azreal13 wrote: You're quoting me out of context, then getting upset about it. Are you sure you're NOT a woman?!
Well, you are certainly working hard to prove that the people in the hobby are the problem instead of sexualised art/miniatures! BTW, if you find women being upset at you often, you might want to try not being so blatantly sexist. It might help!
Now hang, at what point have I been sexist? Sexism is the discrimination of a person based solely on their gender. Never, not once, have I ever, in this thread or in real life, suggested I believe that women are inferior to men. Different, yes, naturally suited to different tasks, yes, inclined towards interests that aren't so appealing to men, absolutely.
In fact, that comment in your quote is so blatant, it is almost like I was making a joke, but sense of humour failures seem pretty rife around here just now.
You better make damn sure you've got your facts straight before you start throwing around accusations of sexism, because that's pretty offensive.
It obviously suits you to picture me as some sort of misogynistic chauvinist, but you're flat out wrong. Women are rarely upset with me, certainly not because I espouse some antiquated view about women belonging in the kitchen or other bs. In fact, my closest, dearest friend is a woman, an ex-girlfriend in fact (I'm still on speaking terms with most of my exes to one extent or another, to give a perspective on how many women I've "upset") and while I provide her with many reasons to get exasperated at me, my sexist views sure as hell aren't one of them.
So back the hell off, just because I take what I feel is a more pragmatic view of the differences between the genders than your rather more staunchly liberal one doesn't make me some sort of Victorian dinosaur.
Now hang, at what point have I been sexist? Sexism is the discrimination of a person based solely on their gender. Never, not once, have I ever, in this thread or in real life, suggested I believe that women are inferior to men. Different, yes, naturally suited to different tasks, yes, inclined towards interests that aren't so appealing to men, absolutely.
'Separate but equal' is bs. You display othering attitude towards women, going so far as claiming that they might as well be separate species.
In fact, that comment in your quote is so blatant, it is almost like I was making a joke, but sense of humour failures seem pretty rife around here just now.
I'm content with my view. I would never discriminate against someone solely for their gender, any more than I would for the colour of their skin or their religious beliefs.
Trying to say that women and men are equal in all things, when sexual dimorphism is so common in nature, and so obvious in humans, is where the BS lies in this little exchange.
No one is claiming that sexual dimorphism doesn't exist, merely that culture has a huge impact too, and individuals differ greatly from the average anyway. And of course there is no excuse for your othering comments or sexist jokes.
Crimson wrote: No one is claiming that sexual dimorphism doesn't exist, merely that culture has a huge impact too, and individuals differ greatly from the average anyway. And of course there is no excuse for your othering comments or sexist jokes.
Of course there is, it isn't bloody mass genocide, the problem is any attempt at levity in this thread has the more po faced amongst the participants up in arms at the "wrongness" and "unfairness" of it all.
Or are you one of those people who believe "there's no such thing as jokes?"
Here's a question, which came first, and therefore more likely had a greater influence on the other, sexual dimorphism in humans or any sort of anything we would recognise as a culture?
Of course there is, it isn't bloody mass genocide, the problem is any attempt at levity in this thread has the more po faced amongst the participants up in arms at the "wrongness" and "unfairness" of it all.
Or are you one of those people who believe "there's no such thing as jokes?"
No. But to find that joke funny, one must at least partly belive that what it implies is true, ie. women are irrational and are upset for silly reasons. That joke tells me something about what sort of person you are.
Here's a question, which came first, and therefore more likely had a greater influence on the other, sexual dimorphism in humans or any sort of anything we would recognise as a culture?
Sexual dimorphism. And the we moved out of the caves. Or at least some of us did. See, a joke.
Agamemnon2 wrote: I don't understand why, either, there's so much more fertile ground for dispute in the miniatures hobby.
My personal theory is that there are many unfortunates out there who believe if you white knight hard enough on the internet, girls will track you down and love you.
Of course there is, it isn't bloody mass genocide, the problem is any attempt at levity in this thread has the more po faced amongst the participants up in arms at the "wrongness" and "unfairness" of it all.
Or are you one of those people who believe "there's no such thing as jokes?"
No. But to find that joke funny, one must at least partly belive that what it implies is true, ie. women are irrational and are upset for silly reasons. That joke tells me something about what sort of person you are.
It tells you squat about who I am, but the fact that you're happy to simply pigeon hole a total stranger based on a few comments made anonymously over the Internet (in a discussion with absolutely no importance to anything in the grand scheme of things) tells me plenty about you.
Here's a question, which came first, and therefore more likely had a greater influence on the other, sexual dimorphism in humans or any sort of anything we would recognise as a culture?
Sexual dimorphism. And the we moved out of the caves. Or at least some of us did. See, a joke.
Not a joke, that's a fact, although I'm sure dimorphism in apes goes a lot further back than that.
Regardless, it is almost certain then that gender roles in society evolved along the lines of the biological aptitudes of the two genders, ie males as warriors/hunters and women as gatherers/nurturers. In evolutionary terms we are barely an eye blink down the road from that point in time, so why on earth would the two genders suddenly be equal in all things all of a sudden?
Don't get me wrong, the society we live in now obviously allows for a great many more opportunities for a person of either gender to compete equally, but biologically, we really aren't much different from the cave dwellers, so any argument that men and women are equally good at all things (ignoring rare deviations from the mean) is fundamentally flawed.
A totally gender neutral society is an admirable idea, but if it needs any sort of discrimination, positive or negative, to bring about something even close to it in reality, then it needs to remain an idea.
No. But to find that joke funny, one must at least partly belive that what it implies is true, ie. women are irrational and are upset for silly reasons.
I think that a lot of people with experience of women will agree with that. I'm not sure I'd say that they are irrational as such but they certainly have a tendency to pursue extremely different thought processes which results in an appearance of irrationality.
Well, at least this thread has been massively helpful at demonstrating what the real problem is and why women might not feel that welcome in the wargaming community.
Crimson wrote: Well, at least this thread has been massively helpful at demonstrating what the real problem is and why women might not feel that welcome in the wargaming community.
Everything you have said is genuinely unfair. Insulting Az by labelling him a sexist chauvinistic pig just because he disagrees with you is totally out of order.
If he is sexist, then the vast majority of the human race (including every woman I have asked about this topic) is also sexist.
Funny thing, every single girl I know (and I brought this thread up in the pub last night because It seemed a good topic for bar conversation in front of my missus, my mate and his wife, and two lesbians who are married, this is California!) says the same! None of those girls considered it seixst when I said "generally speaking girls arent as in to wargames and violent pursuits and such right?", and they all happily agreed, with the caveat that one of the girls likes Grand Theft Auto, but not as much as me.
Conceding that women are physically weaker, and are generally less interested in pursuits like hunting and shooting and making war than men, doesn't make you sexist, it makes you a correctly operating human being with a functioning brain that sees things logically.
If you do think that accepting a fact makes you sexist, I suggest you read up on sexism, because people like you are part of the problem. In the same way that people who lie about rape and racism cheapen the words, because it causes actual victims of both of those actions to be unfairly labelled or less likely to be believed, your actions cheapen the very word. Its also funny that you think women are such weak creatures they get offended or upset at such a simple debate. One of the girls I was speaking to yesterday said she found the things that people like you say to be entirely patronizing, like she cant easily engage in a robust defence herself?
So if you think about it, only one of us is dragging women down here, and it isnt Az or me, its you.
Everything you have said is genuinely unfair. Insulting Az by labelling him a sexist chauvinistic pig just because he disagrees with you is totally out of order.
Not because he disagreed with me. Because he insisted women might as well be another species and made a sexist joke. Now, of course I don't know him, and my impression of him might be wrong, but what he has said on this thread is the only thing I can base my characterisation of him on.
Funny thing, every single girl I know (and I brought this thread up in the pub last night because It seemed a good topic for bar conversation in front of my missus, my mate and his wife, and two lesbians who are married, this is California!) says the same! None of those girls considered it seixst when I said "generally speaking girls arent as in to wargames and violent pursuits and such right?", and they all happily agreed, with the caveat that one of the girls likes Grand Theft Auto, but not as much as me.
Conceding that women are physically weaker, and are generally less interested in pursuits like hunting and shooting and making war than men, doesn't make you sexist, it makes you a correctly operating human being with a functioning brain that sees things logically.
No, but joking that women are silly and irrational probably does make you sexist. Also, it is one thing to accept than on average men like wargames more and quite other to conclude that because of that it is okay to cater only to males when designing wargames.
If you do think that accepting a fact makes you sexist, I suggest you read up on sexism, because people like you are part of the problem. In the same way that people who lie about rape and racism cheapen the words, because it causes actual victims of both of those actions to be unfairly labelled or less likely to be believed, your actions cheapen the very word. Its also funny that you think women are such weak creatures they get offended or upset at such a simple debate. One of the girls I was speaking to yesterday said she found the things that people like you say to be entirely patronizing, like she cant easily engage in a robust defence herself?
So if you think about it, only one of us is dragging women down here, and it isnt Az or me, its you.
I'm sure women are completely capable of arguing for themselves, Apple Fox certainly did so in this very thread.
Everything you have said is genuinely unfair. Insulting Az by labelling him a sexist chauvinistic pig just because he disagrees with you is totally out of order.
Not because he disagreed with me. Because he insisted women might as well be another species and made a sexist joke. Now, of course I don't know him, and my impression of him might be wrong, but what he has said on this thread is the only thing I can base my characterisation of him on.
Rot.
I have explicitly told you what my beliefs are, you have chosen to disregard that in favour of jumping all over something said in jest.
I seem to remember reading something along the lines that most Fins believe that Finland is a racist country, but only a small minority admit to racist convictions. Now, based on that small piece of info, alongside the flag on your posts, I'm going to conclude you are a closet racist, and completely disregard any protestations you make to the contrary. Fair enough?
Crimson wrote:Also, it is one thing to accept than on average women like aerobics more and quite other to conclude that because of that it is okay to cater only to females when advertising them.
The quotation above has been modified slightly, but now who disagrees with the latter part?
I gave my girlfriend a read of this thread and she, as a woman, thinks it's nuts. She also points out that putting women on a pedestal like they need to protected is just as 'sexist' as saying they are quicker to get irrationally emotional.
What this image suggests to me that maybe He-Man hasn't been subject to enough scrutiny or criticism. I know I never found male action figure characters at all appealing as a child. They were always these grotesque hunks of muscle with poor problem solving skills and a terrible taste in clothes. He-Man was egregiously bad in this regard, and the idea that some boys might prefer a different kind of hero is still considered a freak outlier today. For my part, it wasn't until I learned to read that I found characters I could actually relate to. As a kid I wanted to be Captain Nemo.
The more you look at He-Man there, the weirder he gets. That outfit is straight out of a pride parade in San Fran. It's hardly a "neutral" generic appearance when you get down to it.
Im not sure. To tell you the truth, ive been lost since around page 20.
Really i think this is becoming some massive OT slug fest, as we seem to have deviated this way and that. We have the reason, women just are not into wargaming, shocking as it may seem. It has nothing to do with the minis. Lets leave it at that shall we, rather than trying to drag this out because we feel our views are right and all others are wrong, etc etc etc
azreal13 wrote: You know, I'm half tempted to report you for that, I'm mean, seriously, your entire post is composed of snarky comments and patronising tone.
What?
Weren't you the one who implied the only reason men could care about women feeling welcomed in gaming was so that they could get laid? You even went on about it again saying anyone on the other side of the issue (the side with the only actual woman in the thread on it, too) must not know anything about women. You kind of implied only permavirgins could care about sexist depictions of women.
And then you have the gall to threaten to report someone else?
PS: There are a lot of us who want the hobby to be more inviting to women so that we can enjoy the hobby with our spouses.
Agamemnon2 wrote: The more you look at He-Man there, the weirder he gets. That outfit is straight out of a pride parade in San Fran. It's hardly a "neutral" generic appearance when you get down to it.
He did give us literally the greatest music video of all time, now in a convenient extended version
Agamemnon2 wrote: I don't understand why, either, there's so much more fertile ground for dispute in the miniatures hobby.
My personal theory is that there are many unfortunates out there who believe if you white knight hard enough on the internet, girls will track you down and love you.
Not because he disagreed with me. Because he insisted women might as well be another species and made a sexist joke. Now, of course I don't know him, and my impression of him might be wrong, but what he has said on this thread is the only thing I can base my characterisation of him on.
There are enough studies done that male and female brains process problems differently. So there are not only physical difference between men and women but also the brains are different, maybe that is why all those eons of miscommunication come from.
mattyrm wrote: Everything you have said is genuinely unfair.
But it's "genuinely fair" and not at all insulting to insinuate that no man would ever take the opposite side in this argument unless he were a permavirgin white-knighting for womankind thinking it'll get him laid?
Agamemnon2 wrote: I don't understand why, either, there's so much more fertile ground for dispute in the miniatures hobby.
My personal theory is that there are many unfortunates out there who believe if you white knight hard enough on the internet, girls will track you down a and love you.
Ah yes, "white knighting". A term invented whole cloth by the people who also coined gems such as "redpill", "mangina", "friendzoning", and "negging". Purveyors of misogynist fantasies and cloudcuckooland relationship advice for the benighted masses, bouncing ideas off each other in a permanent echo chamber. The MRA/PUA community has a lot to answer for in the final tally, but belonging to it is in many ways its own punishment.
I find it telling that nowhere in that paradigm is the idea even entertained that maybe some men are feminists because they think of women as actual humans deserving of the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else. No, it has to be a selfish power play. Possibly said fantasists are projecting their own predilections on their enemies, which raises the question "Who is it that you actually have a problem with?" As for my own part, I'm not a white knight, I'm a Rainbow Warrior. Deal with it.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: PS: There are a lot of us who want the hobby to be more inviting to women so that we can enjoy the hobby with our spouses.
Your spouses have told you the reason they're not into wargaming with little plastic soldiermens is because of cleavage on some models?
I find that hard to believe.
No, sexism. That was the reason. My wife felt uncomfortable around the gamers at the Battle Bunker and Brookhurst hobbies. The way they stared at her, talked to her and treated her creeped her out. Seeing the cheesecake art was just more of a reminder of that. It isn't the totality of the problem by a long shot, but it is still a component in it.
For example, she loves painting Reaper Bones monsters, but when she saw the nipple studs on the fire giant queen, she thought it was ridiculous, cheesy and a bit of a turn off. So I showed her Batman and Robin. That stopped her laughing, but unfortunately the model was ruined for her forever. Models of fully-armored women with somehow-visible butt cheeks have the same affect.
Due to her personal history, she is also pretty sensitive to gender-based double standards. The inquisitor's cleavage wouldn't have bothered her much (as it didn't bother me much), but a lot of other examples alluded to in this thread would have. Having paladin men in full plate and paladin women, for example, in bustiers, thongs and thigh-highs is just blatant. If you combine the popularity of that kind of disparity with the prevalence of Brother Vinnie-type exploitative cheesecake, which she is aware of, it makes for a pretty ugly picture for her.
This is my problem statement, where I think the leap is. What is ugly about the picture it makes for her? That men like looking at half-nude women? That companies will cater to that drive? That some young men view women as sexual objects?
None of this should be a surprise to anyone, cheesecake models or no.
This is my problem statement, where I think the leap is. What is ugly about the picture it makes for her? That men like looking at half-nude women? That companies will cater to that drive? That some young men view women as sexual objects?
None of this should be a surprise to anyone, cheesecake models or no.
Surprise or no, it can be unpleasant.
Often, that is all they see her as. She is often treated as a total noob by guys who stare at her chest and just assume she knows nothing about the games or sci fi because she is a woman. Also, there is a difference between "men like breasts" and "a lot of men in this field only want to see cheesecake", and also "male gamers support a lot of rape fantasy minis." Cheesecake wouldn't be so much of an issue if there were a lot more decent models for her to balance out the issue, which is why I'm excited about Dreamforge and Victoria minis.
Besides, it's not too much to ask that companies cater to women, men who like competent women, and also horny men who like breasts instead of only catering to one demographic. When companies cater to young men who view women as sexual objects, they are telling her that they are not interested in her as a customer (or a person). When many companies alienate her, she is naturally crowded out of the wargaming mainstream, certainly not welcomed.
I asked my wife why she isn't into 40k, she said she isn't confident in her painting ability, and if I painted the figures for her she wouldn't feel connected to them.
She also thinks the rules are way too needlessly complicated, so maybe streamlining the ruleset would be far more useful in drawing in new gamers than banning breasts.
Also, I'm a feminist, because my wife told me to be
This is my problem statement, where I think the leap is. What is ugly about the picture it makes for her? That men like looking at half-nude women? That companies will cater to that drive? That some young men view women as sexual objects?
None of this should be a surprise to anyone, cheesecake models or no.
Surprise or no, it can be unpleasant.
Besides, it's not too much to ask that companies cater to women, men who like competent women, and also horny men who like breasts instead of only catering to one demographic. When companies cater to young men who view women as sexual objects, they are telling her that they are not interested in her as a customer (or a person). When many companies alienate her, she is naturally crowded out of the wargaming mainstream, certainly not welcomed.
Your first point isn't very strong. I agree that it is unpleasant. I also think that farting in a closed space is unpleasant. I also find getting sick to be unpleasant. But it happens, regardless, and we prepare. To be utterly shut down by unpleasantness is... unpleasant.
The second point doesn't really make sense. The companies don't do it because anyone asks them to. They do it because there is profit in it. If there IS profit in it, then I think you should start a company catering to that market and corner it before someone else finds your secret. Otherwise, if there ISN'T profit to be had, then yes, it is too much to ask.
Agamemnon2 wrote: Ah yes, "white knighting". A term invented whole cloth by the people who also coined gems such as "redpill", "mangina", "friendzoning", and "negging". Purveyors of misogynist fantasies and cloudcuckooland relationship advice for the benighted masses, bouncing ideas off each other in a permanent echo chamber. The MRA/PUA community has a lot to answer for in the final tally, but belonging to it is in many ways its own punishment.
