combat environment , not the same but men simply being superior at it is wrong.

But I think this shows exactly what's wrong, so much asumption taken as fact and it realy translates into the tone I feal within the hobby.
One thing i do feal is that there is sexism in the hobby , like in a lot of things and isn't as clear as just sexy models.
I like some sexy models but I get frustrated completely trying to find heric and awsome :( I will be getting some KD stuff so will see how it holds up when it comes.

But another thaght I had about marketing is that it's less than sex sells and more that sex sells easy, would be interesting to see what people actuly want from the KD kickstarter. One of the things I have notice recently with the men around me is that sex doesn't sell to them so much, and some of them are as put off as I am about it at times.
And I think if more girls did start to get into the hobby it would change a bit, but at this time it doesn't feal very welcome quite often.
And after read this thread I feel some people not even welcoming here.

 MetalOxide wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 MetalOxide wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 MetalOxide wrote:
People think female guardsmen would look like Mira from Space Marine... no they wouldn't. The Imperial Guard fight on many different planets, most likely harbouring harsh conditions; I somehow doubt your average man/woman could survive. I recon the average Guardsman/woman need the build of schwarzenegger to fight in the environments such as Tyranid infested worlds ect.

Except that Mira was a Cadian, who's Imperial Guard regiments are under near constant attack by daemons. Unless you're running Codex: Whole Army of Rambos, I think your average guardswoman would fair just as well as your average guardsman...

I would expect that cadians would have to be muscular as well.

Except muscular does not mean Governator levels of bulk either.

No, but she is not going to have a petite body with a pretty little face and nicely tide back hair. I admit, I was overexaggerating about schwarzenegger physique.

I'll admit it's been some time since I've played Space Marine, BUT the lexicanum has images of her, and she has far from a pretty little face and petite body.

 Alfndrate wrote:
I'll admit it's been some time since I've played Space Marine, BUT the lexicanum has images of her, and she has far from a pretty little face and petite body.

She does have a pretty little face (with a bit of dirt on it) and a petite body compared to a regular guardsmen. She certainly doesn't come across as a beefy woman.

http://www.spacemarine.com/game/characters/single-player

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
I'll admit it's been some time since I've played Space Marine, BUT the lexicanum has images of her, and she has far from a pretty little face and petite body.

She does have a pretty little face (with a bit of dirt on it) and a petite body compared to a regular guardsmen. She certainly doesn't come across as a beefy woman.

http://www.spacemarine.com/game/characters/single-player

PURDY FACE

I have long stood against sexism in miniature wargaming. This is why in protest for the unacceptable sexualization of the Sisters Repentia (and having nothing to do whatsoever with how fething expensive the models are) I created the Brotherhood Repentia. Boys in bondage!

Take a long hard look at the majority ( I say majority so as not to be overgeneralizing and saying everyone) of people in the hobby/culture of miniatures and wargaming. First they are mostly male and in my experiences (again MY experiences) are not filled with the highest of social skills and graces and the interaction with the female side of the species is either 1. something that terrifies them, or, 2. something they just arent familiar with (again these are generalizations I realize they dont apply to all situations or personages) . People are literally just taking teenage fantasy and molding it into a product that people will purchase. Its simple consumer think, make a product that appeals to your target market and sell it. Yes they are pushing an image of a woman that in all practicality doesn't and shouldnt exist. But as others have said if they pushed the real would anyone buy it? Its a money making endeavor and that is not to condone it as being ok but lets separate this from a moral question. Is it immoral? Perhaps, in the same manner in which selling barbies is immoral, it presents the same and in all honesty much more widely accepted unrealistic body image. This whole debate is fighting a symptom not the disease. The problem is the society in which objectification is rampant. Though we have made great strides over the last several decades in terms of gender equality, gender image has become endlessly more skewed. But we live in times where your free to express your sexuality far more than almost any time in history (well at least in most of the western world). The side effect of this is that there is a bit of de-sensitivity to sex, the more its out there in the media, the easier it becomes to access, the more the envelope eventually will need to be pushed to elicit interest or response. It becomes one-upsmanship, company A says checkout this model with d-cups wearing a metal corset, company 2 says screw that I will raise you an F-cup and fishnets. They are all competing for the slightly pervish dollar and the only way to get it is to push the envelop and out do what has come before. Sex and capitalism...forever entwined.

 Dannyevilguy wrote:
Brotherhood Repentia.

Many laughs, Danny. Thank you for that.

Apple fox wrote:
With a simple google serch it was easy to find information that shows that yes female may have advantages over men in a combat environment , not the same but men simply being superior at it is wrong.

Not trying to be sexist here, but I did a google search and didn't actually find much in the way of what advantages women have over men in combat roles. I saw a couple of anecdotal things saying women are better multitaskers, however different studies swing one way or the other as to whether that's actually true.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alfndrate wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
I'll admit it's been some time since I've played Space Marine, BUT the lexicanum has images of her, and she has far from a pretty little face and petite body.

She does have a pretty little face (with a bit of dirt on it) and a petite body compared to a regular guardsmen. She certainly doesn't come across as a beefy woman.

http://www.spacemarine.com/game/characters/single-player

PURDY FACE

Clean the dirt off and it'd work for me She still has long-ish hair, soft features. A lot prettier, little-er, and petite-er than this dude...

I wouldn't get into this conversation unless someone clarified the term 'sexist'. It's one of those nebulous terms that can vary from perspective.

As for some of the other points; a woman doesn't have to be better than a man in any field, just as good in the areas that matter. Being an effective soldier is more about fast reflexes and mental clarity that lifting heavy things and grunting.

Arguing about the place of women in a marine or guard army is a bad point of comparison as the Imperium is inherently stupid and prejudiced. It's like saying humans are smarter than Tau, otherwise the guard would recruit more Tau. If you want to have female models, have fun with it! My Guard includes xenos and females because they went rogue. I have female space marines because Slaanesh created them to prove she was perfect and could do what the Emprah couldn't. (And no, not a single one of them looks like Megan Fox.)

Boggy Man wrote:
I wouldn't get into this conversation unless someone clarified the term 'sexist'. It's one of those nebulous terms that can vary from perspective.

As for some of the other points; a woman doesn't have to be better than a man in any field, just as good in the areas that matter. Being an effective soldier is more about fast reflexes and mental clarity that lifting heavy things and grunting.