You think all those terms were originally coined by the MRA? That's hilarious. Ill-informed, but hilarious.
You think all those terms were originally coined by the MRA? That's hilarious. Ill-informed, but hilarious.
Well I'm glad that in the absence of anything else of value, this thread can at least make people laugh. Enjoy your rhetorical victory over me for as long as you may. I hope it gives you warmth in your existence. It takes a very special kind of knave to mock people for being ill-informed and not make any effort to inform them.
As always, I am open to being corrected, but you instead decided it would be more amusing to kick me in the kneecaps a couple of times, which to me is rather indicative of wanting much more to have the last word in an inane game of tit-for-tat than actually engaging in dialogue. Yes, my statement regarding the coinage of those terms was inaccurate. But do you deny that all of them are now used exclusively or nearly so by the group referred to? Because if so, then you being technically correct really matters not a jot.
My argument stands. Adherents to a certain ideology cannot understand that for some people, feminism is not some long-term cynical ploy for personal satisfaction. How does that even work? If I'm for gay marriage, does that mean I'm secretly yearning for the hirsute embrace of some leather-clad gentleman of the bearish persuasion and am only advocating for the cause in order to further that agenda? Are people against corporate greed and exploitative practices because they want to be the greedy exploiters themselves?
Unit1126PLL wrote: The second point doesn't really make sense. The companies don't do it because anyone asks them to. They do it because there is profit in it. If there IS profit in it, then I think you should start a company catering to that market and corner it before someone else finds your secret. Otherwise, if there ISN'T profit to be had, then yes, it is too much to ask.
There's many, many kinds of catering, and you rather assume that all companies are 100% rational capitalist actors, which I don't think is entirely unproblematic. Consider the local game or comics shop whose uncouth, opinionated staff makes people feel unwelcome. In a pure profit perspective, those people should not exist, they're costing stores money. And yet, the last time I tried to buy a Marvel album, I was met with a guy who asked me why I was reading a "loser comic" like Iron Man instead of Batman. He was not maximising profits by doing that, he was being an opinionated fan and a bit of a jerk. I haven't been to that store since, based on their quality of service, instead I bought my next Marvel albums online, which is money that I would gladly have spent at a real store that treated me like an adult.
What you're suggesting is that the marketplace is 100% self-correcting and there's never any need to advocate for any kind of change, since companies will always leap at new things as soon as there's profit to do them, whereas I don't think it's that clear-cut. To my knowledge, the rude comic book buy in [city redacted]* is still employed. Left to their own devices, things have a tendency to stagnate. Maybe you're right and no companies can afford to do things differently, but we should still have the right the raise the issue every now and then.
Maybe someone, somewhere wakes up and sees that hey, THEIR company could make those figures, they just hadn't thought about it before. It costs money up front to try to release figures, and it's bound to be pretty hard to measure their eventual selling power ahead of time, so that's an incentive for companies to be cautious about untested ideas, even if they eventually would be profitable. As such, discussions and advocating for change can perhaps move those projects along a bit, convincing companies that maybe there's people out there for this, or maybe they could do a kickstarter and see how it goes. You're right that companies don't just do X because people ask for X, but people asking for X can get the whole process of doing-X started.
I see no way in which questioning the status quo like this is a negative thing. Maybe nothing will change at the end of the day. Maybe some people complain about things in a way that gets on people's nerves. But that's always going to be the case. Living in the kind of online community as we are, there's always going to be people in it whose opinions we cannot stomach and whose priorities come across as bizarre to us. We're not owed a complaint-free, controversy-free hobby, and by jingo, why would we want one?
-- * Pardon me for doing this, but I live in a small country with a fairly tiny community, and I don't want to come across as calling that one guy out specifically like some anonymous douchebag. If i wanted to complain about him specifically instead of using him as an example, I would have done so in writing to his employers, not online to nobody in particular.
Agamemnon2 wrote: But do you deny that all of them are now used exclusively or nearly so by the group referred to?
Christ, yes. You think "friendzone" and "white knight" are now MRA exclusives?
I believe I might have committed the typical error of paying undue heed to the loudest voices in the room, as it were. I hear them thrown around casually and loud by people who've bought on to the MRA philosophy. If I am in error, I apologize. It happens. And since you invoked the name of Christ, ask yourself what he would rather we do? Continue arguing about those specific minutiae, or try to resolve them and look beyond to a broader picture and bigger issues than matters of terminological inexactitude? I don't know about you, but he always struck me more as a live-and-let-live kind of guy.
"White knighting", regardless of its provenance, seems to me as a term to indicate a certain kind of dubiousness. Being accused of being one is not a nice thing to happen, it implies you're assuming the mantle of virtue not for the sake of virtue itself, but because in so doing you achieve selfish ends. And thus I clothe my naked villany / With odd old ends stol'n out of holy writ, / And seem a saint, when most I play the devil.
Do you think that a fair assesment of the semantic meaning of the term, or would you like to suggest a nuance I am missing?
Agamemnon2 wrote: But do you deny that all of them are now used exclusively or nearly so by the group referred to?
Christ, yes. You think "friendzone" and "white knight" are now MRA exclusives?
I believe I might have committed the typical error of paying undue heed to the loudest voices in the room, as it were. I hear them thrown around casually and loud by people who've bought on to the MRA philosophy. If I am in error, I apologize. It happens. And since you invoked the name of Christ, ask yourself what he would rather we do? Continue arguing about those specific minutiae, or try to resolve them and look beyond to a broader picture and bigger issues than matters of terminological inexactitude? I don't know about you, but he always struck me more as a live-and-let-live kind of guy.
"White knighting", regardless of its provenance, seems to me as a term to indicate a certain kind of dubiousness. Being accused of being one is not a nice thing to happen, it implies you're assuming the mantle of virtue not for the sake of virtue itself, but because in so doing you achieve selfish ends. And thus I clothe my naked villany / With odd old ends stol'n out of holy writ, / And seem a saint, when most I play the devil.
Do you think that a fair assesment of the semantic meaning of the term, or would you like to suggest a nuance I am missing?
Look, many people assume the mantle of the "white knight" or similar for selfish reasons. Many have done and many will do. I know that I have done what appeared to be good, but was actually for selfish ends, myself. Its always been there and it always will be, no matter what you want. And yes, that is a fair summary of it.
As for this cheesecake, well I personally like cheesecake. It tastes good, especially my mums homemade lemon cheesecake. The creaminess of it, and the way it just melts in your mouth.... Wait, whats that? Oh you don't mean real cheesecake, you mean sexy minis? Ah, I see......
I have no problems with them. I have my Warwitch Deneghara, my Witch coven of Garlghast, my OOPDE succubus..... Hell, I have my Skaard Harpies.... One of which is totally naked. I have no problems with them. I am still polite and courteous to women, and I don't view them as sex objects... (unless they want it of course ) Just because the stereotypical gamer (and yes, they do sadly exist) gets off over his little toy soldier womens it dosnt mean we all do. Hell I would be surprised if any here do.
And as for the point on Female Fantasy Armour..... Ill just leave this here:
But, im with the ones calling for this thread to be locked. This has gone on too long and has seriously de-railed. Worse so than some of the OT threads.
Please Mods, bane this thread...
I have to say that the definition of "white knighting" that has been discussed over the last few posts doesn't match my understanding of the idiom. Maybe I'm totally out of touch.
I thought "white knighting" was merely any time that someone rushed to the defense of anything from any perceived attack, regardless of the merit of that attack. I've seen it used on political forums where one person vigorously defended their pet political party from expressions of valid concerns about that party. I've seent he term used on this very web site to describe people who blindly defend GW policies from anybody who expresses a negative opinion of those policies.
In my experience, the idiom that most closely resembles the usage of "white knight" expressed by Aga and MOO is "KISA," or "Knight in Shining Armor." Maybe it's a difference between European usage and American usage, but I dunno for sure.
But, im with the ones calling for this thread to be locked. This has gone on too long and has seriously de-railed. Worse so than some of the OT threads.
Please Mods, bane this thread...
I'm still curious why there's a bunch of guys protesting about something that boils down to a women's issue. If you guys are truly enlightened in wanting a gender free gaming world shouldn't you let women actually be the ones advocating it? There seem to be constant quotes about how women aren't weak and don't need men to be fighting their battles, but this thread is a bunch of males arguing points "on women's behalf" and women for the most part don't seem to care whatsoever.
I think it's primarily a case of people wanting to make an argument out of a trivial issue. If women wanted to game they would be, and if sexism in gaming was an issue they themselves would confront it. They don't need guys standing up for them saying all you other mean men are sexist, why would you be fighting the battle "on their behalf" unless deep down you feel that women aren't capable of standing up for what they want?
By trying to bear that cross for female gamers you are putting them on a pedestal which is exactly what you are claiming makes the rest of us sexist. If you are a guy how can you state with any personal authority what females find sexist or not? I don't see you quoting any actual objections from female gamers as the basis of your arguments.
Most women don't show any serious interest in gaming, those that actually are interested are already playing regardless of what anyone else thinks, so what is the big deal?
Even if you magically made the gaming community completely gender neutral we wouldn't see a huge influx of women any time soon as it's not something they are into as a collective. Do you think female members on a forum dedicated to women's shoes or fashion really care about the lack of men in their stores or in their shopping groups? It's not that they are sexist towards men, they just recognize that female shoes or fashion aren't a point of interest for the majority of men.
paulson games wrote: I'm still curious why there's a bunch of guys protesting about something that boils down to a women's issue. If you guys are truly enlightened in wanting a gender free gaming world shouldn't you let women actually be the ones advocating it? There seem to be constant quotes about how women aren't weak and don't need men to be fighting their battles, but this thread is a bunch of males arguing points "on women's behalf" and women for the most part don't seem to care whatsoever.
I think it's primarily a case of people wanting to make an argument out of a trivial issue. If women wanted to game they would be, and if sexism in gaming was an issue they themselves would confront it. They don't need guys standing up for them saying all you other mean men are sexist, why would you be fighting the battle "on their behalf" unless deep down you feel that women aren't capable of standing up for what they want?
By trying to bear that cross for female gamers you are putting them on a pedestal which is exactly what you are claiming makes the rest of us sexist. If you are a guy how can you state with any personal authority what females find sexist or not? I don't see you quoting any actual objections from female gamers as the basis of your arguments.
Most women don't show any serious interest in gaming, those that actually are interested are already playing regardless of what anyone else thinks, so what is the big deal?
Even if you magically made the gaming community completely gender neutral we wouldn't see a huge influx of women any time soon as it's not something they are into as a collective. Do you think female members on a forum dedicated to women's shoes or fashion really care about the lack of men in their stores or in their shopping groups? It's not that they are sexist towards men, they just recognize that female shoes or fashion aren't a point of interest for the majority of men.
Pretty much exactly what I said yeah, and nothing bothers me more than people getting offended on other peoples behalf, its like those ridiculous hand wringing liberals who cry racism about things that are so petty and ridiculous you wouldnt find a black person in North America that would be bothered by it, like I said early, I think all these friggin "enlightened" geniuses do is make the whole group look petty and ridiculous, its entirely counter productive, but they are so busy concentrating on how clever and superior they are compared to all of us "sheeple" they dont realize that they are being entirely counter productive.
There's many, many kinds of catering, and you rather assume that all companies are 100% rational capitalist actors, which I don't think is entirely unproblematic. Consider the local game or comics shop whose uncouth, opinionated staff makes people feel unwelcome. In a pure profit perspective, those people should not exist, they're costing stores money. And yet, the last time I tried to buy a Marvel album, I was met with a guy who asked me why I was reading a "loser comic" like Iron Man instead of Batman. He was not maximising profits by doing that, he was being an opinionated fan and a bit of a jerk. I haven't been to that store since, based on their quality of service, instead I bought my next Marvel albums online, which is money that I would gladly have spent at a real store that treated me like an adult.
What you're suggesting is that the marketplace is 100% self-correcting and there's never any need to advocate for any kind of change, since companies will always leap at new things as soon as there's profit to do them, whereas I don't think it's that clear-cut. To my knowledge, the rude comic book buy in [city redacted]* is still employed. Left to their own devices, things have a tendency to stagnate. Maybe you're right and no companies can afford to do things differently, but we should still have the right the raise the issue every now and then.
Maybe someone, somewhere wakes up and sees that hey, THEIR company could make those figures, they just hadn't thought about it before. It costs money up front to try to release figures, and it's bound to be pretty hard to measure their eventual selling power ahead of time, so that's an incentive for companies to be cautious about untested ideas, even if they eventually would be profitable. As such, discussions and advocating for change can perhaps move those projects along a bit, convincing companies that maybe there's people out there for this, or maybe they could do a kickstarter and see how it goes. You're right that companies don't just do X because people ask for X, but people asking for X can get the whole process of doing-X started.
I see no way in which questioning the status quo like this is a negative thing. Maybe nothing will change at the end of the day. Maybe some people complain about things in a way that gets on people's nerves. But that's always going to be the case. Living in the kind of online community as we are, there's always going to be people in it whose opinions we cannot stomach and whose priorities come across as bizarre to us. We're not owed a complaint-free, controversy-free hobby, and by jingo, why would we want one?
--
* Pardon me for doing this, but I live in a small country with a fairly tiny community, and I don't want to come across as calling that one guy out specifically like some anonymous douchebag. If i wanted to complain about him specifically instead of using him as an example, I would have done so in writing to his employers, not online to nobody in particular.
I'm not arguing for the status quo. I'm saying that if a company wants to do it, they will, and if they don't, they won't. I'm also saying that those desires are usually motivated by profit (though, as you say, I admit that it isn't always the case).
If the company decides not to do it, who are you to say that they should? Are you an executive? A board member? Even an important investor can change things with enough haranguing! Random joes like us, though? Short of a "VIVE LE PROLETARIAT" style Marxist revolution, we can do very little to influence the corporations directly.
If it is a good idea to start producing fine, high-quality, armored female miniatures, then someone will do it eventually, if not you then me, if not me then PP or GW or Battlefront. If not them, then someone else. It's how the market works - businesses see a niche that is untapped, then move into them. My point is, though, there has to be a niche there to move in to.
If the company decides not to do it, who are you to say that they should? Are you an executive? A board member? Even an important investor can change things with enough haranguing! Random joes like us, though? Short of a "VIVE LE PROLETARIAT" style Marxist revolution, we can do very little to influence the corporations directly.
I doubt these corporations are seriously hurt by having to listen to wellmeaning people suggest ideas to them, no matter how unfeasible, so again, I really do not see the harm. Even if I agreed with all the counterarguments why women will never pick this hobby up, i want to have more sensibly-dressed and less barbie-doll-aspected models for their own sake. I buy them when I see them, and I leave positive feedback and give future custom to companies that provide such. THAT is what I can do. It is not much, I readily agree.
I'm not interested in the gender balance of the wargaming hobby, since I will have little to nothing to do with it anymore. I just want to see less Generic Buxom Barbarian Wench #13 in catalogues, and more individualistic, memorable and varied female miniatures with which to build my display pieces and dioramas. I want for sculptors to do what I lack the means to do myself, and to produce things I've not already seen a hundred times.
That being said, I feel there's multiple aspects and issues that are being conflated in this thread, to overall confusion and general disarray. One of them is the "girlfriend in the game shop" thing that a lot of people have anecdotes about, how the FLGS turns into a weird and creepy geek-cave when a young woman enters. Another is the level of sexualization of the figures themselves. Then there's the overall complexity issue of the game, and the question of whether games should be geared even more towards getting non-miniatures gamers (of any gender) involved, a feat which I assure you is not impossible, though from past messages here a lot of people think it so. They're all big issues with some overlap, but should probably still be split up into different threads.
Now, the "why are guys talking about a women's problem?" issue. In some ways, the poster is right to ask it, but in some of the questions I mentioned above, guys have a genuine bone to pick by themselves. As mentioned above, I want to see more varied representations of people as miniatures because my dioramas are all the better for it*. Likewise, I would not mind a reduction of laddish behavior in game stores and clubs should I get back to a more active gaming schedule, since it's not an environment I'm confortable in myself, either** - not because of being outraged on behalf of unspecifed women. Getting women to try Warhammer, though? I have no dog in that race at the present time. If I was in a relationship with someone who wanted to game, or had a daughter interested in the game, then perhaps.
-- * A feat which, incidentally, I feel the modern miniatures industry, buyoued by Kickstarter and its ilk, is making headway towards. Our smorgasbord is ever-expanding. Boutique resin companies are poised to answer to niche customer requests far better than the giants of old ever were. Victoria Miniatures is bringing out female multipart resin sci-fi infantry, and the Raging Heroes campaign was a big vote of confidence from the community in one (albeit perhaps a bit narrow) conception of kickass women warriors. The particular battle to which you allude is, therefore, I feel in good hands and I see only limited cause for further action. ** For reasons which are sufficiently personal for me not to want to share here, begging your indulgence.
I'm not arguing for the status quo. I'm saying that if a company wants to do it, they will, and if they don't, they won't. I'm also saying that those desires are usually motivated by profit (though, as you say, I admit that it isn't always the case).
If the company decides not to do it, who are you to say that they should? Are you an executive? A board member? Even an important investor can change things with enough haranguing! Random joes like us, though? Short of a "VIVE LE PROLETARIAT" style Marxist revolution, we can do very little to influence the corporations directly.
Have you ever read these forums? People are expressing their views on what they think GW should or shouldn't do all the time.
Several years back we had a female high school student that wanted to participate in the high school's (male) wrestling program. It raised a major debate within the school district and there was a lot of heated arguements on why it should or shouldn't be allowed.They decided that in the interests of promoting equality they would let her join the team, and any other females from any of the other high schools could participate as well.
She wrestled for a single season then left the team. Even though all the teams still allow women to openly participate she has been the only female wrestler in 7 years. The district includes more than twenty schools and has literally seen tens of thousands of students in that time. So even when they have the opportunity to participate it apparently is not an interest that any other females share and there was no change in their participation levels within the sport even though they made changes aimed at specifically accommodating female participants.