This is an astoundingly uninformed statement.

 Monster Rain wrote:

Boggy Man wrote:
I wouldn't get into this conversation unless someone clarified the term 'sexist'. It's one of those nebulous terms that can vary from perspective.

As for some of the other points; a woman doesn't have to be better than a man in any field, just as good in the areas that matter. Being an effective soldier is more about fast reflexes and mental clarity that lifting heavy things and grunting.

This is an astoundingly uninformed statement.

Yes I'm sorry. We should all remember how Patton broke the Falaise Pocket by throwing medicine balls at it.

See, that's kind of what I was saying. The majority of soldiers aren't renowned generals.

Being in the infantry has a lot to do with how strong you are. I take it you've never walked 20 miles carrying the baseplate to an 81mm mortar. Also, Patton, being a complete badass, is the worst example (non-Marine) that you could have used.

 Monster Rain wrote:
See, that's kind of what I was saying.

Being in the infantry has a lot to do with how strong you are. I take it you've never walked 20 miles carrying the baseplate to an 81mm mortar. Also, Patton, being a complete badass, is the worst example (non-Marine) that you could have used.

I've carried a 50 pound backpack for just as many miles over the course of three days... I are manly nao?

It's not a question of manliness, it's the requirement of having a certain amount of strength and fortitude to be an effective soldier.

And over three days? Do it in 1/8 that time and I'll be... well, impressed isn't the word...

 Monster Rain wrote:
It's not a question of manliness, it's the requirement of having a certain amount of strength and fortitude to be an effective soldier.

And over three days? Do it in 1/8 that time and I'll be... well, impressed isn't the word...

I know it's not, I was also a boy scout... a mere lad, but in far better shape :(

and is Impressed worse than the word you would be? lol

 Monster Rain wrote:
See, that's kind of what I was saying.

Being in the infantry has a lot to do with how strong you are. I take it you've never walked 20 miles carrying the baseplate to an 81mm mortar.

I don't mean to say there isn't a lot of strength training involved, or course you are being pushed to your limits, and of course a women's limits tend to be below a man's. The question is, how much of that is training and discipline and how much is needed to fight effectively. (Carrying a wounded soldier, your gear, loading a shell, in the grim derpness of space of course.)

I'll still give you the point and sincerely thank you for your service. You're quite right, I'm too gimped up to discuss to this in anything but the hypothetical.

Woaw women can shoot just as good as men, en what carrying heavy stuff, ever heard of helicopter lifters and such. As far as i know women have some advantage in jet fighters dealing with high G i think.

It is all about training, and before all the comfort of electric appliances, women worked the fields, washed the clothes, prepared the food and while at it , cared and beared a zillion kids.

People watched too many old Hollywood movies.

I refer to my previous post about the qualities of a soldier, and answer your question Monster Rain, with a yes.

 Monster Rain wrote:
Also, Patton, being a complete badass, is the worst example (non-Marine) that you could have used.

Hell yeah!

Boggy Man wrote:
I'll still give you the point and sincerely thank you for your service. You're quite right, I'm too gimped up to discuss to this in anything but the hypothetical.

Aww man. All I was saying is that physical strength is a factor. I agree with you that mental acuity and reflexes are both good things for a soldier to have.

I think we are missing an important point in this argument. Now, obviously all humans & all soldiers are not Olympic athletes, but if you looked at the women's weight lifting categories, they tend to be slim. So i can quite easily buy a woman with infantry required strength having Lt. Miras body structure. And before anyone says a blasted thing, i know that there are a lot of Olympic weight lifters with a lot of girth to them, wide body range there.

 DemetriDominov wrote:
I refer to my previous post about the qualities of a soldier, and answer your question Monster Rain, with a yes.

Which question was that? And since you are apparently following the thread and you haven't replied to my earlier question I'm very suspicious of you right now.

Bear in mind that I'm totally for equal treatment of women, and that they should be in the military and all that jazz. I'm just going to throw a flag when people say things that are demonstrably untrue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alfndrate wrote:
and is Impressed worse than the word you would be? lol

Appeased!

I took a break from the thread and have now come back, not really sure if I want to stay.

This is what I am saying yes to when you asked if I was serious Monster Rain:

 DemetriDominov wrote:

The most successful women in 40k are the eldar - tall, beautiful, and arrogant. The most unsuccessful women in the universe are squats - short, fat, and unattractive. You're right, you really don't have to look very hard.

 Gymnogyps wrote:

Someone else says, hey, I feel marginalized in tabletop miniwargaming, even though I like that hobby and participate just like you. But there is an institutional underlying prejudice about me because of what i am, what I look like, not who I am.

And you say GTFO. If you say anything bad about it, you deserve what you get. My haven can't be yours.

Wow.

I'm saying that people are accepting up until the point you actively reject them and then it stops. Some people are exceptions and can accept people regardless of whether or not it is reciprocated, but I think they are rare.

So the way for someone to make it their haven is to first be accepting towards those already present in the haven. Impugning their interests as "sexist, exploitive and offensive" isn't doing that.

And again the same old nonsense about "women in combat isn't realistic". Yes, women on average don't have the same physical strength/size/endurance as men. Yes, I'm sure you can point to plenty of studies where there are roles where men have a significant advantage. But, I have one simple question:

What exactly about 40k is realistic?

 Peregrine wrote:
And again the same old nonsense about "women in combat isn't realistic". Yes, women on average don't have the same physical strength/size/endurance as men. Yes, I'm sure you can point to plenty of studies where there are roles where men have a significant advantage. But, I have one simple question:

What exactly about 40k is realistic?

Well this discussion covers all miniatures really. But your point still stands.

Unrealistic is perfectly fine. Part of the complaints from the side that claim sexism though, is how females are portrayed in an unrealistic manner with the sexualized armor and body types. So people make the counter argument that female soldiers are unrealistic to begin with.

 Dannyevilguy wrote:
Unrealistic is perfectly fine. Part of the complaints from the side that claim sexism though, is how females are portrayed in an unrealistic manner with the sexualized armor and body types. So people make the counter argument that female soldiers are unrealistic to begin with.