I see wargaming in much the same situation, even if we restructure the whole foundation of how gaming is run it may not actually result in any measurable change. On the whole females just aren't as drawn to certain hobbies or sports that tend to be male dominated regardless of how equally/fairly the women are treated.
3 of the players in my d&d group are female but none of them play wargames despite the fact they all collect miniatures. One of the girls also has a huge collection of cheesecake models. They also play magic, zombicide, WOW, and even MWO. They just aren't interested in wargames and it has nothing to do with the imagery. D&D is far more sexist than 40k or other wargames yet they still play D&D without any problems. A major element in why they play the other games is due to the higher level of social interaction and group participation, which is largely missing in most wargames.
I see wargaming in much the same situation, even if we restructure the whole foundation of how gaming is run it may not actually result in any measurable change. On the whole females just aren't as drawn to certain hobbies or sports that tend to be male dominated regardless of how equally/fairly the women are treated.
It could be true for wargames but probably isn't. It wasn't true for RPGs and it isn't true for computer games.
I find that some male gamers (not all and thats because some gamers are utterly shocked that a living breathing women is into this and treat them as some sort of oddity) are more off putting to female players than the content in the game. The reason I say this is because of something I noticed when I used to LARP. Most female larpers did not wear head to toe armour in fact many of them wore the more "sexy"l armour and many of them played warrior types, some learned real quick to wear pants instead of running around a forest with bare legs but even then they would wear tights. My significant other plays warhammer 40k with me and at the store I play at there is a another female player who loves the new dark elf witches and sisters of slaughter and is making a Chaos Warrior army of female models and is using dark elves, dark eldar and chaos warriors. It comes down to one thing and that is the individual person and what they like male or female.
If you want to attract more women to this game or hobby one way is to simply treat them like anyone else and make them feel welcomed even if your army consist of scantily clad female warriors.
and
This is the thread that never ends, it goes on and on my friends, some people started writing it not knowing what it was and we will continue writing it forever just because this is the thread that never ends. (Could not resist )
Alpha 1 wrote: If you want to attract more women to this game or hobby one way is to simply treat them like anyone else and make them feel welcomed...
Agreed!
Alpha 1 wrote: ...even if your army consist of scantily clad female warriors.
Herein lies the problem. For some the miniatures or artwork leaves some feeling unwelcome. When cheesecake is your only real option it will inevitably leave those who aren't comfortable with that option rather disappointed.
Victoria Lamb has a great posting on her website from July regarding the female troops she is working on currently:
Hi, It is a great pleasure to show these first test sculpts. For a long time people have asked me to work on some modular female troops that are non-sexualised and can be mixed in with the existing male regiments. I am aiming to create women who look like practical combat troops that are dressed in the same uniforms as their male counterparts and are still recognizable as female on the tabletop. I don’t want to resort to barbie doll proportions, high heels, crop tops or any of the other cliches that are usually imposed on female soldier miniatures. I greatly welcome any feedback and comments during this developmental phase.
Bold emphasis mine.
Steps are being taken to offer more alternatives to cheesecake models, and I am pleased at the encouragement sculptors like Vic are getting for their forays into this area of miniatures. There is a demand for these other types of models, and the inclusion of more combat appropriate, practically attired female models, will do a lot to ease the negative stereotypes surrounding this hobby and make the entry barriers for women less severe.
I see wargaming in much the same situation, even if we restructure the whole foundation of how gaming is run it may not actually result in any measurable change. On the whole females just aren't as drawn to certain hobbies or sports that tend to be male dominated regardless of how equally/fairly the women are treated.
It could be true for wargames but probably isn't. It wasn't true for RPGs and it isn't true for computer games.
The social elements of rpgs and video games (with group chat) will attract more females than wargames, because women tend to be much more social as a group. The girls that we game with don't care for wargames because it's a 1 on 1 format and there's very little interchange between players in a way it's almost like playing solitare the opponent just moves pieces but you don't chit chat very much while playing.
Playing the ccgs or rpgs it's a group atmosphere, they vastly prefer games that co-op and where we can engage in joking and conversation while the game plays. The ccg's are perfect for highlighting this as they offer both group play and 1 on 1 tornament styled play. the girls love the casual group play but rarely play in tournaments as they find them rather dull meanwhile all the guys in my group prefer the tournies as it scratches their direct competition itch.
When we play zombicide the figures that are snatched up the quickest by the girls are Dakota, Eve, and Lea, Dakota being the not Pam Anderson super Barbie, Eve being the not Angelina Jolie, and Lea being the girl from zombieland is super short micro skirt. There's plenty of other less sexy female models in the game but they like the cheesecake models even when there are other more normal options. Not saying *all* women prefer the cheesecake, but the girls in my group do. Likewise the guys tend to take the more macho buff male models. It's because we like the fantasy versions of ourselves or characters to be the things that sometimes we aren't in life. I'm not a 6'4 towering hulk of muscle but I get to be when I'm playing make believe. I don't pick the dorky nerd type figure cause I'm already close enough to that guy in real life.
It works the same with women, most of them aren't the uber sexy Amazonian warrior in real life, but when playing make believe they can be. It's not simply a case of sex selling, it's also a mix of how we want to view ourselves within a fantasy context. Nobody plays a game to be Wallflower Joe who works in the company mail room. We want to play the larger than life dynamic hero or heroine with epic bodies and abilities.
I see wargaming in much the same situation, even if we restructure the whole foundation of how gaming is run it may not actually result in any measurable change. On the whole females just aren't as drawn to certain hobbies or sports that tend to be male dominated regardless of how equally/fairly the women are treated.
It could be true for wargames but probably isn't. It wasn't true for RPGs and it isn't true for computer games.
You can't really compare (pen and paper) RPGs and Wargaming, though. There is a lot less crossover between the two than you might expect. The two types of games appeal to different aspects of gaming culture. Just for starters, (pen and paper) RPGs tend to be cooperative while Wargames tend to be competitive (as in, one player is attempting to win against the other). In my experience, the number of people who actively both play RPGs and Wargames is a relatively small subset of both groups.
paulson games wrote: Most women don't show any serious interest in gaming, those that actually are interested are already playing regardless of what anyone else thinks, so what is the big deal?
Because boobs are evil... apparently?
Always remember:
Woman in a dress = Sexist because it reinforces the stereotype that men where pants, women where dresses. Woman in pants = Sexist because it's forcing women to conform to a man's attire and not letting her wear where she wants. Woman showing skin = Sexist because she's being objectified. Woman not showing skin = Sexist because being forced to cover up by the heteropatriarchy. Woman being sexy in any way = Sexist because it's making it out that all women are sluts. Woman not being sexy in any way = Sexist because it robs her of her agency (ie. choice) to be sexy.
Or to put it another way: There is no victory to be had here Paulson. The Social Justice League will always find a way to paint anything as a male power fantasy and there's not a damned thing any of us can do about. And in the end this all started because someone got uppity over an Inquisitor showing off her cleavage, so how seriously should we take this?
Steps are being taken to offer more alternatives to cheesecake models, and I am pleased at the encouragement sculptors like Vic are getting for their forays into this area of miniatures. There is a demand for these other types of models, and the inclusion of more combat appropriate, practically attired female models, will do a lot to ease the negative stereotypes surrounding this hobby and make the entry barriers for women less severe.
Seriously? There are no 'severe' entry barriers for women to get into wargaming. If a woman wants to get in to wargaming but is incapable of doing a little research to find wargames with no cheesecake, then there is something wrong with her, not the hobby/community.
azreal13 wrote: Cause I think if I understood what he was trying to say i might be able to leave it, but I just don't get what he is arguing (about the pic) and maybe if I crack that I will be able to turn lead into gold or something.
Did you know that talking about me in third person instead of asking me some questions directly is rude ?
Whinny whinny voice : If you continue like that, I will report you ! You don't respect rule 1 ! Whinny whinny whine !
Oh, sorry. I forgot to focus on what you said instead of how you said it. Wait, you didn't say anything worthwhile ! Oh my, I'm so surprised ! I hope that doesn't sound like sarcastic, I wouldn't want to hurt your feelings, just like you wouldn't want to hurt mine .
Troll.
Deadnight wrote: 1. Straw man. Melanin. That's the only difference. Black skin has a higher concentration of the pigment melanin than white skin.
Analogy is not straw man. Black skin isn't the only difference between black people and white people. You are confused.
Damn, did you never watch any episode of all those “scientific police” series ? It ain't no secret that different race have different bones, and that any good forensic can determine race, age and gender from a skeleton !
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19048179 And seriously, even without that, ever saw any natural blond black guy around ? Even without any specific scientific knowledge, seems pretty obvious to me that the skin color isn't the only difference.
Deadnight wrote: 2. You'd be surprised. That intrinsic difference does exist.
They don't have the same skeleton. That's an intrinsic difference. But as far as treatment of information goes, I'm not convinced.
I ain't talking about no nazi science, I could give you some good old American examples too ! And some that goes quite late.
Even right now, in our modern and “finally scientifically enlightened era” I can get a nice list of American scientists arguing for difference on intelligence between races on Wikipedia :
“Contemporary researchers include Arthur Jensen (The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability); J. Philippe Rushton, president of the Pioneer Fund (Race, Evolution, and Behavior); Chris Brand (The g Factor: General Intelligence and Its Implications); Richard Lynn (IQ and the Wealth of Nations); Charles Murray; and Richard Herrnstein (The Bell Curve), among others.”
Deadnight wrote: You want her to evoke awesome. I think she does that.
I want her to invoke Inquisitor awesome. Boob windows aren't Inquisitor awesome for me. Other kind of awesome could totally include cleavage. I already mentioned the “stripper with a machinegun for a leg” kind of awesome, for instance :
Spoiler:
That is awesome ! Maybe I just find her awesome because I think like a brain addled teenager, but I don't care, I still find her awesome.
But awesome as a stripper from a Rodriguez movie. She would be very very lame for a 40k Inquisitor. Can't just take something awesome in one context, put it in a totally different context, and still expect it to be awesome. That would be too easy .
No, it's not. It's a totally sensible legislative principle in the US. Way to embarrass yourself, United States !
Now, who wants to advocate this “separate but equal” so nice principle ?
mattyrm wrote: Funny thing, every single girl I know (and I brought this thread up in the pub last night because It seemed a good topic for bar conversation in front of my missus, my mate and his wife, and two lesbians who are married, this is California!) says the same!
Well, not a good argument in itself. I mean, seriously, are women never sexists ? I trust you had a few occasion to discuss whether or not some specific religions were sexist with practitioners of that specific religion, and whether or not it's a bad thing. Some of said practitioners being female. Hence, you ought to know women can be pretty sexist too .
mattyrm wrote: Conceding that women are physically weaker, and are generally less interested in pursuits like hunting and shooting and making war than men, doesn't make you sexist, it makes you a correctly operating human being with a functioning brain that sees things logically.
Yeah, but that's not why Crimson said azreal13 was sexist. Just saying.
No, it doesn't. It needs to stay open, so that next time some sexy or dubious female miniature, or some escher girl illustration comes out, people won't flood the rumor thread, and will come over here to discuss, hereby leaving those that do not care about this discussion (quite possibly including you) not to be bothered by it. On the other hand, I strongly suggest you not to come here if it's unpleasant to you.
Agamemnon2 wrote: The MRA/PUA community has a lot to answer for in the final tally
Crimson wrote:Also, it is one thing to accept than on average women like aerobics more and quite other to conclude that because of that it is okay to cater only to females when advertising them.
The quotation above has been modified slightly, but now who disagrees with the latter part?
I agree aerobics should be open and inviting for everyone. I have no idea if there is any problem about that though, because I never took any aerobics class.
Agamemnon2 wrote: And since you invoked the name of Christ, ask yourself what he would rather we do?
Multiply models ! Walk on water ! Lots of magic tricks !
And maybe something about how stoning can only be done by the Virgin Mary, and no other human.
Sorry for the long reply. I put the interesting part in bold and red. You can skip all the rest.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
paulson games wrote: The social elements of rpgs and video games (with group chat) will attract more females than wargames, because women tend to be much more social as a group.
Seriously, video game with group chat being more social than wargames ? I totally disagree. Console games where you play in the same room, shouting at each other, maybe (and even then, not much). But games where you are alone in your room ? Goddam no !
paulson games wrote: Most women don't show any serious interest in gaming, those that actually are interested are already playing regardless of what anyone else thinks, so what is the big deal?
Because boobs are evil... apparently?
Or to put it another way: There is no victory to be had here Paulson. The Social Justice League will always find a way to paint anything as a male power fantasy and there's not a damned thing any of us can do about. And in the end this all started because someone got uppity over an Inquisitor showing off her cleavage, so how seriously should we take this?
Boobs are obviously evil, which is likely why they are so full of cancer.
Like I'd said back on page 2 this thread is always coming up and every time it does it leads absolutely nowhere. But I never miss a good opportunity to throw a bit of gas on the fire and mock people. Even if the mods were to step in and lock this (like it deserves) it'll only pop back up in a couple weeks with all the same arguments.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Seriously, video game with group chat being more social than wargames ? I totally disagree. Console games where you play in the same room, shouting at each other, maybe (and even then, not much). But games where you are alone in your room ? Goddam no !
We don't have a group of 12 year old xbox players screaming obscenities and raging. When you have a team of 8-12 players we BS and hold conversations just as much or more than when we're gaming in person. The game is just a meeting point, we may as well be doing a group voice chat on Skype or whatever as the game is just a background. Of course not everyone's experience will match ours and it's more like the xbox halo fan fare, but that's why we don't use public servers much like why we don't play at the LGS because most of those gamers are full of the metally 12 year old xbox types.
Online gaming is what you make of it, if you're a social type then it can be very engaging social environment. But most tend to treat it as a dumping ground for anti social terrible behavior. Normally when we play on an open server we have private chat enabled so we don't have to deal with the annoying types.
Steps are being taken to offer more alternatives to cheesecake models, and I am pleased at the encouragement sculptors like Vic are getting for their forays into this area of miniatures. There is a demand for these other types of models, and the inclusion of more combat appropriate, practically attired female models, will do a lot to ease the negative stereotypes surrounding this hobby and make the entry barriers for women less severe.
Seriously? There are no 'severe' entry barriers for women to get into wargaming. If a woman wants to get in to wargaming but is incapable of doing a little research to find wargames with no cheesecake, then there is something wrong with her, not the hobby/community.
I disagree with that statement and so do others on here, as do men and women I have discussed this matter with.
To name a few barriers brought up in this thread:
There is the barrier of social stigma for playing a "guys game" and straying from established gender norms. I bet that female wrestler that Paulson Games mentioned didn't get any flak for being the only girl on a guy's wrestling team, right?
There is the barrier of sexism (real or perceived) that occurs when women engage in gaming, which brings the representations of women in gaming artwork and miniatures into sharp focus.
Quite simply, there are barriers. So much of the discussion over the last few pages has focused on how few women want to play miniatures games and not enough focus has been placed on why they choose not to play--other than the rather unsatisfactory circular argument that women don't play these games because they aren't interested. There is more to it than that, surely, since some women (despite the crap that is put in front of them for entering the hobby) do find their way into the hobby and do enjoy the games. So, either those few women are bizarre outliers, or they are equipped in some way to deal with the barriers better than "most" women. But, that does not mean those barriers do not exist, nor does it mean we should ignore (and embrace?) those barriers.
azreal13 wrote: Cause I think if I understood what he was trying to say i might be able to leave it, but I just don't get what he is arguing (about the pic) and maybe if I crack that I will be able to turn lead into gold or something.
Did you know that talking about me in third person instead of asking me some questions directly is rude ?
Whinny whinny voice : If you continue like that, I will report you ! You don't respect rule 1 ! Whinny whinny whine !
Oh, sorry. I forgot to focus on what you said instead of how you said it. Wait, you didn't say anything worthwhile ! Oh my, I'm so surprised ! I hope that doesn't sound like sarcastic, I wouldn't want to hurt your feelings, just like you wouldn't want to hurt mine .
Troll.
I did ask you directly. I then asked someone else if they understood, in an attempt to get a handle on what you were saying and establish whether I was being inexplicably dense. Understandably, I referred to you in the third person in this case.
Steps are being taken to offer more alternatives to cheesecake models, and I am pleased at the encouragement sculptors like Vic are getting for their forays into this area of miniatures. There is a demand for these other types of models, and the inclusion of more combat appropriate, practically attired female models, will do a lot to ease the negative stereotypes surrounding this hobby and make the entry barriers for women less severe.
Seriously? There are no 'severe' entry barriers for women to get into wargaming. If a woman wants to get in to wargaming but is incapable of doing a little research to find wargames with no cheesecake, then there is something wrong with her, not the hobby/community.
I disagree with that statement and so do others on here, as do men and women I have discussed this matter with.
To name a few barriers brought up in this thread:
There is the barrier of social stigma for playing a "guys game" and straying from established gender norms. I bet that female wrestler that Paulson Games mentioned didn't get any flak for being the only girl on a guy's wrestling team, right?
There is the barrier of sexism (real or perceived) that occurs when women engage in gaming, which brings the representations of women in gaming artwork and miniatures into sharp focus.
Quite simply, there are barriers. So much of the discussion over the last few pages has focused on how few women want to play miniatures games and not enough focus has been placed on why they choose not to play--other than the rather unsatisfactory circular argument that women don't play these games because they aren't interested. There is more to it than that, surely, since some women (despite the crap that is put in front of them for entering the hobby) do find their way into the hobby and do enjoy the games. So, either those few women are bizarre outliers, or they are equipped in some way to deal with the barriers better than "most" women. But, that does not mean those barriers do not exist, nor does it mean we should ignore (and embrace?) those barriers.
Absolute nonsense. The general consensus among the males in the wargaming community is that more women and diversity in the hobby is great. Women are more likely to get flack from other women for being into 'guys' hobbies than from the men just like how men would get more flak from other men for being into 'girly things' and those who are misogynistic and put women in the hobby down are a very few vocal minority who give the rest of us male hobbyists and the hobby in general a bad name. As for the representation of women in miniature games and the 'cheesecake ' sculpts, I will state again that there are plenty of games out there where women are wearing much more sensible attire.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Or to put it another way: There is no victory to be had here Paulson. The Social Justice League will always find a way to paint anything as a male power fantasy and there's not a damned thing any of us can do about. And in the end this all started because someone got uppity over an Inquisitor showing off her cleavage, so how seriously should we take this?
You know what? To hell with all of this this. My problem with this discussion was never with the Inquisitor picture, and I made that abundantly clear, but myopic rabble-rousers here can't entertain more than two extremes of opinion at any one time, utterly unable to recognize that maybe there's a thing called nuance on this planet. All I ask for was not to be summarily and cynically lumped together with every misguided idiot with a knee-jerk reaction, but no, even that is a bar too high for the average Dakkadakka user to vault over. This is the real world, damn it all to Hades, and not everything can be simplistically reduced to two fundamentally different and axiomatically opposed parties. We're not chasing after soundbytes or trying to win an organized debate. Nobody's walking away from the thread with a trophy or a wreath.
If there's one thing I really wanted to get across it was this: There's more to the issue than easy-to-lampoon extremes. Things can be cool and stupid and problematic and awesome at the same time. I see now that I have utterly failed at this, possibly because I didn't dub my opposition Misogynist Douchebag Zombies, or some other cutesy term of dismissal. Or maybe it's just that impossible to talk about this topic online like civilized adults, because none of us are willing to act like civilized adults. About the only thing on the typical feminism arguments bingo sheet nobody went for was rampant homophobia, so thank the gods for small favours, I guess.
Regardless of the actual issues at hand, if this discussion is the best this forum can do, maybe we should pull the plug and start anew. There are no winners here, no memorable putdowns of obnoxious trolls or skillful dismantlings of arguments. No, we're all of us in the gutter, delivering a punch after weary punch at each other, bleeding ourselves dry and getting more and more mired in the filth until it's impossible to tell the sides apart anymore.
Saldiven wrote: I feel that it is more likely that women who like wargaming are outliers to the norm, just like guys who like scrapbooking are outliers to the norm.
There's nothing wrong with people being different.
No, there isn't anything wrong with people being different from the norm. But even now we are using loaded language. Whether you choose to agree or not, some consider normality to be socially constructed, and thus it is hard to argue for the "normalcy" of behavior when men and women are encourage to behave differently under certain conditions.
Things are changing, but generally speaking, girls are still dissuaded from liking "boys" things and vice versa. Culturally we engender most activities, and there is still a heavy stigma attached to individuals who stray from culturally approved, gender appropriate activities. Just like the poor guys in your scrap booking example. They aren't normal because they like scrap booking. Why? Cutting out pictures and fabric doesn't make you grow a third arm, or force your testicles to retract up into your body, but it is seen as aberrant behavior because we have deemed scrap booking a female activity. You don't think women get the same sort of push back from their friends and families if they decide they like Tyranids instead of Monster High dolls?
Overly sexualized models/artwork aren't the only cause of the problem, but taken with some of the other issues, they make war gaming very unattractive for females.
I can feel Seaward tugging on his Patriarchy zipper, so left fly my good man. Let fly!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MetalOxide wrote: Women are more likely to get flack from other women for being into 'guys' hobbies than from the men just like how men would get more flak from other men for being into 'girly things' and those who are misogynistic and put women in the hobby down are a very few vocal minority who give the rest of us male hobbyists and the hobby in general a bad name
Is that the problem? Is the notion that women trying to enter the hobby and facing social stigma misinterpreted as negativity only coming from men? Is that your beef?
Of course much of that stigma would be coming from other women. We are really good at policing ourselves, right? As a kid did you ever get "caught" playing with the wrong toys? I used to play Barbies with a girl down the street because I had a bit of a crush on her, but boy did I catch hell from my male friends when they found out. And when they found out guess who stopped playing with his crush?
It is the judgment and perceptions of others that often keep people in check. War games are guy territory, so women are discouraged from playing by both other women and men.
MetalOxide wrote: As for the representation of women in miniature games and the 'cheesecake ' sculpts, I will state again that there are plenty of games out there where women are wearing much more sensible attire.
Cool. I want to play 40k and I really like the Imperial Guard because they have tanks and the background material says there are mixed gender regiments, but I can't find any female Guard on GW's site. Could you help me out?
I'd also like to play Warmachine, and really like how Cryx plays, but I can't seem to find any versions of Deneghra that don't have her sporting a midriff and high heels. Could you point me to an alternate figure that is tournament legal?
See my point? What if a female player wants to play a specific game that is guilty of a "cheesecake or nothing" policy with its miniature line? Are they SOL? Or should they just go play another game because... why?
Why? If you believe sexually dimorphic behavior is a product of nurture rather than nature, nothing's going to change your mind.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DarkTraveler777 wrote: See my point? What if a female player wants to play a specific game that is guilty of a "cheesecake or nothing" policy with its miniature line? Are they SOL?
Why would they be? My woman's all about the cheesecake. It's what she draws, and it's her favorite sort of model to paint, if the number completed is anything to go by.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: See my point? What if a female player wants to play a specific game that is guilty of a "cheesecake or nothing" policy with its miniature line? Are they SOL? Or should they just go play another game because... why?
Weird.. It's almost like life isn't tailored to the individual
Edit: She could make her own wargame however she wanted to, I'd recommend that avenue if no companies offer her what she wants instead of forcing the company to change.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Agamemnon2 wrote: You know what? To hell with all of this this. My problem with this discussion was never with the Inquisitor picture, and I made that abundantly clear, but myopic rabble-rousers here
Agamemnon2 wrote: even that is a bar too high for the average Dakkadakka user to vault over.
Agamemnon2 wrote: because none of us are willing to act like civilized adults.
Agamemnon2 wrote: if this discussion is the best this forum can do, maybe we should pull the plug and start anew.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: See my point? What if a female player wants to play a specific game that is guilty of a "cheesecake or nothing" policy with its miniature line? Are they SOL? Or should they just go play another game because... why?
Weird.. It's almost like life isn't tailored to the individual
Edit: She could make her own wargame however she wanted to, I'd recommend that avenue if no companies offer her what she wants instead of forcing the company to change.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: See my point? What if a female player wants to play a specific game that is guilty of a "cheesecake or nothing" policy with its miniature line? Are they SOL? Or should they just go play another game because... why?
Weird.. It's almost like life isn't tailored to the individual
Edit: She could make her own wargame however she wanted to, I'd recommend that avenue if no companies offer her what she wants instead of forcing the company to change.
Yes, that's reasonable! "If you don't like it, go make your own game!" Could you be any more entitled? Or can we use that as an answer to every (of the numerous) complains towards GW people express on these forums?
DarkTraveler777 wrote: See my point? What if a female player wants to play a specific game that is guilty of a "cheesecake or nothing" policy with its miniature line? Are they SOL? Or should they just go play another game because... why?
Weird.. It's almost like life isn't tailored to the individual
Edit: She could make her own wargame however she wanted to, I'd recommend that avenue if no companies offer her what she wants instead of forcing the company to change.
Yes, that's reasonable! "If you don't like it, go make your own game!" Could you be any more entitled? Or can we use that as an answer to every (of the numerous) complains towards GW people express on these forums?
So I go to Jiffy Lube looking for a sandwich only to find out that they don't make sandwiches, so what did I do? Go to a place that sells something I want? Nah, I'm going to write to Jiffy Lube and ask them to make sandwiches so that they can appeal to me.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: See my point? What if a female player wants to play a specific game that is guilty of a "cheesecake or nothing" policy with its miniature line? Are they SOL? Or should they just go play another game because... why?
Weird.. It's almost like life isn't tailored to the individual
Edit: She could make her own wargame however she wanted to, I'd recommend that avenue if no companies offer her what she wants instead of forcing the company to change.
Yes, that's reasonable! "If you don't like it, go make your own game!" Could you be any more entitled? Or can we use that as an answer to every (of the numerous) complains towards GW people express on these forums?
So I go to Jiffy Lube looking for a sandwich only to find out that they don't make sandwiches, so what did I do? Go to a place that sells something I want? Nah, I'm going to write to Jiffy Lube and ask them to make sandwiches so that they can appeal to me.
Because that is a great analogy for what we are discussing here. Hrm. No, it isn't.
How about, you go into a game shop to buy into a game you have heard some buzz about but the game shop only sell miniatures of half naked men in fetish wear. When you scoff and ask for other options, the clerk dismissively suggests you go and make your own miniatures game if you don't like what he has on offer. Reasonable, right?
DarkTraveler777 wrote: See my point? What if a female player wants to play a specific game that is guilty of a "cheesecake or nothing" policy with its miniature line? Are they SOL? Or should they just go play another game because... why?
Weird.. It's almost like life isn't tailored to the individual
Edit: She could make her own wargame however she wanted to, I'd recommend that avenue if no companies offer her what she wants instead of forcing the company to change.
Yes, that's reasonable! "If you don't like it, go make your own game!" Could you be any more entitled? Or can we use that as an answer to every (of the numerous) complains towards GW people express on these forums?
So I go to Jiffy Lube looking for a sandwich only to find out that they don't make sandwiches, so what did I do? Go to a place that sells something I want? Nah, I'm going to write to Jiffy Lube and ask them to make sandwiches so that they can appeal to me.
Because that is a great analogy for what we are discussing here. Hrm. No, it isn't.
How about, you go into a game shop to buy into a game you have heard some buzz about but the game shop only sell miniatures of half naked men in fetish wear. When you scoff and ask for other options, the clerk dismissively suggests you go and make your own miniatures game if you don't like what he has on offer. Reasonable, right?
Yes, if I don't like half naked men in fetish wear I won't buy the game. Is it really more reasonable that I tell that man to change his business on my behalf?
Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote: Yes, if I don't like half naked men in fetish wear I won't buy the game. Is it really more reasonable that I tell that man to change his business on my behalf?
Walking away is reasonable (and I'd argue that is what most women are doing when contemplating this hobby) but demanding that an appropriate solution to the problem is creating your own game to satisfy your needs is not reasonable.
Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote: Yes, if I don't like half naked men in fetish wear I won't buy the game. Is it really more reasonable that I tell that man to change his business on my behalf?
Walking away is reasonable (and I'd argue that is what most women are doing when contemplating this hobby) but demanding that an appropriate solution to the problem is creating your own game to satisfy your needs is not reasonable.
You made a stupid comment. Own it and move on.
I merely suggested that if someone is unhappy with every available offering they are welcome to create their own game how they want. Also I don't think it was a stupid comment at all so I completely own it
Edit: I'm curious though, how would you handle the store in the scenario you gave me?
Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote: I merely suggested that if someone is unhappy with every available offering they are welcome to create their own game how they want. Also I don't think it was a stupid comment at all so I completely own it
If you were being serious and not just facetious then fair enough, but do you really think investing thousands of dollars and hours to create a game is really a reasonable solution to the problem? We are talking the average female-would-be-player, not some trust fund kid with nothing but time and money on their hands.
Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote: Edit: I'm curious though, how would you handle the store in the scenario you gave me?
I'd walk away. Which is what I think many of the women who do have an interest in this hobby end up doing. Not necessarily because of just one factor (the minis, or the art work, or the perception of this being a male's pursuit) but because of many factors that make the hobby in general, unappealing.
Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote: I merely suggested that if someone is unhappy with every available offering they are welcome to create their own game how they want. Also I don't think it was a stupid comment at all so I completely own it
If you were being serious and not just facetious then fair enough, but do you really think investing thousands of dollars and hours to create a game is really a reasonable solution to the problem? We are talking the average female-would-be-player, not some trust fund kid with nothing but time and money on their hands.
I look in the News and Rumors section and see a whole lot of people making their own games and miniatures, and I'm pretty sure not all of them were do-nothing trustfund kids.
Edit: Ah, the average WOULD BE player (Safe to assume someone just getting in to wargaming wouldn't want to make their own)
Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote: Edit: I'm curious though, how would you handle the store in the scenario you gave me?
I'd walk away. Which is what I think many of the women who do have an interest in this hobby end up doing. Not necessarily because of just one factor (the minis, or the art work, or the perception of this being a male's pursuit) but because of many factors that make the hobby in general, unappealing.
So how far should this extend? What if my kid doesn't like the game? Should we make the company cater the game more to children so they can get involved too?
Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote: I look in the News and Rumors section and see a whole lot of people making their own games and miniatures, and I'm pretty sure not all of them were do-nothing trustfund kids.
But I bet those entrepreneurs had an interest in gaming in order to expend the time and resources to make their games, right? I don't think that example is applicable since we are discussing entry level situations where people are put off by entering into the hobby for reasons x, y, and z.
Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote: So how far should this extend? What if my kid doesn't like the game? Should we make the company cater the game more to children so they can get involved too?
Depends on how off topic we want to make this thread. I am talking about how gaming is perceived by women and how that perception might discourage them from playing. Children, pets, and grandparents are for other threads.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: Depends on how off topic we want to make this thread. I am talking about how gaming is perceived by women and how that perception might discourage them from playing. Children, pets, and grandparents are for other threads.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: Depends on how off topic we want to make this thread. I am talking about how gaming is perceived by women and how that perception might discourage them from playing. Children, pets, and grandparents are for other threads.
I just went through gw website and looked at all of their female models with the expectations of a few units most of them are really tame and most of them are covered up even the dark elder wytches have less skin showing than I expected and even the ones that are scantaly clad the context or the fluff actually makes sense so they are not scantily clad for the sake of being scantily clad.
So the ones arguing that the art and models are offensive should maybe focus on the majority of the models depicting females instead of the scantily minority and so I go back to my original argument that it is attitude and not the context of the game that is keeping women out, and yes women do give other women flak for this hobby my fiancée one day took her demon army to work and when her co workers saw this one of her female co workers said and I quote "You know you are a girl right?"
Back to the picture that started this all well I said before I can picture seeing a female Inquisitor using her sexuality to get what she needs mainly because if you look at 40K would death really be something you are afraid of. If I was a guardsmen especially a Cadian guardsmen I would not be afraid of an Inquisitor especially since I fight and survived chaos space marines and demons so really and Inquisitor I would literally flip them off. But if I had an Inquisitor being nice to me ore even flirting with me I would probably drop my guard down and slip up than BAM she nails me for heresy so you know she would literally kill me with kindness those damn crafty Inquisitors
Next person who decides to flirt with rule #1 is going to be in trouble. If you guys can't control yourselves this thread will be locked. If you even vaguely think I might be talking about you, probably best you steer clear of this thread for a week or two.
paulson games wrote: I'm still curious why there's a bunch of guys protesting about something that boils down to a women's issue. If you guys are truly enlightened in wanting a gender free gaming world shouldn't you let women actually be the ones advocating it?
This isn't a really good argument, is it? I mean, you can't ever see something you'd like changed unless it's personally affecting you?
paulson games wrote: I'm still curious why there's a bunch of guys protesting about something that boils down to a women's issue. If you guys are truly enlightened in wanting a gender free gaming world shouldn't you let women actually be the ones advocating it?
This isn't a really good argument, is it? I mean, you can't ever see something you'd like changed unless it's personally affecting you?
I'd make sure to ask the people concerned if it was really affecting them before I did anything about it, though, or else I might be making a lot of fuss over nothing.
No point in changing around a whole bunch of stuff if the people you change it for aren't even really worried about it.
I think a more important issue than women is gaming is fat people in gaming.
I have noticed a distinct lack of realistic obese people represented in gaming. This is every disappointing as there seems to be a large proportion of overweight gamers. I think that to get more fat people into gaming ( is this even possible) we need to have more exposed but crack and more bellies.
I can count the number of obese miniatures who aren't monsters on one hand. I am disappoint.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: See my point? What if a female player wants to play a specific game that is guilty of a "cheesecake or nothing" policy with its miniature line? Are they SOL? Or should they just go play another game because... why?
Weird.. It's almost like life isn't tailored to the individual
Edit: She could make her own wargame however she wanted to, I'd recommend that avenue if no companies offer her what she wants instead of forcing the company to change.
Bullockist wrote: I think a more important issue than women is gaming is fat people in gaming.
I have noticed a distinct lack of realistic obese people represented in gaming. This is every disappointing as there seems to be a large proportion of overweight gamers. I think that to get more fat people into gaming ( is this even possible) we need to have more exposed but crack and more bellies.
I can count the number of obese miniatures who aren't monsters on one hand. I am disappoint.
Well, you're clearly just acting of self interest here - hoping that by fervently lobbying for a representation of the obese, that perhaps some greatly overweight person will at some point have sex with you.
Bullockist wrote: I think a more important issue than women is gaming is fat people in gaming.
I have noticed a distinct lack of realistic obese people represented in gaming. This is every disappointing as there seems to be a large proportion of overweight gamers. I think that to get more fat people into gaming ( is this even possible) we need to have more exposed but crack and more bellies. I can count the number of obese miniatures who aren't monsters on one hand. I am disappoint.
You jest, but a broader variety of body types is something I for one would like to see. The same with ages. We need more fat geezers, especially civilians.
MetalOxide wrote: Absolute nonsense. The general consensus among the males in the wargaming community is that more women and diversity in the hobby is great. Women are more likely to get flack from other women for being into 'guys' hobbies than from the men just like how men would get more flak from other men for being into 'girly things' and those who are misogynistic and put women in the hobby down are a very few vocal minority who give the rest of us male hobbyists and the hobby in general a bad name. As for the representation of women in miniature games and the 'cheesecake ' sculpts, I will state again that there are plenty of games out there where women are wearing much more sensible attire.
I'd have to agree with that; the mrs has had more stick from her (all female) co-workers about playing with toy soldiers than she has from the guys in the club (none), there's been a bit of banter about the fact she's nearly the only girl there but everyone has been pretty helpful and friendly and no-ones treated her any differently.
Bullockist wrote: I think a more important issue than women is gaming is fat people in gaming.