Well, ignoring the "I don't want to be objectified" issue and just looking at realism:

Women in combat at all is a minor bit of unrealism, if it's unrealistic at all. Nobody sane disputes that women can fight, the only realism issue is over precisely which roles they can fill effectively and whether the army in question is the best of the best (where it even matters) or just anyone capable of holding a lasgun and dying. It's no worse than countless other unrealistic things in every game, so singling it out for criticism is ridiculous. And, even if it is unrealistic, the violation of realism is done for a good reason: to give more people a character they can identify with and promote greater equality in the hobby.

Women waring chainmail bikinis in combat is a major offense against realism. It isn't believable at all, and immediately stands out as a stupid idea without even having to think about it very hard. And, unlike having women at all, it's done for a bad reason. There's no greater good being served by defying strict realism a bit, it's just sex appeal at the expense of some potential players.

An open question to those who are bent out shape about miniatures that fetishizes women's sexuality.

If one is okay with a universe that fetishizes violence, war, death, torture, murder and slavery, why pick boobies to make a stand on?

I think that the realism of war gaming models and the physical requirements for being a front line infantry person are two distinct subjects.

Also, feeder raises an excellent point.

feeder wrote:
If one is okay with a universe that fetishizes violence, war, death, torture, murder and slavery, why pick boobies to make a stand on?

/thread

 Peregrine wrote:


Women waring chainmail bikinis in combat is a major offense against realism. It isn't believable at all, and immediately stands out as a stupid idea without even having to think about it very hard. And, unlike having women at all, it's done for a bad reason. There's no greater good being served by defying strict realism a bit, it's just sex appeal at the expense of some potential players.

But how many potential players are we talking about here? Are these the same players that won't watch any action film ever, because a few action movies happen to portray women in an oversexualized fashion? It isn't like every single female miniature in every single mini wargaming game is a bikini samurai.

They can refuse to participate in anything that sexualizes women if they want, but then they really can't ever leave their houses.

The game companies gain a lot more customers with the sex, than with good role models.

feeder wrote:An open question to those who are bent out shape about miniatures that fetishizes women's sexuality.

If one is okay with a universe that fetishizes violence, war, death, torture, murder and slavery, why pick boobies to make a stand on?

Because it seems as though women get the short hand of the stick even beyond all of it.

Idc about the smut of 40k, it doesn't matter that it's in it, because it is an accepted part of the horror narrative that is 40k, and very well should be because it illustrates yet another dystopian thought - people as objects.

That said, why is it that there is an overwhelmingly majority of stories that have men be the heros? That the overwhelming majority of heros (and villians) on the model line are men? To barely include women in the narrative and give them their due respect as hero's of the Imperium is perpetuating the nonsense that Monster Rain and others on this thread are championing - That women cannot make good soldiers, and must take a back seat in supportive roles while the men be heros because they are better, faster, stronger. That in itself is the very sexism we are (or at least should be) talking about here. I mean really, if you actually stop to think of it, what difference does it matter if you bench 150, or 475, when a single pull of a trigger, a push of a button, the slash of a knife, or even a swift kick to the nads can even the odds? Women also make fantastic endurance athletes, because humans make fantastic endurance athletes, and like anyone else can be trained or even augmented to become strong enough to perform any front-line duty. After all, look at the SoB or Callidus Assassin's, they exemplify the effort humanity makes to pit everything it has in the fight for its survival, and proves that women in this universe bring their enemy's face first into the dirt just as easily as any man on their best day. It's just an unfortunate fact that we hardly get to see this happen, and seldom see it in the guard, and must actively go the distance to make it happen in our own armies by outsourcing models or sculpting it ourselves, a skill not all of us are capable of.

Monster Rain wrote:I think that the realism of war gaming models and the physical requirements for being a front line infantry person are two distinct subjects.

Also, feeder raises an excellent point.

Furthermore, going back to my point of having the sex symbols of Eldar women (of both alignments) being more successful in the franchise than squat women - it just illustrates the point that sexism exists everywhere, after all, if you could pay to spend time with them in book or plastic form, most people would still choose the Eldar if squats were on equal footing (which they most certainly are not already). Sex undoubtedly sells. People like certain things, men like different things than women, and there aren't as many women buying into this hobby as men. It's unfair, but it's the truth, and the lack of sex appeal may have even attributed to squats disappearing from the lore for almost a decade, because it's hard to sell ugly things unless you can somehow find a way to make them sexy... a.k.a Badass.

feeder wrote:
An open question to those who are bent out shape about miniatures that fetishizes women's sexuality.

If one is okay with a universe that fetishizes violence, war, death, torture, murder and slavery, why pick boobies to make a stand on?

Because we're not too concerned with the poor serial killers who might be excluded from the hobby because they're not comfortable being objectified.

 Dannyevilguy wrote:
They can refuse to participate in anything that sexualizes women if they want, but then they really can't ever leave their houses.

"But they did it too!" isn't justification. Shouldn't we have higher standards than "well, I guess we're not the worst community out there"?

 Varrick wrote:
I think we are missing an important point in this argument. Now, obviously all humans & all soldiers are not Olympic athletes, but if you looked at the women's weight lifting categories, they tend to be slim. So i can quite easily buy a woman with infantry required strength having Lt. Miras body structure. And before anyone says a blasted thing, i know that there are a lot of Olympic weight lifters with a lot of girth to them, wide body range there.

Yes they may be slim but that does not guarentee that they wont even look the slightest bit more muscular than your average woman. Also you need to take into account that most miniatures are sculpted in 'heroic' proportions which in comparison, tend to be taller and bigger in every respect. Also the muscles are exaggerated and stylized.

For example, it would be silly to see realistically proportioned female miniatures amongst heroic poportioned male miniatures. It would be like mixing Imperial Guard with Infinity miniatures (I'm not saying Inifinity is realistically proportioned).

 Dannyevilguy wrote:
But how many potential players are we talking about here? Are these the same players that won't watch any action film ever, because a few action movies happen to portray women in an oversexualized fashion? It isn't like every single female miniature in every single mini wargaming game is a bikini samurai.

We do also keep flipping around about the subject matter we're talking about.

I don't really know anything about Kingdom Death, but from what I understand the uber sexualised models are entirely separate to the game and akin to buying a poster of a half nekkid chick to put up on your wall.

Then we flip to talking about GW games, which frankly I don't see the huge issue, they don't have a disproportionate number of "cheesecake" models (at least not that I've noticed, they have a few I know). They do have female models scattered through their range of both Fantasy and 40k, so I think it's hard to accuse them of direct sexism, the quality and quantity then becomes a debatable point.

Then we flip to talking about IG and Space Marines or whatever specific armies having female models, which I think becomes a bit more debatable (and can be debated without getting in to sexism at all, though we do keep getting in to it) and where my opinion falls toward "you want models that don't exist, that's a shame, but too bad, there's models I want that don't exist either".

Then we flip to sexism within the community. Personally I think this is exaggerated, I actually find it hard to believe unless someone can come along and tell specific cases where a gaming community has ostracised then for being a woman anymore than gamers ostracise anyone for any reason. I haven't met a lot of females interested in the hobby, but the ones I do know the only real thing you can accuse the local gaming communities of doing is smothering them because they either don't know how to treat women or are simply overwhelmed and excited that a woman would actually be interested in the first place (like when I see a woman interested in cars, admittedly my attraction doubles, I can't help it, the idea of a woman interested in the same thing as me is exciting ). One close female friend I had used to complain of sexism, but it was simply because guys would fawn all over her, my response was that's a shame but you can hardly blame them (FYI, I say "had" because I stopped talking to her after she couldn't stop making racist comments to me and projecting her dislike of men on to me).

Then we flip to discussions about whether women in front line combat roles is realistic (which IMO the only thing it has to do with wargaming is whether the sculpter feels women are appropriate in a given army, and that's certainly not the ONLY reason a sculpter might find females inappropriate for their army).

I'm sure the conversation flips around even more than that, that's just what I've been following.

And all the while it's unnecessarily emotionally charged (at least IMO).

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
One close female friend I had used to complain of sexism, but it was simply because guys would fawn all over her, my response was that's a shame but you can hardly blame them.

Of course we can blame them. This is part of the problem, the idea that women should just have to put up with being fawned over because who can blame the guys? People need to stop justifying that kind of behavior and understand that "not having a sexism problem" includes treating women just like any male player.

 Peregrine wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
One close female friend I had used to complain of sexism, but it was simply because guys would fawn all over her, my response was that's a shame but you can hardly blame them.

Of course we can blame them. This is part of the problem, the idea that women should just have to put up with being fawned over because who can blame the guys? People need to stop justifying that kind of behavior and understand that "not having a sexism problem" includes treating women just like any male player.

I see you love blaming people for things. That's a bloody great way to make progress, lets blame everything on someone. The reason I say you can't blame them is because chances are they're probably some mix of socially inept, ignorant and/or just flat out not used to dealing with women. Firstly, you probably DON'T want to be treated like just another one of the guys, I know I sling insults at my male friends far more happily than would be politically correct or even comfortable for a female, secondly, if you actually want guys to change you have to stop blaming people for things. When I say people fawning over her, I mean simply people paying too much attention, not whipping their cocks out or something. Once you've played a few games with them, they settle down. At least that's been my observation, as I said I don't know a lot of females in the hobby, but of the 2 girls who are in the local gaming club, people treat them just the same as everyone else. Once guys don't see you as some ditzy girl who stumbled in to the wrong door, they'll stop treating you as such.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
The reason I say you can't blame them is because chances are they're probably some mix of socially inept, ignorant and/or just flat out not used to dealing with women.

So stop making excuses for them. The solution is to tell them that their behavior is unacceptable, not to excuse it and tell the victim of their social ineptness to just deal with it.

Firstly, you probably DON'T want to be treated like just another one of the guys, I know I sling insults at my male friends far more happily than would be politically correct or even comfortable for a female, secondly, if you actually want guys to change you have to stop blaming people for things.

Thank you for providing yet another example of the sexism problem. Women are people, they aren't some kind of magical creatures that have a greater-than-male sensitivity to insults.

 Peregrine wrote:
Thank you for providing yet another example of the sexism problem. Women are people, they aren't some kind of magical creatures that have a greater-than-male sensitivity to insults.

How the hell did you pull that from what I said?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To address your first point, if you go in with a confrontational attitude like that guess what, people aren't going to like you, it has nothing to do with your sex, they simply won't like you. Good luck finding equality when people would rather not have you around in the first place.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
How the hell did you pull that from what I said?

Because that's what you said. Let us review:

I know I sling insults at my male friends far more happily than would be politically correct or even comfortable for a female

You said very clearly that a woman would be uncomfortable with your insults while your male friends are fine with it. You're just stereotyping and assuming that you have to treat women differently just because they're women, and that is a problem.

To address your first point, if you go in with a confrontational attitude like that guess what, people aren't going to like you, it has nothing to do with your sex, they simply won't like you. Good luck finding equality when people would rather not have you around in the first place.

Then exactly what attitude should you have when dealing with socially inept people who make other people uncomfortable?

(Also, often that "I'm just socially inept" excuse is just that, an excuse, and the real issue is lack of respect for boundaries and the person knows very well that they're doing something inappropriate.)

Just seen a related BBC article...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21033708

 Peregrine wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
How the hell did you pull that from what I said?

Because that's what you said. Let us review:

I know I sling insults at my male friends far more happily than would be politically correct or even comfortable for a female

You said very clearly that a woman would be uncomfortable with your insults while your male friends are fine with it. You're just stereotyping and assuming that you have to treat women differently just because they're women, and that is a problem.

Sorry I misread what you said, too tired. The reason I don't insult a woman the same way I insult a man is because I have 3 older sisters and I know the type of things I say that the vast majority of dudes will shrug off would insult a lot of women. My first girlfriend taught me a lot as well, comments similar to what my friends laugh at would have her giving me a grim stare. Now, obviously some men are more sensitive to banter and some women aren't, I admit I was probably over generalising.

To address your first point, if you go in with a confrontational attitude like that guess what, people aren't going to like you, it has nothing to do with your sex, they simply won't like you. Good luck finding equality when people would rather not have you around in the first place.

Then exactly what attitude should you have when dealing with socially inept people who make other people uncomfortable?

(Also, often that "I'm just socially inept" excuse is just that, an excuse, and the real issue is lack of respect for boundaries and the person knows very well that they're doing something inappropriate.)