I have noticed a distinct lack of realistic obese people represented in gaming. This is every disappointing as there seems to be a large proportion of overweight gamers. I think that to get more fat people into gaming ( is this even possible) we need to have more exposed but crack and more bellies.
I can count the number of obese miniatures who aren't monsters on one hand. I am disappoint.
You jest, but a broader variety of body types is something I for one would like to see. The same with ages. We need more fat geezers, especially civilians.
This is also very true, there's very little variety on either side of the gender divide.
I should do a gender/age breakdown of, say, the reaper human/humanoid catalogue sometime, to see if my gut feeling about fit-bodied manly men being predominant there is actually true or not. Figures in non-aggressive postures is another category that I reckon is underrepresented, partially I think because modern sculptors like doing dynamic action poses to set themselves apart from the flat, two-dimensional stuff of the 80s and 90s.
Angry warlike men we have in abundance, at least from a diorama builder's point of view
Bullockist wrote: I think a more important issue than women is gaming is fat people in gaming.
I have noticed a distinct lack of realistic obese people represented in gaming. This is every disappointing as there seems to be a large proportion of overweight gamers. I think that to get more fat people into gaming ( is this even possible) we need to have more exposed but crack and more bellies.
I can count the number of obese miniatures who aren't monsters on one hand. I am disappoint.
That's because we're fat shaming them to cut back on the big macs and mountain dew... I thought it was obvious when we all started to play a game with genetic super soldiers that are just glistening with holy oils and their rippling muscles.
Agamemnon2 wrote: Angry warlike men we have in abundance, at least from a diorama builder's point of view
In a wargame? You don't say.
I don't mean from companies who exclusively make wargames minis. I'm sorry you did not understand that from what I wrote. I was referring more to outfits like Reaper, Heresy, Hasslefree, Foundry, et al, who make stuff that's not directly tied to a wargame ruleset, and cater to RPGs and so on. I'm not advocating GW should release a damn thing for me (I won't buy it anyway), they're free to concentrate exclusively on wargames stuff. Though the occasional civilian / display piece from Forge World would be nice (like their Tau Air Caste pilots).
Bullockist wrote: I think a more important issue than women is gaming is fat people in gaming.
I have noticed a distinct lack of realistic obese people represented in gaming. This is every disappointing as there seems to be a large proportion of overweight gamers. I think that to get more fat people into gaming ( is this even possible) we need to have more exposed but crack and more bellies.
I can count the number of obese miniatures who aren't monsters on one hand. I am disappoint.
I think the reason that we don't see this is that it is on the same level as the "battle bunny" female models- just doesn't make sense in a combat zone (we would expect soldiers to actually be more or less in shape). However, it lacks the fanservice aspect of the battle bunnies. So, excluding civilian models, I just don't think that there would be a demand for it, unlike actually competent looking female soldiers. Plus, we do not need to really put more effort into attracting fat people as a demographic, as wargames have already got a good part of that market and are hitting the point of diminishing returns.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: See my point? What if a female player wants to play a specific game that is guilty of a "cheesecake or nothing" policy with its miniature line? Are they SOL? Or should they just go play another game because... why?
Weird.. It's almost like life isn't tailored to the individual
Edit: She could make her own wargame however she wanted to, I'd recommend that avenue if no companies offer her what she wants instead of forcing the company to change.
A perfectly reasonable response!
White Knight to the rescue!
Spoiler:
I don't think that means what you think that means.
Who am I defending/trying to feth? The hypothetical woman in my example? Got it.
Yep, I'm pretty sure everyone, or next to everyone, in this thread does too. Some kick-ass Vasquez-like girls !
Gee, I think you manage to find the thing everyone in this thread can agree on. Congrats !
paulson games wrote: We don't have a group of 12 year old xbox players screaming obscenities and raging. When you have a team of 8-12 players we BS and hold conversations just as much or more than when we're gaming in person. The game is just a meeting point, we may as well be doing a group voice chat on Skype or whatever as the game is just a background. Of course not everyone's experience will match ours and it's more like the xbox halo fan fare, but that's why we don't use public servers much like why we don't play at the LGS because most of those gamers are full of the metally 12 year old xbox types.
Online gaming is what you make of it, if you're a social type then it can be very engaging social environment. But most tend to treat it as a dumping ground for anti social terrible behavior. Normally when we play on an open server we have private chat enabled so we don't have to deal with the annoying types.
Even on a private voice chat, you can't smile at each other, or blink, and more generally you lack all facial and corporal communication. You can't even share food, or buy people a drink ! Also, most video games are real-time and don't allow you to just stop playing to focus on a conversation or something.
Furthermore, when playing with strangers, I found that people are way less likely to be unpleasant and obnoxious when you are physically together, for a range of reasons ranging from lack of anonymity to being punchable in the face. And when they actually are being unpleasant, it's way easier to get the staff to do something about it when they are people in the very same room (that are usually friends when it's your usual LGS) when they are some very small team paid by a multinational company to take care of millions of players living on the other side of the planet.
Not all LGS are hellholes. Seriously, I sometime go to my FLGS just to enjoy the company of people there.
That's basically why I always felt wargaming was much more social than video games, except for those that you play in the same room, on the same couch, but hey, YMMV.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Even on a private voice chat, you can't smile at each other, or blink, and more generally you lack all facial and corporal communication. You can't even share food, or buy people a drink !
Oh the impersonal horrors of verbal communication! I suppose all those "barriers" are what have prevented people from successfully talking on telephones for ages.
We're perfectly able to hold conversations while video gaming, not sure why you find that concept so difficult.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: See my point? What if a female player wants to play a specific game that is guilty of a "cheesecake or nothing" policy with its miniature line? Are they SOL? Or should they just go play another game because... why?
Weird.. It's almost like life isn't tailored to the individual
Edit: She could make her own wargame however she wanted to, I'd recommend that avenue if no companies offer her what she wants instead of forcing the company to change.
A perfectly reasonable response!
White Knight to the rescue!
Spoiler:
I don't think that means what you think that means.
Who am I defending/trying to feth? The hypothetical woman in my example? Got it.
Ha, i just looked for a chance to show a Anime/manga female that wasn't over sexualized and also a white knight.
People are way over reacting, make changes were it counts, i think the Representation of women in miniature games are way low on the priority of feminist groups (IMHO).
In the same uniform as the males (aka very little clothing on the top half) for equality.
I completely agree.
I must admit that I'm not sure I get your suggestive wink. Weren't the Catachans wearing tank tops and camo pants? My wife used to wear less than that even in San Francisco. Here in SoCal, that outfit doesn't seem noteworthy at all for titillation.
If I'm misremembering, and there's no tank top on some of the men, I would prefer to see some sort of sports bra or support on the 'equivalent' women. Running without a bra is apparently quite painful.
paulson games wrote: Oh the impersonal horrors of verbal communication! I suppose all those "barriers" are what have prevented people from successfully talking on telephones for ages.
Hey, no need to be derisive like that ! Many people prefer talking in person than on the phone, when it's possible. Doesn't change the fact they still use phones because it's much much more practical.
If it's not your case, all the better for you.
Oh the impersonal horrors of verbal communication! I suppose all those "barriers" are what have prevented people from successfully talking on telephones for ages.
We're perfectly able to hold conversations while video gaming, not sure why you find that concept so difficult.
I'm sure you can. It is just that suggestion that having a voice only interaction while playing a fast paced computer game is somehow more social than face to face interaction while playing a slow pace tabletop game is ludicrous.
See my point? What if a female player wants to play a specific game that is guilty of a "cheesecake or nothing" policy with its miniature line? Are they SOL? Or should they just go play another game because... why?
Not "make your own game", but choose a different game, or proxy out the "offending" figures with ones you like. I've personally done both with different games. I don't expect small or large companies to pander to my every whim (unless it's KS of course )
For a bit of fun, I'll throw in some quotes from an argument on another forum about the Relic-made, licenced videogame from a couple years ago: Space Marine:
A whole bunch of different people posting here. One of them is female. There's some interesting posts there.
========================
I am quite enjoying it, my only complaints are:
1. Rails. I would like a bit more of an open war.
2. Character development - I would like a few more options other than getting the next weapon. An ME style character development system would completely rock with this game.
3. Sisters of Battle - It would be nice to have a female character sisters option, it may convince my wife to play, she gets really furious at games that do not allow you gender selection.
The combat though is fantastic and they got the feel of the game world spot on.
========================
Sisters of Battle would be a really nice touch.
========================
[geek]Sisters of Battle aren't surgically modified monsters like space marines, they're normal-ish humans in power armor. They aren't in the same league for toe to toe combat with armies of bad things, which is why they work with the Inquisition for hunting down heretics instead of going around purging worlds of alien armies like the marines do. Lore-wise it makes no sense for one of the Sisters to be a stand-in for a marine.[/geek]
That said, yeah, it would be nice of GW to throw the ladies a bone and break up the sausage fest a bit by letting the Sisters have at least a tiny smidgen of spotlight.
========================
Yeah, was about to post essentially what xxxxxx said in that they're not directly analogous to Marines in the game, and particularly not in the lore - in-game, Orks are a much closer match 1-on-1 for a regular marine. Though a Captain would still kick ass, he could lose to these large swarms of Orks. Meanwhile in the lore a single SM is enough to fight off Hordes of Orks - much as in this game.
The game's not by GW, it's Relic. And it's called "Space Marine". Maybe in sequels they might open it up a little more and have a token SoB level, but I think we're more likely to see a token Grey Knight or IG level.
Character development - it's not an RPG or RPG-styled game. And a SM captain is pretty much already at the peak of his skill tree. Not really sure it's the right/same genre for ME-style character development.
========================
It's ... hard to explain. I understand the "we want it to be THIS ONE DUDE." I do! I get the lore behind it and everything. But I cannot blame women at this point to finally be like "You know what? feth you. I am sick to goddamn death of Male as the Default and if I can't play my own gender, you can go feth yourself, game. I will spend my dollars on games that it either doesn't come up (the dreaded CASUAL GAMES like Bejeweled), or where I can pick what I am." I am not a big fan of it, and a game has to be really, really fun for me to give it a chance when it does that now. And sometimes not even then, depending on how lazy it strikes me.
If women weren't still so obviously so far out of consideration for most games as to be basically invisible, in spite of the fact there actually are a lot of us, I think stuff like Space Marine would bother women less. Because then it becomes less "once again they assume the white dude is the ONE THING WE CAN ALL IDENTIFY WITH" and more "this is the character we are taking through this, alright then." I know there are games where the only choice is a lady. But most of the time, those ladies are still constructed with the straight man audience in mind. So it's still not exactly going to help get us all to the point where "Oh, OK, I guess it being this one dude makes sense" overrides the feeling of "HA HA DON'T EVEN PRETEND YOU EXIST, WOMEN GAMERS" more than it currently does. Heart
Also: I was indeed pleased to see the lady character. I wasn't expecting to see ANY, and she's a pretty good character to boot (so far, anyway, I only just met her).
========================
No it makes total sense. The Sisters of Battle could've been sent down to investigate the actions of a heretical/traitorous Inquisitor, for example.
========================
I get what you're saying, but basically the lore overrides your girl-rage. The game is called SPACE MARINE, and is about the most high-profile, best-selling part of GW's IP. It's not about the Adepa Sorotitas, or the Imperial Guard, or the Inquisition. It's about Space Marines, and they are all male.
It's like if people were bitching that a game about Joan of Arc didn't feature a male lead, in this particular case. There'd be more grounds for grizzling if the game had segments where you played as other characters, but it doesn't, so, you know, bad luck and stfu and so forth. (I don't mean it in a nasty way towards yourself). If in a sequel they have a section where you control another character, then sure, put the Sisters in for that segment. Or if there's a co-op gameplay part, throw a Sister in there as one of the choices (though since SMs are better than them at everything, I'm not sure how that would work - as it's not like Gears of War or Halo, etc, in that sense, fluff-wise. Seriously, piss and moan about another game for that sort of thing.
Oh, and anyone who thinks that their pet idea/peeve overrides the lore or should do so, you're missing the whole point of this game - which is that the lore is the strongest part of the game. We're not talking about cutting-edge gameplay here, after all.
I guess it comes down to:
1) Is the character or the story more important? - If character - then go with whoever the story is about as your main character.
* A Space Marine game should be about a Space Marine. Duke Nukem should be about Duke, etc. Splinter Cell should be about Sam Fisher. Tomb Raider is about Lara Croft. etc.
2) If the story is more important - then use a character most appropriate to the story. If appropriate, offer a choice of gender.
* Cole Phelps as a male makes more sense as a cop in the 1940s, as do the male characters in Mafia 2
* Commander Shepherd in ME/2 or the protaganist in Saints Row 2/3 are secondary to the story, which is generic enough to accomodate both/either.
* If it doesn't matter at all - offer both genders - even for multiple roles - the characters in Borderlands could alloffer either gender and be character-renamable. Halo Reach? It's not about Master Chef - so let people choose their own character.
=========================
I already said I got it. It's right there in my quote, even. I was simply explaining why that's not going to fly with a lot of women that you may want to give your game a try. We're sick of "oh, but they're ALL MALE, we can't help it" for what feels like every other goddamn game. The gaming industry has a long way to go before "oh, our hands are tied IT JUST HAPPENS TO BE ALL MALE" gets the benefit of the doubt it sometimes deserves.
=========================
I know you said that - it's why I said I wasn't trying to be offensive, but this particular bitching (from anyone) would carry more weight to me if it were being given towards a game that's a new IP, or a new story set in an existing world with a gender-doesnt matter character rather than something as specific as this with close to 25 years behind it.
I'm not even disagreeing with your larger point - I actually agree with you with the caveats in my post above! Deus Ex HR which is busily being spooged over left and right in another thread is much more deserving of this kind of complaint than Space Marine. In fact your whole rant posted above would be much more appropriate in that thread and even make a lot of sense. Where here it doesn't so much. Why can't Adam Jensen be Adama?
=========================
Sexism in games is fine as long as it comes with historical baggage.
=========================
You know what, I am as hardcore a fan of GW and its lore as you can find. I played 1st edition WFB and had Space wolves, Dark angel and Necron armies. I had a fuggen army of squats too! I used to play their fleet battle games as well. I have played for over two decades and all I can say is: bs.
GW has retconned the feth out of every race a hundred times over at the drop of a hat for their own inscrutable marketing purposes and never batted an eye. The fact that people even make arguments about "lore consistency" in the GW space is ridiculous. They have changed their own lore countless times (remember when Orks were actually supposedly the slave race of snotlings who rebelled? I do.) There is no reason why they couldn't have a Sisters of Battle in "experimental battle armor" or some other such Maguffin to allow a female protagonist and still be consistent (snigger) with GW's "lore".
The only reason they did not include a female character choice is laziness and sexism. I know, other companies are just as (or more) lazy and sexist, but that does not give them a free pass.
=========================
There's also no reason it couldn't have been a friendly Tau in "experimental battle armor", or an Eldar or even Dark Eldar in "experimental battle armor" swaying the battle for their own ends, or a Jokero in homemade "experimental battle armor", or an Inquisitorial Stormtrooper or Inquisitor in "experimental battle armor" or an Ogryn BONE'ead with "experimental cybernetics" or...
Basically, you're being silly in order to push the "it could have been sisters agenda" when it doesn't fit the story/game they are telling. Which is about Space Marine(s). Not sure if you're white-knighting xxxxx since I don't recall seeing you white-knight the whole gender choice thing in threads about any other games, ever. I don't think she needs it, though. Also, you seem to be pushing almost an idea that Relic "would have wanted to make a girl but GW won't let them" with all the talk about GW in this game and not Relic. I'm sure GW would have said "no", but the assumption that Relic would have otherwise have placed a female Adepta Sororita in the game as an alternative main protaganist is drawing a pretty long bow.
=========================
Might be a stupid minor derail, but why exactly are there no female space marines anyway? I mean, when you have been bio-cyber modified so heavily that your original gender might as well not even matter, why bother counting the women out? Is it just a lore thing that the training etc is too harsh for women to handle, or was it just a mandate from on high that the marines will always be a "Boys Club".
=========================
But yeah, for all of the gnashing and wailing of teeth that's going on in this thread, the game sets you in the shoes of an Ultramarine, with other Ultramarines. You want to bitch about the lack of sisters, you can't even change your protaganist to a Blood Angel or a White Scar - and their skins are already in the game! (MP) I'd wager a lot more 40k fans give a lot more of a gak that they can't play as their own chapter of choice than not being able to play as a Sister - and yet they can't. Them designers done made a choice about the character you play. I say we blame GW for that, too! Right?
=========================
I've asked this in one of the comic book threads before, but when do things get to change?
When your history/lore was designed during a time when the assumed default was white male, when do you get to do something else? The Lore is the Lore is the Lore just seems to reinforce it's own flaws and stereotypes or whatever.
=========================
Depends what your changes are, I'd guess. I never read DC, but you don't change Superman to have green skin or to now eat green kryptonite. From my experience reading marvel I can tell you that you don't change the Hulk to Grey. You don't kill Captain America or Spiderman's costume to black. (Note how all of those things that happened have un-happened).
Then again, comics are telling (and re-telling) the same few stories on a monthly basis. Doesn't mean that there can't be new superheroes introduced who are African or Women or have Blue Skin or Iron Skin. Storm, Nightcrawler and Colossus were new once. There was a time when the Battle Sisters were just a few lines of fluff scattered here and ther ebefore they got fleshed out fully. No reason there can't be famous IG regiments that are all-women (I think they have already been mentioned - just no figures!) or mixed units.
Space Marines are what they are. Suddenly deciding that they are no longer what they are is cheap when there's plenty of other space in the lore to add rather than change for the sake of change. There's plenty of space for new stuff. Dark Eldar were just rumoured in the background of the lore at one stage, and more of an echo of the "Eldar Pirates" that the Eldar were in RT-era.
==========================
Except it wouldn't be change for changes sake, but change on the realization that maybe our target of white male might have been to narrow to begin with?