I feel like we're talking about different things here again. What I'm talking about is simply realise that the socially inept people are either ignorant and/or uncomfortable themselves. If you have the social skills they lack, just act normally and go about business, eventually they'll learn how to interact with you... usually only in the time it takes them to realise you are just another person who is enthusiastic about miniatures and wargaming. This is partly why I said I think the whole thing is overblown. You, right now, are overblowing it, making a mountain of a mole hill. If I actually thought that dudes were actually smothering women in gaming in any significant way, I might think differently, but hey, maybe it's cultural, the lasses in my local gaming club get along just fine with everyone and I've only really seen a girl getting kinda smothered with too much attention once and it was only up until people realised she was just another person interested in the hobby.

Maybe folks around my parts are just more mature or maybe you spend too much time hanging around with horny kids who have hormone imbalances and couldn't help staring at a girl if they tried.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'll add to that and say that labelling and accusing and being confrontational and acting like there's serious problems when there isn't is a great way to make well meaning people dislike you. And if they weren't well meaning people, why on earth do you want to be part of their community? Some people aren't sexist pricks, they're simply just pricks and you should not feel excluded by not being part of their community. A couple of my other hobbies I stopped hanging around the local communities simply because people were, too put it gently, not nice.

Mountains out of mole hills.

I'm going to bed now, g'night.

The way that this thread is going i am apparently now a sesist prick for being a gentleman and allowing ladys to pass through a door before me or offering up my seat on the bus.

Oh and BTW my Girlfriend is about 6" smaller than me and far lighter built, cant pick me up off the ground, dosnt weight lift and i can lift her off the ground with ease. If she gets pissed she can drop almost anyone i know, baring myself, with one punch. Now try telling me women are not as good as men in combat.

 master of ordinance wrote:
The way that this thread is going i am apparently now a sesist prick for being a gentleman and allowing ladys to pass through a door before me or offering up my seat on the bus.

Well, yes, if you did not do that to any fellow man in the same situation, you were very rude to members of your own gender!

Also, last time I checked, it was customary and good behaviour to leave your seat to persons in need.
So if you leave your seat to any woman that comes around, you would be implying that all women are persons in need.*
...Unless you were fed up of being physically abused by your +6" girl-friend every time she was drunk, and you were taking every desperate move to hook up with a new one? I could sympathize with that!

I do agree, though, that too many people are ranting about their own little penises, instead of trying to advance the worthwhile discussion.

Hmm, you never said that??

*cough*strawman*cough*


*This would indeed qualify as a sexist statement, unless it was meant as part of a very broad philosophical argument of possibly buddhist flavour.

 master of ordinance wrote:
If she gets pissed she can drop almost anyone i know, baring myself, with one punch. Now try telling me women are not as good as men in combat.

I'm sorry, its a little OT, but that's just nonsense, and Im not even remotely sexist, .. surely its not even remotely sexist to simply be aware of the fact that we are different physically!?

Women simply aren't "as good" (entirely equal) with men in "combat" (I don't like using the word combat because its far too broad a brush) no matter how you slice it.

4 of the fittest women in the British Armed forces came down to Commando Training Centre Royal Marines in Lympstone and got put through their paces with a view to the Navy allowing women to try out, and they were merely good. None of them could get to the top of the 30 foot rope (Its free standing) wearing all of their webbing (25lbs) and carrying their rifles. The best effort got about 27 feet up before skidding down uncontrolled due to her fingers not obeying her brain anymore. And it is mandatory that you complete the test at week 24 before you are allowed onto the Tarzan Assault Course (a very high assault course) for safety reasons. If you dont pass it, you dont pass out and earn your green lid. Its bye bye for you.

A woman can be fit enough to do it I don't doubt, but she would have to be exceptional, a man merely has to be very fit.

The training bleed for men doing commando training is about 8/10. For women It would have to be 99/100. They are excellent (very nearly equal) at cardiovascular work, but really struggle with strength work, such as fireman's carrying a wounded soldier 200 meters in full kit with weapon (another pass or fail requirement they struggled with) doing rope regains or completing a 6 mile log run. A man of equal height and weight will ALWAYS be stronger than a woman, its biology and its common sense.

Women are awesome, and some women can doubtless perform well in a combat role because they don't have to be supremely fit. For example female snipers killed gak loads of guys in Vietnam and Russia.

But "combat" is a very varied and difficult thing to pigeon-hole, its not just shooting your pistol or lying on a compound roof and firing a sniper rifle. When I was in Afghanistan, some days you had to smash through a heavy compound door six hours into a fatiguing patrol, or carry some ladders with all your kit, or carry all of the ammo for the GPMG, or drag a casualty to a helicopter, or spend 6 hours throwing ammo crates onto Chinooks, whatever is needed in a hard pressed and under manned fob a mile away from an enemy stronghold.

There is no way anyone with experience of the matter would ever put women in that kind of job if they could pick equally fit men or similar age, or even attempt to make the argument. Go ask some ladies who have been in Afghanistan what they think about it for example! Several women serve on the front as medics for example, and I have always had a good rapport with them.. I guarantee they would tell you the same thing!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and this is relevant to the discussion by the way.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21033708

Deadnight wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


Dude they are genetically modified down to the cellular level. Plus they are wearing powered armor. Their physical strength is irrelevant. Concepts of Human Males Stronger HURR! doesn't apply 40,000 year int he future.

Again, unless they have a beard, in battle armor you can't really tell the difference. Plus GW (and tiny minies in general) are 8 kinds of messed up proportionally. When everyone's wearing heavy armor and baggy clothing, Its kind of a moot point.

I dont want to get into this debate, but on a point of order, i will say the following:

you dont need "strength" to become a space marine. the creation of a space marine requires male tissues and hormones though. *shrug*.

and just for the record (getting out of the game-iverse for a second, and beyond theory), men and women are wired completely differently - its actually quite an interesting read as to how far/differently physically, mentally and hormonally we actually are from each other- never mind our brain chemistry, thought patterns, and evolutionary quirks that each sex has gained that set them apart, and so on. its actually quite interesting. Men and women are not always "stand-ins" for each other, like different "skins" for computer game characters with the same stats underneath. the end result is that simply, men are from mars, and women are from venus. Its actually quite a fascinating topic to read about.

And if that's how (ie, requiring male tissues/hormones) the Emperor, the greatest human mind of all time concocted it, well, i cant see us doing much better.

Fluff is irrelevant and utterly changeable. The point is that, at 28mm under heavy armor using genetically modified gorilla people, you won't be able to tell the difference.

treslibras wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
The way that this thread is going i am apparently now a sesist prick for being a gentleman and allowing ladys to pass through a door before me or offering up my seat on the bus.

Well, yes, if you did not do that to any fellow man in the same situation, you were very rude to members of your own gender!

Also, last time I checked, it was customary and good behaviour to leave your seat to persons in need.
So if you leave your seat to any woman that comes around, you would be implying that all women are persons in need.*
...Unless you were fed up of being physically abused by your +6" girl-friend every time she was drunk, and you were taking every desperate move to hook up with a new one? I could sympathize with that!

I do agree, though, that too many people are ranting about their own little penises, instead of trying to advance the worthwhile discussion.

Hmm, you never said that??

*cough*strawman*cough*


*This would indeed qualify as a sexist statement, unless it was meant as part of a very broad philosophical argument of possibly buddhist flavour.

I didnt say that but every time i look at this thread, be it the first post or the last, i bloody well think it. What happened to the days of good, civil conversation

Oh and BTW my Girlfriend is -6" of my height-Im around 6ft something and shes 5ft 6"-7". And when i said pissed i meant angry . And she dosnt hit me-atleast not in that way LOL

mattyrm wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
If she gets pissed she can drop almost anyone i know, baring myself, with one punch. Now try telling me women are not as good as men in combat.

I'm sorry, its a little OT, but that's just nonsense, and Im not even remotely sexist, .. surely its not even remotely sexist to simply be aware of the fact that we are different physically!?

Women simply aren't "as good" (entirely equal) with men in "combat" (I don't like using the word combat because its far too broad a brush) no matter how you slice it.

4 of the fittest women in the British Armed forces came down to Commando Training Centre Royal Marines in Lympstone and got put through their paces with a view to the Navy allowing women to try out, and they were merely good. None of them could get to the top of the 30 foot rope (Its free standing) wearing all of their webbing (25lbs) and carrying their rifles. The best effort got about 27 feet up before skidding down uncontrolled due to her fingers not obeying her brain anymore. And it is mandatory that you complete the test at week 24 before you are allowed onto the Tarzan Assault Course (a very high assault course) for safety reasons. If you dont pass it, you dont pass out and earn your green lid. Its bye bye for you.

A woman can be fit enough to do it I don't doubt, but she would have to be exceptional, a man merely has to be very fit.

The training bleed for men doing commando training is about 8/10. For women It would have to be 99/100. They are excellent (very nearly equal) at cardiovascular work, but really struggle with strength work, such as fireman's carrying a wounded soldier 200 meters in full kit with weapon (another pass or fail requirement they struggled with) doing rope regains or completing a 6 mile log run. A man of equal height and weight will ALWAYS be stronger than a woman, its biology and its common sense.

Women are awesome, and some women can doubtless perform well in a combat role because they don't have to be supremely fit. For example female snipers killed gak loads of guys in Vietnam and Russia.

But "combat" is a very varied and difficult thing to pigeon-hole, its not just shooting your pistol or lying on a compound roof and firing a sniper rifle. When I was in Afghanistan, some days you had to smash through a heavy compound door six hours into a fatiguing patrol, or carry some ladders with all your kit, or carry all of the ammo for the GPMG, or drag a casualty to a helicopter, or spend 6 hours throwing ammo crates onto Chinooks, whatever is needed in a hard pressed and under manned fob a mile away from an enemy stronghold.

There is no way anyone with experience of the matter would ever put women in that kind of job if they could pick equally fit men or similar age, or even attempt to make the argument. Go ask some ladies who have been in Afghanistan what they think about it for example! Several women serve on the front as medics for example, and I have always had a good rapport with them.. I guarantee they would tell you the same thing!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and this is relevant to the discussion by the way.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21033708

Ill take it from the expert mattyRM . Still wouldnt like to get on the wrong end of many women i see-try spending a night out around town and watching 2 girls snap at each other and start tearing one another apart.

Is it possible to objectify a woman without objectifying all women? What would be the compromise in this situation since making both sexy and non sexy female models available is apparently not enough.

Men and women treating each other and viewing each other differently is not going to change. Genetics/biology/evolution/and religion all happen to agree that men and women are different. So why not celebrate diversity instead of trying to homogenize the genders?

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Dude they are genetically modified down to the cellular level. Plus they are wearing powered armor. Their physical strength is irrelevant.

Except their physical differences (strength, speed) are highlighted as differences. Obviously you can see it whatever way you want, it's your fantasy land, but I still see it as Marinification of a weakling = stronger weakling, Marinification of a tank = stronger tank. Then power armour augments strength, not over rides it completely thus making it irrelevant. At least that's how I've always seen it.

Yea it really does. The weight of power armor would be such that, without the armor, the soldier wouldn't move. Thats exactly how the original suits were in Starship troopers, from where GW stole the idea. The armor of a terminator must literally weigh a ton.

This is part of the problem with 40K. Bad fluff is used to exclude femlae players who want to play female marines. In a game with space faeries, space orks, robot mummy ghouls, demons, and genetically modified humans (including Ogryns) anything is possible. Exclusion is stupid.

Again, at the scale of play, under al the armor, you can't tell the difference. With a helmet on (which they should do) you definitely couldn't tell.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 MetalOxide wrote:
People think female guardsmen would look like Mira from Space Marine... no they wouldn't. The Imperial Guard fight on many different planets, most likely harbouring harsh conditions; I somehow doubt your average man/woman could survive. I recon the average Guardsman/woman need the build of schwarzenegger to fight in the environments such as Tyranid infested worlds ect.

Except that Mira was a Cadian, who's Imperial Guard regiments are under near constant attack by daemons. Unless you're running Codex: Whole Army of Rambos, I think your average guardswoman would fair just as well as your average guardsman...

Ah you play Catachans then...

Back when I played demons, I converted Dark Elf witches to demonettes. The Wife was somewhat bemused by the minis. She also didn't like the "neckbeard stare" she'd get sometimes if she showed up sometimes when I was gaming.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dannyevilguy wrote:
I have long stood against sexism in miniature wargaming. This is why in protest for the unacceptable sexualization of the Sisters Repentia (and having nothing to do whatsoever with how fething expensive the models are) I created the Brotherhood Repentia. Boys in bondage!