It goes back to 'that's the way it was, that's the way it will be!' thing again.
Having a few Chapters of lady Space Marines (or even just mixing some into existing chapters) isn't some devastating change to the IP or theme or whatever.
==========================
Warhammer 40k is male nerd power phantasies gone gaming world. It comes from an era where girls had the cooties.
When they tried to give the players a choice with the Sisters of Battle, the players largely rejected that choice.
Relics hands are somewhat tied in this. Were there female Space Marines, it wouldn't be Warhammer anymore. And they would lose more hardcore W40k nerds than they would win women gamers.
Its one of the worst examples to fight for gender equality, right after demanding more women in gay porn.
==========================
Sisters were introduced as a full army shortly after Necromunda came out, and the Escher (all-girl) gang did very well in sales. I think they were expecting the same to happen with Sisters, but they were unfortunately
1) despite power armour, etc, not as good as Space Marines, or one of the extra flavours of them.
2) very ornate and intricate - much harder to paint well than SMs with large flat undetailed armour.
3) Thematically too similar to marines - and without the differentiation of something like Imperial Guard.
A friend of mine was trying to get his wife into 40k and thought the Sisters might work for her. She rejected them because their armour had boobs on it "Madonna bra" and they all had the same "bob" haircut that she didn't like.
Oh the impersonal horrors of verbal communication! I suppose all those "barriers" are what have prevented people from successfully talking on telephones for ages.
We're perfectly able to hold conversations while video gaming, not sure why you find that concept so difficult.
I'm sure you can. It is just that suggestion that having a voice only interaction while playing a fast paced computer game is somehow more social than face to face interaction while playing a slow pace tabletop game is ludicrous.
The main reason why the girls in my group cite they don't like wargaming is that it's primarily for 1 on 1 play and the game is too involved. There's a lot that you need to keep track of with moving pieces measuring etc and if you are using any sort of timed format that tends not to allow for friendly banter during games. Not saying that you don't ever have the chance to talk but it's not as engaging for them as other game types. They also dislike the long stretches spent doing nothing while the opponent is busy with their turn.
They prefer multiplayer games that are more interactive and focused on co-op group play. The ability to play as a group and chat while playing MMO's is why they play those but won't play wargames. We primarily do lots of multiplayer board and card games which likewise offer group play and a lot more banter time. All three of the girls are into minis and have quite a few, their disinterest in wargaming isn't due to miniatures but the way most wargames play.
I'm sure there's people out there that do nothing but casual play with lots of chat during their games, but that's likely with a close friend as opposed to a group. Typically when I game at the local bunker I find a lot of people adopting the "40k is serious business" mode and it doesn't offer all much in the way of interaction. Some of the specialist games are much better, but 40k itself is usually pretty meh for socializing. (I also have the same feeling towards warmachines/hordes and other large battle games)
In the same uniform as the males (aka very little clothing on the top half) for equality.
I completely agree.
I must admit that I'm not sure I get your suggestive wink. Weren't the Catachans wearing tank tops and camo pants? My wife used to wear less than that even in San Francisco. Here in SoCal, that outfit doesn't seem noteworthy at all for titillation.
If I'm misremembering, and there's no tank top on some of the men, I would prefer to see some sort of sports bra or support on the 'equivalent' women. Running without a bra is apparently quite painful.
\
The wink was in there because people are geting wrapped around tha axle on the subject. Catachans, if you remember have 1 female figure in the whole range. 1.
She fits right in there, and has a grenade launcher, but one? And we're sitting here reading into this subject and geting bent on it like its something serious.
No, I'm sorry, but there are a few here getting a little married to the subject like they're going to lose a limb because of it or something here.
I need some Catachan Wommens, and they need to fit in with the jungle fighters- point blank, pure and simple.
I need about a half dozen and with or without pants, I could care less. WHY? because I've got an army with a need for a few more. I'd even go so far as to make them as grunt looking as the dudes, same as in a real army. "Cheesecake", doesn't honestly work with them, a few less clothes sure, but not hanging out there like Betty Page and thinking shes a queen.( unless of course she's rocking a las cannon on her arm)
Not because of T and A, but because they need to fit in the army.
Girls like playing. What they don't like is getting fawned over by some kneckbeards or being treated like assclowns. Go in the shop and six or eitght D bags start creaming thier donuts and acting like mutts. Seen it happen, and had a laugh over it. Especially when the little miss started tabling people with her Warmachine guys. Think she was playing the mercs, or something, but The LOOK, that she got over some of that action was worth pages of nitwit rage thats been shown here.
If your gaming and want the girls in, open the door, and don't let them get treated like morons.
Just get a few in there, get a couple of games in, and treat them like a human, and they'll let you know what they want.
Its not some sort of mystery. if it is you need to get out more.
As for "representing..." That doesn't matter, really.
You want to go to your rally, go on ahead, these are wargaming miniatures we are talking about here, it doen't really represent anything other then entertainment and some tounge in cheek eye candy for no other reason then just because.
It becomes more then that for you, you might need to go get another hobby.
In the same uniform as the males (aka very little clothing on the top half) for equality.
I completely agree.
I must admit that I'm not sure I get your suggestive wink. Weren't the Catachans wearing tank tops and camo pants? My wife used to wear less than that even in San Francisco. Here in SoCal, that outfit doesn't seem noteworthy at all for titillation.
If I'm misremembering, and there's no tank top on some of the men, I would prefer to see some sort of sports bra or support on the 'equivalent' women. Running without a bra is apparently quite painful.
The wink is because I thought people meant this...
The main reason why the girls in my group cite they don't like wargaming is that it's primarily for 1 on 1 play and the game is too involved. There's a lot that you need to keep track of with moving pieces measuring etc and if you are using any sort of timed format that tends not to allow for friendly banter during games. Not saying that you don't ever have the chance to talk but it's not as engaging for them as other game types. They also dislike the long stretches spent doing nothing while the opponent is busy with their turn.
I've never, ever seen anyone use any timed format. (apart 'the store closes in two hours, better finish this by then' if playing in a store.)
I'm sure there's people out there that do nothing but casual play with lots of chat during their games, but that's likely with a close friend as opposed to a group. Typically when I game at the local bunker I find a lot of people adopting the "40k is serious business" mode and it doesn't offer all much in the way of interaction. Some of the specialist games are much better, but 40k itself is usually pretty meh for socializing. (I also have the same feeling towards warmachines/hordes and other large battle games)
Well, that doesn't sound much fun to me at all. 40k is best when there's plenty of time and snacks, you can have casual chit chat and pancakes while playing, possibly few other people hanging around too, commenting the horrible deaths of the little toy soldiers.
I've never, ever seen anyone use any timed format. (apart 'the store closes in two hours, better finish this by then' if playing in a store.)
Most tournaments have a given length of time that each match is allowed. Also warmachine/hordes typically have timed matches as well.
We have a lot of local players that are die hard tourney players and even when they loosen up a bit for casual play it still smacks of the "serious business" attitude which is why most of my friends don't play 40k at the local bunker.
At the bunker we tend to run into either two groups; the overly competitive tourney focused types, or the overly hyper teenager who fits the "xbox type" bad behavior. Neither of which are particularly appealing to play against. My group is all in our mid 30s and we tend to hang out and game at a house where we can drink and not worry about our stuff being pilfered by kids, or deal with smelly types.
The closest non GW store that allows 40k is a 45 minute drive from us, there is a local store that's great and we play ccgs at but they refuse to stock GW or let it be played in their store.(as GW screwed them over huge in the past) The only wargame they even carry is warmachine and even that is delegated to being run on a slow week night as most of their space is always reserved for ccgs and board gaming.
The further away store is a bit of a pit. It has literally everything you would want on the shelf but the store is kinda run down and isn't paticuarly inviting. The tables are usually sticky from who knows what and the place smells faintly of cat pee which I fail to understand as they have no cat. The bunker isn't bad if you don't mind the teenage crowd. The girls who are in the mid-late 20s however don't like the crowd there as they don't like to be around a bunch of ill mannered teenage boys.
The LGS we go to for ccgs is meanwhile nice and brightly lit and inviting, they are right in the center of our towns business district and use that appeal to draw in a lot of foot traffic. They focus a lot on traditional board games and ccgs and has more of a coffee shop style atmosphere rather than the dank gamer cave style most stores operate as. Because of that approach the female to male ratio of players is also the highest I've seen out of any of the stores I've been to.
This is I guess more related to which video game/wargame you are playing, and with whom. I know a lot of MMORPG guilds are pretty hardcore in that regards. I personally enjoy playing relatively relaxed games, especially when wargaming. My multiplayer video games tends to be a bit more hardcore (like, say, Starcraft II or League of Legend), but even then, not much. I still don't try extra hard, and take it easy.
paulson games wrote: There's a lot that you need to keep track of with moving pieces measuring etc
Yeah, that's true. I'm now always using my Warmachine tokens to track health points and hull points in 40k because you always take the dice, but even then, the game still getting more and more stuff that one need to tracks. A real PITA.
paulson games wrote: and if you are using any sort of timed format that tends not to allow for friendly banter during games.
I hate that, and I would never use them in a friendly game. Only for tournament when I have no other option !
Friendly banter is a really nice part of the game for me.
paulson games wrote: They also dislike the long stretches spent doing nothing while the opponent is busy with their turn.
I can understand that. One of my regular Warmachine opponent wants to focus when it's his turn, and so he wants me to stop talking. I always get bored to death ! Hopefully he is the only one I know that does that, so I usually comment on what's going on and stuff.
paulson games wrote: Typically when I game at the local bunker I find a lot of people adopting the "40k is serious business" mode and it doesn't offer all much in the way of interaction.
I guess it's totally true that people playing wargames are much more focused on the game and less on chatting and stuff than people playing board games. I'm not so sold on video games, because in a comparable situation, i.e. playing with strangers you were paired with at random, it seems to me it's going to be even worse usually.
Guess it depends quite a bit on one's closest LGS.
One Army colonel is complaining that too many pretty women are being used in promotional materials for the Army.
In an email to colleagues, Colonel Lynette Arnhart wrote, “In general, ugly women are perceived as competent while pretty women are perceived as having used their looks to get ahead.”
“I guess what she’s saying is in battle in real life, in Iraq and Afghanistan, they didn’t put on makeup and they’re not doing their nails. And they shouldn’t be showing lip gloss in these ads,” Brian Kilmeade reflected on this morning’s Fox and Friends.
Elisabeth Hasselbeck suggested that the Army adopt a new campaign incorporating both traits – pretty tough!
paulson games wrote: The LGS we go to for ccgs is meanwhile nice and brightly lit and inviting, they are right in the center of our towns business district and use that appeal to draw in a lot of foot traffic. They focus a lot on traditional board games and ccgs and has more of a coffee shop style atmosphere rather than the dank gamer cave style most stores operate as. Because of that approach the female to male ratio of players is also the highest I've seen out of any of the stores I've been to.
This.
The FLGS where I frequent the most is actually built on the basis of a coffee/smoothie/sandwich shop that happens to also sell wargames, board games, CCGs, RPGs, etc., and instead of having lots of little tables for people to sit and read a book, they have lots of big tables for people to play games on. The store has the largest collection of female gamers I have ever seen at any store, and I've been into the whole gaming culture since the late 1980's. There are actually two different all female gaming groups that meet there; one is primarily dedicated to RPG's, but the other one is primarily dedicated to table top gaming. (One of the groups had kind of disappeared, but they had a club meeting a week or so ago, so it appears they're on the mend.)
I firmly believe the increased presence there of female gamers has to do with the atmosphere of the store. Some of the women I can think of play Dark Eldar and Slaanesh Daemons in GW's universe, Skaard in the Dark Age universe, and a variety of different armies in the Wyrd games; these are just some of the ones that have varying degrees of skimpy clothing and/or sexualized imagery. I really think that having a clean, well-lit, and friendly environment people by welcoming and accepting people is 1,000 times more valuable to getting females into wargaming than any reduction in the sexualized nature of some imagery would be.
Saldiven wrote: I really think that having a clean, well-lit, and friendly environment people by welcoming and accepting people is 1,000 times more valuable to getting females into wargaming than any reduction in the sexualized nature of some imagery would be.
Has anyone in this thread, or elsewhere, said anything contrary ? Because this argument has been brought forth already, and nobody seemed to disagree.
Saldiven wrote: I really think that having a clean, well-lit, and friendly environment people by welcoming and accepting people is 1,000 times more valuable to getting females into wargaming than any reduction in the sexualized nature of some imagery would be.
Has anyone in this thread, or elsewhere, said anything contrary ? Because this argument has been brought forth already, and nobody seemed to disagree.
What is meant, I think, is that claims such as "cheesecake models and art keep women away from the game, and that if only our industry would stop being so willfully blind and produce good female models, everything would be alright" are wrong, because it's patently ridiculous when faced with real data, i.e. that women game plenty despite these models if they only had a well-lit, clean, friendly, sociable, and well-mannered club to do it in.
Saldiven wrote: I really think that having a clean, well-lit, and friendly environment people by welcoming and accepting people is 1,000 times more valuable to getting females into wargaming than any reduction in the sexualized nature of some imagery would be.
Has anyone in this thread, or elsewhere, said anything contrary ? Because this argument has been brought forth already, and nobody seemed to disagree.
True, but then they immediately turn around and start talking about the huge negative impact that such images have on bringing women into the hobby.
My assertion is, and has been, that such imagery has a negligible affect on women entering the hobby, and focusing on such imagery is a big waste of time.
Unit1126PLL wrote: What is meant, I think, is that claims such as "cheesecake models and art keep women away from the game, and that if only our industry would stop being so willfully blind and produce good female models, everything would be alright" are wrong
Has anyone here made that claim, including the bold part ? I have not seen anyone suggesting such a thing.
Saldiven wrote: My assertion is, and has been, that such imagery has a negligible affect on women entering the hobby, and focusing on such imagery is a big waste of time.
Only if your intention is to get more women to enter the hobby. If your intention is to get good art and cool models, however…
Saldiven wrote: My assertion is, and has been, that such imagery has a negligible affect on women entering the hobby, and focusing on such imagery is a big waste of time.
Only if your intention is to get more women to enter the hobby. If your intention is to get good art and cool models, however…
"Good art and cool models" was not the basis for this thread. The entire premise for this thread was that a picture from the Inquisition Codex was objectifying to women, and that such objectification is off-putting to women. Quotes from the first few pages of the thread:
"The fixation that geek culture has with semi naked women cheapens us all."
"That's not what annoys me, its the sheer childishness of women almost always being portrayed as little more than sexual objects."
"Uneven depiction of genders in games is a big problem...."
"Why are the women often sexualized and the men power fantasies directed at men too? Wouldn't it be a good idea to create a product that is possibly aimed at 100% of the possible target market and not just roughly 50%, especially when the pool of possible buyer is already small enough in a certain niche (in addition GW seems to sell fewer boxes every year). "
"It's intentionally geared toward men and therefore shuts out people who could potentially enjoy this awesome hobby the same way others do. Rampant portrayal of women as sexual objects is a result of this and contributes to this being a male dominated hobby when it doesn't have to be."
Nobody in the thread said that they thought the initial picture that started this discussion was badly done or poor artwork. The entire objection was to a woman holding a chainsword simultaneously wearing a dress that showed some cleavage.
I thought the recent revelation of the female Predator from Prodos' AvP kickstarter is a particularly interesting case of miniature design in the themes of this thread. So, despite being a humanoid-but-clearly-inhuman alien lifeform, the female predator's main anatomical distinction from her male counterparts is not only a sizeable pair of breasts, but obvious and prominent cleavage. I don't know who designed the concept for this miniature, but it does seem incredibly silly. Yes, movie aliens always look human because they're played by humans in rubber latex suits, but after you've gone through the work of making the Yautja's iconic monstrous face to try to elide that similarity, it seems like a cop-out to have the female of the species sport mammaries fit for Playboy. Doubly so since you're doing it in a format where you could just as easily have sculpted or imagined a design as outlandish as you liked without having to adhere to the realities of film or TV.
Saldiven wrote: "Good art and cool models" was not the basis for this thread.
I know why I created this thread, and I know it was not primarily to discuss on how to get more women entering the hobby. If it had been, I would have name the thread “How to get more women to enter the hobby”.
Saldiven wrote: The entire premise for this thread was that a picture from the Inquisition Codex was objectifying to women, and that such objectification is off-putting to women. Quotes from the first few pages of the thread:
Why don't you quote the first message ? You know, mine ?
Saldiven wrote: Nobody in the thread said that they thought the initial picture that started this discussion was badly done or poor artwork.
I did said repetitively that the cleavage was detrimental to the art, and went to great length to explain why. Maybe you've missed it.
I think that it is inevitable that as more women show interest in wargaming, the hobby will adapt to accommodate women, this has its positives and negatives...
Positives:
- The notion that the hobby is for neck-beards will diminish
- More consumers = more money for retailers = growth of market
- More people to talk to and get to know
Negatives:
- As the hobby becomes increasingly popular it will be in the public eye far far more frequently so will have to become more PC to avoid negative press
- May create a division in the market (e.g. in gaming far more females play app games whilst males tend to play the console games)
To be honest I'm not too bothered if the war-gaming industry adapts to accommodate women, I'm not that big on the wargaming anymore, high prices and lack of originality has put me off.
Agamemnon2 wrote: I thought the recent revelation of the female Predator from Prodos' AvP kickstarter is a particularly interesting case of miniature design in the themes of this thread.
So, despite being a humanoid-but-clearly-inhuman alien lifeform, the female predator's main anatomical distinction from her male counterparts is not only a sizeable pair of breasts, but obvious and prominent cleavage. I don't know who designed the concept for this miniature, but it does seem incredibly silly. Yes, movie aliens always look human because they're played by humans in rubber latex suits, but after you've gone through the work of making the Yautja's iconic monstrous face to try to elide that similarity, it seems like a cop-out to have the female of the species sport mammaries fit for Playboy. Doubly so since you're doing it in a format where you could just as easily have sculpted or imagined a design as outlandish as you liked without having to adhere to the realities of film or TV.