I must admit, ten guys running at me with chainsaws and maskes would be...disconcerting.

 mattyrm wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
If she gets pissed she can drop almost anyone i know, baring myself, with one punch. Now try telling me women are not as good as men in combat.

I'm sorry, its a little OT, but that's just nonsense, and Im not even remotely sexist, .. surely its not even remotely sexist to simply be aware of the fact that we are different physically!?

Women simply aren't "as good" (entirely equal) with men in "combat" (I don't like using the word combat because its far too broad a brush) no matter how you slice it.

4 of the fittest women in the British Armed forces came down to Commando Training Centre Royal Marines in Lympstone and got put through their paces with a view to the Navy allowing women to try out, and they were merely good. None of them could get to the top of the 30 foot rope (Its free standing) wearing all of their webbing (25lbs) and carrying their rifles. The best effort got about 27 feet up before skidding down uncontrolled due to her fingers not obeying her brain anymore. And it is mandatory that you complete the test at week 24 before you are allowed onto the Tarzan Assault Course (a very high assault course) for safety reasons. If you dont pass it, you dont pass out and earn your green lid. Its bye bye for you.

A woman can be fit enough to do it I don't doubt, but she would have to be exceptional, a man merely has to be very fit.

The training bleed for men doing commando training is about 8/10. For women It would have to be 99/100. They are excellent (very nearly equal) at cardiovascular work, but really struggle with strength work, such as fireman's carrying a wounded soldier 200 meters in full kit with weapon (another pass or fail requirement they struggled with) doing rope regains or completing a 6 mile log run. A man of equal height and weight will ALWAYS be stronger than a woman, its biology and its common sense.

Women are awesome, and some women can doubtless perform well in a combat role because they don't have to be supremely fit. For example female snipers killed gak loads of guys in Vietnam and Russia.

But "combat" is a very varied and difficult thing to pigeon-hole, its not just shooting your pistol or lying on a compound roof and firing a sniper rifle. When I was in Afghanistan, some days you had to smash through a heavy compound door six hours into a fatiguing patrol, or carry some ladders with all your kit, or carry all of the ammo for the GPMG, or drag a casualty to a helicopter, or spend 6 hours throwing ammo crates onto Chinooks, whatever is needed in a hard pressed and under manned fob a mile away from an enemy stronghold.

There is no way anyone with experience of the matter would ever put women in that kind of job if they could pick equally fit men or similar age, or even attempt to make the argument. Go ask some ladies who have been in Afghanistan what they think about it for example! Several women serve on the front as medics for example, and I have always had a good rapport with them.. I guarantee they would tell you the same thing!

To be fair, Royal Marines are about as elite an outfit as you can hope to roll with. Then again as was referenced earlier my Marine Corps just had a pair of females fail out of the Infantry Officer's Basic Course, which is still fairly brutal. Then yet again the Canadians have successfully gender integrated their basic infantry.... blegh. Who knows at this point?

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

To be fair, Royal Marines are about as elite an outfit as you can hope to roll with. Then again as was referenced earlier my Marine Corps just had a pair of females fail out of the Infantry Officer's Basic Course, which is still fairly brutal. Then yet again the Canadians have successfully gender integrated their basic infantry.... blegh. Who knows at this point?

The difference can likely be accounted for by the fact that the Cadians are an imaginary fighting force. Women are generally weaker, and it's a simple fact. It doesn't make them inferior, only different. But, given that they are different, they shouldn't expect inclusion in things requiring the great strength they don't posses.

It's factual and logical. There's no sexism there.

I can understand why people get bent out of shape over it, but that's just the nature of the world and humans, and it can't be changed.

A fine jest.

Tl;dr. SOBs always surprised me because they were badass bitches (for lack of want towards a better term). They had 'sex appeal' of being woman and thus BOOBS, without compromising their armour and equipment.

I believed that this was a step in the right direction, that maybe GW and other companies would stop saying BOOBS BOOBS BOOBS whenever they tried to sculpt and thus sell models of the female variety.

This was, of course, until I saw the Bretonnian witches (Damsels?)

 Peregrine wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
The reason I say you can't blame them is because chances are they're probably some mix of socially inept, ignorant and/or just flat out not used to dealing with women.

So stop making excuses for them. The solution is to tell them that their behavior is unacceptable, not to excuse it and tell the victim of their social ineptness to just deal with it..

Yeah, if they speak to the superior woman creature tell them to feth off.
If they try to interact, kill them.
Only by ostracizing females from the group, continuing to worship plastic bodies and ignore the female presence in a gaming establishment, can you be fair and inclusive to women in the hobby..
Oh crap wait.

 DemetriDominov wrote:
Furthermore, going back to my point of having the sex symbols of Eldar women (of both alignments) being more successful in the franchise than squat women -

This is a ridiculously cherry-picked non-sequiteur.

You would need to prove that the reason the squats were "squatted" was because of the homeliness of their women. You may proceed.

 Monster Rain wrote:

 DemetriDominov wrote:
Furthermore, going back to my point of having the sex symbols of Eldar women (of both alignments) being more successful in the franchise than squat women -

This is a ridiculously cherry-picked non-sequiteur.

You would need to prove that the reason the squats were "squatted" was because of the homeliness of their women. You may proceed.

Or the fat, gamer-looking race died off while the healthy, athletic males got to live.
There's no argument to be made from squats, sorry.

 Peregrine wrote:

feeder wrote:
An open question to those who are bent out shape about miniatures that fetishizes women's sexuality.

If one is okay with a universe that fetishizes violence, war, death, torture, murder and slavery, why pick boobies to make a stand on?

Because we're not too concerned with the poor serial killers who might be excluded from the hobby because they're not comfortable being objectified.

So you're leading the charge against cheesecake models because you hold the opinion that the existence of cheesecake models excludes women from the hobby?

You think that women would be all over miniature gaming if not for all this sexist cheesecake?

 lucasbuffalo wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:

 DemetriDominov wrote:
Furthermore, going back to my point of having the sex symbols of Eldar women (of both alignments) being more successful in the franchise than squat women -

This is a ridiculously cherry-picked non-sequiteur.

You would need to prove that the reason the squats were "squatted" was because of the homeliness of their women. You may proceed.

Or the fat, gamer-looking race died off while the healthy, athletic males got to live.
There's no argument to be made from squats, sorry.

Sounds like evolution, nothing wrong with it there. (You may feel bad about it though if you happen to get the short end of the stick, but that's life!)

Huge thing t read here but Ill read the first and just jump to my take. Id say maybe? Depending on the company. But Im getting into Malifaux and I dont see that at all in their catalog. They seem to cover a rather large range nicely enough,

 Vladsimpaler wrote:

 lucasbuffalo wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:

 DemetriDominov wrote:
Furthermore, going back to my point of having the sex symbols of Eldar women (of both alignments) being more successful in the franchise than squat women -

This is a ridiculously cherry-picked non-sequiteur.

You would need to prove that the reason the squats were "squatted" was because of the homeliness of their women. You may proceed.

Or the fat, gamer-looking race died off while the healthy, athletic males got to live.
There's no argument to be made from squats, sorry.

Sounds like evolution, nothing wrong with it there. (You may feel bad about it though if you happen to get the short end of the stick, but that's life!)

Exactly, my point isnt that having ugly women or some such nonsense was what doomed the squats to becoming a Tyranid buffet.

Yo mama so ugly, the Tyranid digestion pool spit her out.

 Peregrine wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
The reason I say you can't blame them is because chances are they're probably some mix of socially inept, ignorant and/or just flat out not used to dealing with women.

So stop making excuses for them. The solution is to tell them that their behavior is unacceptable, not to excuse it and tell the victim of their social ineptness to just deal with it.

Firstly, you probably DON'T want to be treated like just another one of the guys, I know I sling insults at my male friends far more happily than would be politically correct or even comfortable for a female, secondly, if you actually want guys to change you have to stop blaming people for things.

Thank you for providing yet another example of the sexism problem. Women are people, they aren't some kind of magical creatures that have a greater-than-male sensitivity to insults.

Some of the things I say around my male friends, with few exceptions, if said to a woman would have my ass thrown into a sexual harassment suit in a heart beat. While I can say to my male friends, with out hesitation, "Suck my (insert various genitalia here)" If I said that to a woman, it would not go over the same way. Do I couch what I say around women, most of them yes, though I do have a few female friends were I can say some pretty damn degrading gak to them and not only do they not care, but they throw the same back at me. Then again those few women I have known for years and we are good friends.

mattyrm wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21033708

I know......

Koppo wrote:Just seen a related BBC article...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21033708

 MetalOxide wrote:

 Varrick wrote:
I think we are missing an important point in this argument. Now, obviously all humans & all soldiers are not Olympic athletes, but if you looked at the women's weight lifting categories, they tend to be slim. So i can quite easily buy a woman with infantry required strength having Lt. Miras body structure. And before anyone says a blasted thing, i know that there are a lot of Olympic weight lifters with a lot of girth to them, wide body range there.

Yes they may be slim but that does not guarentee that they wont even look the slightest bit more muscular than your average woman. Also you need to take into account that most miniatures are sculpted in 'heroic' proportions which in comparison, tend to be taller and bigger in every respect. Also the muscles are exaggerated and stylized.

For example, it would be silly to see realistically proportioned female miniatures amongst heroic poportioned male miniatures. It would be like mixing Imperial Guard with Infinity miniatures (I'm not saying Inifinity is realistically proportioned).

I was talking about Lt. Mira, from Space Marine. The video game. I brought it up because we were getting really close to "miras too skinny" territory.

 master of ordinance wrote:
The way that this thread is going i am apparently now a sesist prick for being a gentleman and allowing ladys to pass through a door before me or offering up my seat on the bus.

Don't worry. Whatever you do you'll be sexist in someone's eyes. The group I was with in University, if we didn't give women preferential treatment, none would join and we'd be call sexist for having lower than normal F:M ratio, then we give them preferential treatment by holding them to lower standards and we're sexist for giving them preferential treatment.

Oh and BTW my Girlfriend is about 6" smaller than me and far lighter built, cant pick me up off the ground, dosnt weight lift and i can lift her off the ground with ease. If she gets pissed she can drop almost anyone i know, baring myself, with one punch. Now try telling me women are not as good as men in combat.

I never understand the relevance these sorts of comments have to combat. "I know women who could beat most men", "My girlfriend could deck you", "My Mum could make you go to your room with nothing but a gaze". Is that what it takes to perform in a combat role? Coulda fooled me

I don't feel qualified to comment on the non-GW miniatures ranges because I don't have the knowledge of what's on offer there. From my perspective, what's important is that there's a good variety of practically-attired and -posed models available, and preferably that if there have to be fanservicey female models aimed at male players then there are, similarly, fanservicey male models aimed at female players.

My background and knowledge is more in the GW stuff, though, and often the written material is what bothers me the most. Stuff like no female space marines because handwaving (Sisters of Battle have always sort of rubbed me the wrong way for this reason - you can wear the power armour, but you can't ever be a super soldier because even space magic isn't that strong), or Eldar other than Howling Banshees almost always being referred to as male even though the backstory says they're either, or Eowyn having pretty awful stats even though she killed the Witch King, even down to little things like the player always being referred to as male in the rulebooks. I think all the female characters in the LotR line are pretty cool, but I still don't have any (unless you count Moria Goblins - hey, some of them were played by women in the movie!) because I'd be annoyed by their subpar stats.

None of these things is a big deal on its own. Those of us who do play manage to overlook them and still have a lot of fun! But together they do add up and they can lead to you feeling alienated from the hobby that's meant to be enjoyable.

I think these things could be improved, but the fact is, it could all be made perfect from a female player's point of view (insofar as there is such a unified thing for half the population of the world) and it would still probably take a long time for the ratios in the stores to really change. I don't think expanding the demographic is a speedy process even done right, and there's certainly a degree of cultural entrenchment that probably makes boys/men more likely to find out about it in the first place. It wouldn't surprise me at all if wargaming could grow to near parity in time, but it would probably take quite a while!

I would love to know what porno Peregrine watches. Women quietly reading a Gloria Steinem book?

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
I would love to know what porno Peregrine watches. Women quietly reading a Gloria Steinem book?

Probably in to some really kinky , hence the over compensation