First, let me say that I'm not all that impressed by the miniature (it's not so much that it's bad, I simply find it extremely underwhelming given the "premium" price). That disclaimer out of the way, this brings up a very important issue with any representation of females in a game where it is the avatar of the player.
Let's suppose, for the moment, instead of the above version, they have a truly exotic, utterly alien creature for the female. Let's further suppose you shell out the big bucks (sorry, last mention) for the game and want your (female) significant other/child/coworker/shipmate/whatever to play. She's interested in the playing the Predator side (clearly being the best side), so the box pops open, she picks up the fem Predator and...
And now there are several possible reactions, including but not limited to;
-"Why aren't there any girl Predators?" (she doesn't recognize the truly alien creature as a female at all),
-"Soooo... the girl is the super ugly one. Greaaaaat."
-"Oh cool. The female is a truly original and alien concept that has no commonality with humans."
I'll leave it to the reader to presume likelihoods. My point is that when one designs a miniature that will be the player's representation on the board, with the intention of selling to both to men and women, it does not seem intuitive that one would make the female dramatically dissimilar to an actual human female. Granted I have not conducted studies to that effect.
However, it is my experience in gaming that a non-trivial percentage of females interested in playing RPGs, MMOs, other assorted Video Games and table top games will gravitate to the recognizably female avatar. With a pronounced tendency to pick the "cutest" option.
Moreover, to say "it seems like a cop-out to have the female of the species sport mammaries fit for Playboy" seems to rather beg the opposite question: what's wrong with breasts?
Remember, the Predator is a guy in a suit, with an emphasis on guy. With the exception of some facial bits, a Predator is entirely similar in physiology to a human male.
It would seem the natural counterpoint to wanting an alien looking female is for the female gamer to ask "what's wrong with having the female actually look like me?"
Seriously now, that fem Predator looks like she could be a cosplayer that just walked off of Spot me Girl's Hot Chicks with Abs page. (For those that imagine the writers of that particular entity are primarily interested in attracting the male gaze... they really aren't. Oh, how they aren't.)
Again, this is all just discussion and not meant to be a specific defense of that particular model. Just illustrating the perils and pitfalls inherent in designing female models. Especially when there is a single model that is "the chick"*.
*Note that one obvious solution is to not have so many smurfette races, but that's a different problem.
I'm not clicking on a Katy Perry video just because she's hot and talented.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Buzzsaw, you make a good point, but clearly she wearing the clubbing/cocktail version of Yautja armor and not the sporty support version..?
Agamemnon2 wrote: I thought the recent revelation of the female Predator from Prodos' AvP kickstarter is a particularly interesting case of miniature design in the themes of this thread.
So, despite being a humanoid-but-clearly-inhuman alien lifeform, the female predator's main anatomical distinction from her male counterparts is not only a sizeable pair of breasts, but obvious and prominent cleavage. I don't know who designed the concept for this miniature, but it does seem incredibly silly. Yes, movie aliens always look human because they're played by humans in rubber latex suits, but after you've gone through the work of making the Yautja's iconic monstrous face to try to elide that similarity, it seems like a cop-out to have the female of the species sport mammaries fit for Playboy. Doubly so since you're doing it in a format where you could just as easily have sculpted or imagined a design as outlandish as you liked without having to adhere to the realities of film or TV.
First, let me say that I'm not all that impressed by the miniature (it's not so much that it's bad, I simply find it extremely underwhelming given the "premium" price). That disclaimer out of the way, this brings up a very important issue with any representation of females in a game where it is the avatar of the player.
Let's suppose, for the moment, instead of the above version, they have a truly exotic, utterly alien creature for the female. Let's further suppose you shell out the big bucks (sorry, last mention) for the game and want your (female) significant other/child/coworker/shipmate/whatever to play. She's interested in the playing the Predator side (clearly being the best side), so the box pops open, she picks up the fem Predator and...
And now there are several possible reactions, including but not limited to;
-"Why aren't there any girl Predators?" (she doesn't recognize the truly alien creature as a female at all),
-"Soooo... the girl is the super ugly one. Greaaaaat."
-"Oh cool. The female is a truly original and alien concept that has no commonality with humans."
I'll leave it to the reader to presume likelihoods. My point is that when one designs a miniature that will be the player's representation on the board, with the intention of selling to both to men and women, it does not seem intuitive that one would make the female dramatically dissimilar to an actual human female. Granted I have not conducted studies to that effect.
However, it is my experience in gaming that a non-trivial percentage of females interested in playing RPGs, MMOs, other assorted Video Games and table top games will gravitate to the recognizably female avatar. With a pronounced tendency to pick the "cutest" option.
Moreover, to say "it seems like a cop-out to have the female of the species sport mammaries fit for Playboy" seems to rather beg the opposite question: what's wrong with breasts?
Remember, the Predator is a guy in a suit, with an emphasis on guy. With the exception of some facial bits, a Predator is entirely similar in physiology to a human male.
It would seem the natural counterpoint to wanting an alien looking female is for the female gamer to ask "what's wrong with having the female actually look like me?"
Seriously now, that fem Predator looks like she could be a cosplayer that just walked off of Spot me Girl's Hot Chicks with Abs page. (For those that imagine the writers of that particular entity are primarily interested in attracting the male gaze... they really aren't. Oh, how they aren't.)
Again, this is all just discussion and not meant to be a specific defense of that particular model. Just illustrating the perils and pitfalls inherent in designing female models. Especially when there is a single model that is "the chick"*.
*Note that one obvious solution is to not have so many smurfette races, but that's a different problem.
The female predator realy could have had smaller breasts, it's turned a minature I would have buy in a heartbeat, and the game along with it into something I don't realy feel as much towards
I can't quite tell on the minature but i think even with big breasts they could have done more.
When it comes to the discussion at hand it isn't breasts that are the issue, it's that there are so few alternatives. Often no alternatives if your looking for something specific.
When it comes to minatures, one of the bigist issues is that females are not represented much and then when we get something, it's often getting towards silly and taking away positive agency.
Sometimes unfit clothing or a bad pose.
Sometimes it's a lack of females at all.
Wish it was Easyer to quote large posts on iPad D.:
But the Same can be said, why can't minatures look like me, to why I am here and why I desire alternatives.
Apart from the breasts I think the model is quite good considering. But I think the minature market is changing despite the thrashing.
Agamemnon2 wrote: I thought the recent revelation of the female Predator from Prodos' AvP kickstarter is a particularly interesting case of miniature design in the themes of this thread.
So, despite being a humanoid-but-clearly-inhuman alien lifeform, the female predator's main anatomical distinction from her male counterparts is not only a sizeable pair of breasts, but obvious and prominent cleavage. I don't know who designed the concept for this miniature, but it does seem incredibly silly. Yes, movie aliens always look human because they're played by humans in rubber latex suits, but after you've gone through the work of making the Yautja's iconic monstrous face to try to elide that similarity, it seems like a cop-out to have the female of the species sport mammaries fit for Playboy. Doubly so since you're doing it in a format where you could just as easily have sculpted or imagined a design as outlandish as you liked without having to adhere to the realities of film or TV.
First, let me say that I'm not all that impressed by the miniature (it's not so much that it's bad, I simply find it extremely underwhelming given the "premium" price). That disclaimer out of the way, this brings up a very important issue with any representation of females in a game where it is the avatar of the player.
Let's suppose, for the moment, instead of the above version, they have a truly exotic, utterly alien creature for the female. Let's further suppose you shell out the big bucks (sorry, last mention) for the game and want your (female) significant other/child/coworker/shipmate/whatever to play. She's interested in the playing the Predator side (clearly being the best side), so the box pops open, she picks up the fem Predator and...
And now there are several possible reactions, including but not limited to;
-"Why aren't there any girl Predators?" (she doesn't recognize the truly alien creature as a female at all),
-"Soooo... the girl is the super ugly one. Greaaaaat."
-"Oh cool. The female is a truly original and alien concept that has no commonality with humans."
I'll leave it to the reader to presume likelihoods. My point is that when one designs a miniature that will be the player's representation on the board, with the intention of selling to both to men and women, it does not seem intuitive that one would make the female dramatically dissimilar to an actual human female. Granted I have not conducted studies to that effect.
However, it is my experience in gaming that a non-trivial percentage of females interested in playing RPGs, MMOs, other assorted Video Games and table top games will gravitate to the recognizably female avatar. With a pronounced tendency to pick the "cutest" option.
Moreover, to say "it seems like a cop-out to have the female of the species sport mammaries fit for Playboy" seems to rather beg the opposite question: what's wrong with breasts?
Remember, the Predator is a guy in a suit, with an emphasis on guy. With the exception of some facial bits, a Predator is entirely similar in physiology to a human male.
It would seem the natural counterpoint to wanting an alien looking female is for the female gamer to ask "what's wrong with having the female actually look like me?"
Seriously now, that fem Predator looks like she could be a cosplayer that just walked off of Spot me Girl's Hot Chicks with Abs page. (For those that imagine the writers of that particular entity are primarily interested in attracting the male gaze... they really aren't. Oh, how they aren't.)
Again, this is all just discussion and not meant to be a specific defense of that particular model. Just illustrating the perils and pitfalls inherent in designing female models. Especially when there is a single model that is "the chick"*.
*Note that one obvious solution is to not have so many smurfette races, but that's a different problem.
The female predator realy could have had smaller breasts, it's turned a minature I would have buy in a heartbeat, and the game along with it into something I don't realy feel as much towards I can't quite tell on the minature but i think even with big breasts they could have done more.
When it comes to the discussion at hand it isn't breasts that are the issue, it's that there are so few alternatives. Often no alternatives if your looking for something specific.
When it comes to minatures, one of the bigist issues is that females are not represented much and then when we get something, it's often getting towards silly and taking away positive agency.
Sometimes unfit clothing or a bad pose.
Sometimes it's a lack of females at all.
Wish it was Easyer to quote large posts on iPad D.:
But the Same can be said, why can't minatures look like me, to why I am here and why I desire alternatives.
Apart from the breasts I think the model is quite good considering. But I think the minature market is changing despite the thrashing.
You've made quite an excellent point. Not the point you were making directly, that is, but rather the bit in bold.
A particular point: not that the model has breasts, but the size of the breasts on a 28mm model (mind you, in real life those breasts are approximately the size of a split lentil), this is enough to put you entirely off the game.
Quite simply put, why would any rational businessperson intentionally try and please a market share that exhibits such a trait? If Prodos or GW or what-have-you saw that comment, would they say "How can I make a model that this person will buy?" Unlikely; far more likely is they would say "that person's preferences are so stringent that it is counterproductive to try to please them."
I want there to be more variety of female miniatures, so I've backed campaigns on Kickstarter to help get companies that make female miniatures that I like into the market. Over the last few years I've spent well over a thousand dollars, which represents a very sizable chunk of my gaming budget, in supporting these projects.
It's entirely fine to say that you don't like any of the projects I'm backing. You don't have to like what I do, but it is incumbent on you to support what you want to see and encourage the makers that you think are getting it right. Because the surest way to have no voice is to sit on the sidelines and state how turned off you are by female miniatures that come close, but just miss the mark.
Now all this may sound somewhat confrontational, I don't mean to be combative. I'm simply exhausted by this conversation; now, when it has never in the history of this hobby been easier for businesses to launch, for new mini lines to be made, so little is done that would be actually helpful. Find the green shoots and nurture them. If a company makes one or two models you like, buy them. Show them off and ask the company to make more like them.
If it helps....pretty much all of the xenomorphs are female. They have no obvious female features but according to the fluff they are all female in the absence or death or a queen can undergo several stages of molting and become a queen. Like bees the majority of the aliens population is female with a very few numbers of males acting as the inner hive guard (praetorians) or the very rare case of the male tyrant king.
Moreover, to say "it seems like a cop-out to have the female of the species sport mammaries fit for Playboy" seems to rather beg the opposite question: what's wrong with breasts?
Remember, the Predator is a guy in a suit, with an emphasis on guy. With the exception of some facial bits, a Predator is entirely similar in physiology to a human male.
It would seem the natural counterpoint to wanting an alien looking female is for the female gamer to ask "what's wrong with having the female actually look like me?"
I think the issue, obviously is that the ginormous tits are enormous to the point where they just look silly. Even with lolheroicminiatureproportions taken into account. The lack of armour in this case is actually consistent with what the males wear, so a non-issue.
Que?
I'm not clicking on a Katy Perry video just because she's hot and talented.
There's a video where she squirts cream out of the nipples on her bra. It's not sexually suggestive at all. But it would possibly work for feeding baby predators...
Moreover, to say "it seems like a cop-out to have the female of the species sport mammaries fit for Playboy" seems to rather beg the opposite question: what's wrong with breasts?
Remember, the Predator is a guy in a suit, with an emphasis on guy. With the exception of some facial bits, a Predator is entirely similar in physiology to a human male.
It would seem the natural counterpoint to wanting an alien looking female is for the female gamer to ask "what's wrong with having the female actually look like me?"
I think the issue, obviously is that the ginormous tits are enormous to the point where they just look silly. Even with lolheroicminiatureproportions taken into account. The lack of armour in this case is actually consistent with what the males wear, so a non-issue.
Agreed. The male predators in the movies I remember wear no shirts or torso armor aside a kind of thin webbing and the harness that the energy weapon attaches to. As for the rest, they wear gauntlets, greaves, a mask and an armored codpiece with a belt. From what I can make out of the sculpt in the picture I posted, the female is wearing comparative amounts of clothing, so I don't consider that an issue at all. The visual design of the yautja has always been tribal and with hints towards an adherence to tradition, so all good there.
Going off something Buzzsaw said, the comment he made of the potential female customer taking a female predator and saying "The girl is the super ugly one?" struck me, because to me, all yautja are ugly. It's their defining character trait from the first movie onwards. I don't remember if it was Arnie or Danny Glover, but the first thing a film protagonist says when he sees one unmasked is "You are one ugly mother-----". As such, I see the opposite situation. With those breasts, the female predator is the "pretty one".
Agamemnon2 wrote: I thought the recent revelation of the female Predator from Prodos' AvP kickstarter is a particularly interesting case of miniature design in the themes of this thread.
So, despite being a humanoid-but-clearly-inhuman alien lifeform, the female predator's main anatomical distinction from her male counterparts is not only a sizeable pair of breasts, but obvious and prominent cleavage. I don't know who designed the concept for this miniature, but it does seem incredibly silly. Yes, movie aliens always look human because they're played by humans in rubber latex suits, but after you've gone through the work of making the Yautja's iconic monstrous face to try to elide that similarity, it seems like a cop-out to have the female of the species sport mammaries fit for Playboy. Doubly so since you're doing it in a format where you could just as easily have sculpted or imagined a design as outlandish as you liked without having to adhere to the realities of film or TV.
First, let me say that I'm not all that impressed by the miniature (it's not so much that it's bad, I simply find it extremely underwhelming given the "premium" price). That disclaimer out of the way, this brings up a very important issue with any representation of females in a game where it is the avatar of the player.
Let's suppose, for the moment, instead of the above version, they have a truly exotic, utterly alien creature for the female. Let's further suppose you shell out the big bucks (sorry, last mention) for the game and want your (female) significant other/child/coworker/shipmate/whatever to play. She's interested in the playing the Predator side (clearly being the best side), so the box pops open, she picks up the fem Predator and...
And now there are several possible reactions, including but not limited to;
-"Why aren't there any girl Predators?" (she doesn't recognize the truly alien creature as a female at all),
-"Soooo... the girl is the super ugly one. Greaaaaat."
-"Oh cool. The female is a truly original and alien concept that has no commonality with humans."
I'll leave it to the reader to presume likelihoods. My point is that when one designs a miniature that will be the player's representation on the board, with the intention of selling to both to men and women, it does not seem intuitive that one would make the female dramatically dissimilar to an actual human female. Granted I have not conducted studies to that effect.
However, it is my experience in gaming that a non-trivial percentage of females interested in playing RPGs, MMOs, other assorted Video Games and table top games will gravitate to the recognizably female avatar. With a pronounced tendency to pick the "cutest" option.
Moreover, to say "it seems like a cop-out to have the female of the species sport mammaries fit for Playboy" seems to rather beg the opposite question: what's wrong with breasts?
Remember, the Predator is a guy in a suit, with an emphasis on guy. With the exception of some facial bits, a Predator is entirely similar in physiology to a human male.
It would seem the natural counterpoint to wanting an alien looking female is for the female gamer to ask "what's wrong with having the female actually look like me?"
Seriously now, that fem Predator looks like she could be a cosplayer that just walked off of Spot me Girl's Hot Chicks with Abs page. (For those that imagine the writers of that particular entity are primarily interested in attracting the male gaze... they really aren't. Oh, how they aren't.)
Again, this is all just discussion and not meant to be a specific defense of that particular model. Just illustrating the perils and pitfalls inherent in designing female models. Especially when there is a single model that is "the chick"*.
*Note that one obvious solution is to not have so many smurfette races, but that's a different problem.
The female predator realy could have had smaller breasts, it's turned a minature I would have buy in a heartbeat, and the game along with it into something I don't realy feel as much towards I can't quite tell on the minature but i think even with big breasts they could have done more.
When it comes to the discussion at hand it isn't breasts that are the issue, it's that there are so few alternatives. Often no alternatives if your looking for something specific.
When it comes to minatures, one of the bigist issues is that females are not represented much and then when we get something, it's often getting towards silly and taking away positive agency.
Sometimes unfit clothing or a bad pose.
Sometimes it's a lack of females at all.
Wish it was Easyer to quote large posts on iPad D.:
But the Same can be said, why can't minatures look like me, to why I am here and why I desire alternatives.
Apart from the breasts I think the model is quite good considering. But I think the minature market is changing despite the thrashing.
You've made quite an excellent point. Not the point you were making directly, that is, but rather the bit in bold.
A particular point: not that the model has breasts, but the size of the breasts on a 28mm model (mind you, in real life those breasts are approximately the size of a split lentil), this is enough to put you entirely off the game.
Quite simply put, why would any rational businessperson intentionally try and please a market share that exhibits such a trait? If Prodos or GW or what-have-you saw that comment, would they say "How can I make a model that this person will buy?" Unlikely; far more likely is they would say "that person's preferences are so stringent that it is counterproductive to try to please them."
I want there to be more variety of female miniatures, so I've backed campaigns on Kickstarter to help get companies that make female miniatures that I like into the market. Over the last few years I've spent well over a thousand dollars, which represents a very sizable chunk of my gaming budget, in supporting these projects.
It's entirely fine to say that you don't like any of the projects I'm backing. You don't have to like what I do, but it is incumbent on you to support what you want to see and encourage the makers that you think are getting it right. Because the surest way to have no voice is to sit on the sidelines and state how turned off you are by female miniatures that come close, but just miss the mark.
Now all this may sound somewhat confrontational, I don't mean to be combative. I'm simply exhausted by this conversation; now, when it has never in the history of this hobby been easier for businesses to launch, for new mini lines to be made, so little is done that would be actually helpful. Find the green shoots and nurture them. If a company makes one or two models you like, buy them. Show them off and ask the company to make more like them.
No, I was on the fence about there kickstarter, and there was a model that they are producing that could have swung me into it.
When the game comes out I may or may not get it, when it comes down to it, I am looking for female models allmost entirely now, as I have many male models in most systems.
As for other kickstarters, I would say bombshell babes despite the name actuly nail it. For anything short of more specific needs thay have some great minis and I have everything but 1 from the kickstarter. Not perfect but getting there.
They have some sexy and have some realy great posed females in some nice clothes. And if they release more, or do another kickstarter in the future I would like to support them. I am actuly not that hard to please. But there are still massive issues in this hobby with sexism and I don't think it's even right to not stand up against issues.
To kickstarter I have put well into many projects, so I am supporting many up and comers.
They look like her. If they really wanted to do this one right, they would have gotten the human female that joined up with the Predators back in the day.
That "Female predator" should look more like a lizard, not so much with big mams, but with none, and maybe even have a different fighting style, such as a sniper rifle, or rockets, or something that they would be specialized in.
looked through the info on line, and haven't found much in terms of information on "Female" predators.
Grot 6 wrote: They look like her. If they really wanted to do this one right, they would have gotten the human female that joined up with the Predators back in the day
I agree, seeing Machiko would be awesome. She would have to be so much smaller than the Predators to make it work, though..
Buzzsaw wrote: Moreover, to say "it seems like a cop-out to have the female of the species sport mammaries fit for Playboy" seems to rather beg the opposite question: what's wrong with breasts?
Oh, I'm a huge fan. I also think the size is a little ridiculous though; you don't really see a lot of female basketball players who look like that.
Perhaps they could have made us all happy by reducing the size of the boobs, and then adding another, smaller set under them, like a dog. Boobs, but clearly alien! We're all winners.
Grot 6 wrote: There are females in the comic books.
They look like her. If they really wanted to do this one right, they would have gotten the human female that joined up with the Predators back in the day.
That "Female predator" should look more like a lizard, not so much with big mams, but with none, and maybe even have a different fighting style, such as a sniper rifle, or rockets, or something that they would be specialized in.
looked through the info on line, and haven't found much in terms of information on "Female" predators.
anyone else know of any?
I'm only familiar with Machinko, who looks like Angelina Jolie for some reason. I'm sure someone could track down the images of the Fempred from the comics or some such. There's some statues and such out there.
I actually don't take issue with the idea of the Prodos FemPred having a bikini for the reasons already discussed, or large breasts - like Ouze, I'm a fan of their work. It's just that these are too big. Like beyond pornstar almost into specialist pornstar territory.
Grot 6 wrote: They look like her. If they really wanted to do this one right, they would have gotten the human female that joined up with the Predators back in the day
I agree, seeing Machiko would be awesome. She would have to be so much smaller than the Predators to make it work, though..
Buzzsaw wrote: Moreover, to say "it seems like a cop-out to have the female of the species sport mammaries fit for Playboy" seems to rather beg the opposite question: what's wrong with breasts?
Oh, I'm a huge fan. I also think the size is a little ridiculous though; you don't really see a lot of female basketball players who look like that.
Perhaps they could have made us all happy by reducing the size of the boobs, and then adding another, smaller set under them, like a dog. Boobs, but clearly alien! We're all winners.
Hehe, I know this is meant as a joke, but that is a perfect example of what I was talking about.
"See honey, the females have two sets of breasts, just like dogs!"
"So... all the females are bitches, is that right?"
"Yes! I mean no. I mean, I'm sorry?"
On a more serious note I will say that with miniatures that I have where in pictures the breasts look huge, but in hand and on the table they seem fine. Given that the fem Predator is about the size of the twilight knight from KD (possibly even smaller), so I tend to doubt they are all that problematic. There was a picture in the KS thread of the "canon" fem predator... she's not exactly modestly endowed.
Is due for release by Hasslefree in the near future. For those who want more females, or more realistic females, this is the sort of thing you probably need to be ordering multiples of to send the message to those whose livelihoods depend on the sale of such items that this style is a good idea if they want to be able to afford an extra big turkey this year.
Ouze wrote: Perhaps they could have made us all happy by reducing the size of the boobs, and then adding another, smaller set under them, like a dog. Boobs, but clearly alien! We're all winners.
Ouze wrote: Perhaps they could have made us all happy by reducing the size of the boobs, and then adding another, smaller set under them, like a dog. Boobs, but clearly alien! We're all winners.
Yeah, I had to use greenstuff to fix that on the daughters of the flame I used as count-as for my DCA. Stupid.
[Edit]Actually, it seems it's neither : You owe the internet five metaphorical dollars, Bob !
TBH I expected the female predators to be so butch that they would be indistinguishable from the males. This mini is quite disappointing. I always thought of the Predator aliens like big cats in the sense that there is still sexual dimorphism but is is not as prominent as in homo-sapiens.
azreal13 wrote: To echo the point Buzzsaw was making, this...
Is due for release by Hasslefree in the near future. For those who want more females, or more realistic females, this is the sort of thing you probably need to be ordering multiples of to send the message to those whose livelihoods depend on the sale of such items that this style is a good idea if they want to be able to afford an extra big turkey this year.
now that looks right, and yes everyone support hassle free, they have some good stuff, i have dealt with them before
is another showing of what the style SHOULD be...
and please note, no SUPER STEROID FREAKs for men as well...
Yeah, I had to use greenstuff to fix that on the daughters of the flame I used as count-as for my DCA. Stupid.
is another showing of what the style SHOULD be...
I appreciate this is in the context of a poster's own opinion, but this sort of language is expressing a tone I felt needed picking up on.
There is no should or had to, or any other more definite statements that anyone cares to throw out, they should be "chose to" and "would like them to be"
Expressing a preference is one thing, expressing a preference in language that implies that to not share that preference, or to actively prefer the opposite, is wrong, is quite another. We are discussing a subjective matter with huge, and very personally defined, grey areas.
Again, to reiterate my point from earlier in the thread, and Buzzsaw's too (and possibly others) the best way to ensure miniatures in the style you prefer get made, or continue to get made, is to endorse them by making a purchase.
To buy models that you feel compelled to convert to better suit your tastes doesn't work, as that isn't any different from buying them and not touching them.
If a model isn't in production that is close enough to fit what you need, then it is up to you and your principles.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm also a little surprised that the size of some Predator baps has garnered such attention, yet this new release (spoilers due to size and element of NSFWness
Spoiler:
Hasn't even featured in the thread.
Personally, Brother Vinni's work has made me feel more uncomfortable than pretty much anything else I've seen, except maybe the Kingdom: Death Wet Nurse, in terms of subject matter/portrayal of women.
It must sell in sufficient numbers to be worth doing, so evidently there is a market, but we are firmly in "I don't agree with what you say, but will defend with my life your right to say it" territory for me.
MetalOxide wrote: TBH I expected the female predators to be so butch that they would be indistinguishable from the males. This mini is quite disappointing. I always thought of the Predator aliens like big cats in the sense that there is still sexual dimorphism but is is not as prominent as in homo-sapiens.
In the lore, which may or may not be canon, they do indeed have breasts and are substantially stronger and larger than the male Predators we have seen so far. They do not normally engage in the hunt, though.
MetalOxide wrote: TBH I expected the female predators to be so butch that they would be indistinguishable from the males. This mini is quite disappointing. I always thought of the Predator aliens like big cats in the sense that there is still sexual dimorphism but is is not as prominent as in homo-sapiens.
In the lore, which may or may not be canon, they do indeed have breasts and are substantially stronger and larger than the male Predators we have seen so far. They do not normally engage in the hunt, though.
Ah, that's pretty interesting, thanks for the info.
azreal13 wrote: Expressing a preference is one thing, expressing a preference in language that implies that to not share that preference, or to actively prefer the opposite, is wrong, is quite another. We are discussing a subjective matter with huge, and very personally defined, grey areas.
Well, I feel like my nun girls not using some kind of supernatural mean to expose more of their butt is not that much a gray area. Because it's fairly established that nuns don't like to expose their butts, and nuns don't like witchcraft either .
azreal13 wrote: Again, to reiterate my point from earlier in the thread, and Buzzsaw's too (and possibly others) the best way to ensure miniatures in the style you prefer get made, or continue to get made, is to endorse them by making a purchase.
To buy models that you feel compelled to convert to better suit your tastes doesn't work, as that isn't any different from buying them and not touching them.
First, I didn't buy those models, it was a present from my mother. Second, there is a big difference between converting them and not converting them : they look more like how I want them to look afterward. And, that may be some huge revelation to you, but it's the reason behind most conversions. Usually people don't convert their models to make them more PC, or to get more women in the hobby, or whatever. I know I don't.
azreal13 wrote: If a model isn't in production that is close enough to fit what you need, then it is up to you and your principles.
Let me think about it. There is almost no trollblood with a military cap (except Gunbjornn, of course), and as far as I know no trollblood with a cigar. So, should I “follow my principle” or whatever, and not buy any trollblood, or should I just have fun sculpting cigars and caps with green stuff ?
The answer is in my blitzer :
I was curious, so I went on their website. It appears they have a whole section dedicated to girls (other categories are sci-fy, renaissance, fantasy, …), with a subcategory called “victim girls” !
My favorite “victim girl” is “Ukrainian Slavegirl” because… well, because how the hell are we supposed to notice that she is Ukrainian, since she's just walking completely naked ? The only explanation for the title is that the sculptor has weird fetishes.
“Actions girls” also have some utterly ridiculous (NSFW) models :
Spoiler:
Also strangely, some perfectly decent models :
Well, shuffling through those models was quite funny ! Thanks for the good laugh, Azreal.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
easysauce wrote: and please note, no SUPER STEROID FREAKs for men as well...
Do you mean nothing like
Spoiler:
or
Spoiler:
I love
Too bad she'll integrate better in a space marines army than in a sisters of battle army.
azreal13 wrote: Again, to reiterate my point from earlier in the thread, and Buzzsaw's too (and possibly others) the best way to ensure miniatures in the style you prefer get made, or continue to get made, is to endorse them by making a purchase.
To buy models that you feel compelled to convert to better suit your tastes doesn't work, as that isn't any different from buying them and not touching them.
First, I didn't buy those models, it was a present from my mother. Second, there is a big difference between converting them and not converting them : they look more like how I want them to look afterward. And, that may be some huge revelation to you, but it's the reason behind most conversions. Usually people don't convert their models to make them more PC, or to get more women in the hobby, or whatever. I know I don't.
Great. so this specific instance with the specific models you mentioned weren't bought by you. That doesn't invalidate my wider point that people who feel strongly about how a miniature portrays it's subject shouldn't buy something they consider inappropriate and then "fix" it.
That is what I was really driving at, but it appears you took me a little too literally.
azreal13 wrote: If a model isn't in production that is close enough to fit what you need, then it is up to you and your principles.
Let me think about it. There is almost no trollblood with a military cap (except Gunbjornn, of course), and as far as I know no trollblood with a cigar. So, should I “follow my principle” or whatever, and not buy any trollblood, or should I just have fun sculpting cigars and caps with green stuff ?
The answer is in my blitzer :
Again, you've slightly missed my point, unless you have some philosophical objection to the Trollblood faction in general! I meant when purchasing a model which you find to a greater or lesser degree "offensive" and altering what you have an issue with, not converting in general. Hence my reference to principles, if your need or desire to have a mini that starts life as something you find objectionable outweighs your desire to withhold money from a company making models you don't approve of.
I was curious, so I went on their website. It appears they have a whole section dedicated to girls (other categories are sci-fy, renaissance, fantasy, …), with a subcategory called “victim girls” !
My favorite “victim girl” is “Ukrainian Slavegirl” because… well, because how the hell are we supposed to notice that she is Ukrainian, since she's just walking completely naked ? The only explanation for the title is that the sculptor has weird fetishes.
“Actions girls” also have some utterly ridiculous (NSFW) models :
Spoiler:
Also strangely, some perfectly decent models :
Well, shuffling through those models was quite funny ! Thanks for the good laugh, Azreal.
Debating with you is like juggling jelly! You have an issue with the original picture, yet find some of the most overtly exploitative models I am aware of in current production amusing? Models I find a little close to the line, yet I'm the one who other posters have attempted to label sexist?
FYI The slave girl is "Ukranian" because there is some political history between the sculptors nation (Russia? I forget off the top of my head) and Ukraine. There was some quite heated debate about it in News and Rumours that lead to the thread which announced it's release getting locked IIRC. So not only does the particular model have a distinctly gender exploitative edge, it also has a racial undercurrent too.
My favorite “victim girl” is “Ukrainian Slavegirl” because… well, because how the hell are we supposed to notice that she is Ukrainian, since she's just walking completely naked ? The only explanation for the title is that the sculptor has weird fetishes.
Basically, the head and Hairstyle is a dead ringer for a former Ukranian President, who is currently jailed for corruption on what many suspect are trumped-up charges by a Russian-controlled proxy government (I seem to remember Tulashenko or whatever her name was was rather anti-Russian Politically). Brother Vinni happens to be Russian, so it's really kinda a cheap shot.
azreal13 wrote: To echo the point Buzzsaw was making, this...
Spoiler:
Is due for release by Hasslefree in the near future. For those who want more females, or more realistic females, this is the sort of thing you probably need to be ordering multiples of to send the message to those whose livelihoods depend on the sale of such items that this style is a good idea if they want to be able to afford an extra big turkey this year.
The amusing thing is that's one of Kev White's figures. And Kev/Hasslefree is ...known for his love of the female form.
With regard to that particular figure, though - Kev usually makes individuals, and so while I will personally be buying that down the line, it's not really a suitable model for multiples, especially for people like me where the modelling and painting is at least as important as the gaming. If Kev does a unit of them, then I'll be on board - much like when Vic releases her modular Female Guard sets soonish. Though this doesn't mean I can't also like Raging Heroes' products.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MetalOxide wrote: I noticed that GW make some awesome female Imperial Guard...
azreal13 wrote: Again, you've slightly missed my point, unless you have some philosophical objection to the Trollblood faction in general! I meant when purchasing a model which you find to a greater or lesser degree "offensive" and altering what you have an issue with, not converting in general. […] You have an issue with the original picture, yet find some of the most overtly exploitative models I am aware of in current production amusing?
No. I didn't miss your point. You did. You completely misunderstood my position on the original picture, even though I stated it, restated it, and did that so many time I grew frustrated at repeating myself. I'm not doing that again. Certainly not if you are not giving me any hint that you are in good faith trying to understand. From now on, consider I share the traits of a couple of famous gods : like Jehovah, I work on mysterious way, and like Yog-Sothoth, I'm totally and utterly incomprehensible. Don't even try to understand what I write, you'll end up as mad as a Call of Cthulhu RPG character that survived too many sessions !
azreal13 wrote: Models I find a little close to the line, yet I'm the one who other posters have attempted to label sexist?
Yep. Also note I have twice posted pictures from a totally exploitative movie called Planet Terror, one of which main protagonist is a stripper with a machinegun attached to her stump. The movie does include some stereotypical “sexy nurse” outfits too. That's certainly another reason to label me, rather than you, a sexist. Who knows, maybe they'll do now. We'll see.
And it seems more like nationalist undertones than racial undertones. Not that hating an ethnic group is better than hating a race, but let's not make that confusion again.
easysauce wrote: and please note, no SUPER STEROID FREAKs for men as well...
Do you mean nothing like
Spoiler:
or
Spoiler:
I love
Too bad she'll integrate better in a space marines army than in a sisters of battle army.
I don't actually have a problem with cheesecake or beefcake models. Amazingly, I can always choose to buy or not buy them or to ignore them - just as I do for more sensibly attired models of both genders. My personal aesthetic has enough space for both. I really only take issue when something is, well, like the FemPred - something that's supposed to be a specific thing, and no other real options for that figure type, but has silly gigantaboobs. If, however, there was a second FemPred model with more reasonable proportions (and they could still be D-cups, just not H-cups), then I'd be sated, since there'd be an option.
As for that Hasslefree Libby - you could use her as an Inquisitorial/retinue type in a Sisters army quite easily. They don't have standardised power armour like the Sororitas or Astartes, after all.
azreal13 wrote: Again, you've slightly missed my point, unless you have some philosophical objection to the Trollblood faction in general! I meant when purchasing a model which you find to a greater or lesser degree "offensive" and altering what you have an issue with, not converting in general.
[…]
You have an issue with the original picture, yet find some of the most overtly exploitative models I am aware of in current production amusing?
No. I didn't miss your point. You did. You completely misunderstood my position on the original picture, even though I stated it, restated it, and did that so many time I grew frustrated at repeating myself. I'm not doing that again. Certainly not if you are not giving me any hint that you are in good faith trying to understand.
From now on, consider I share the traits of a couple of famous gods : like Jehovah, I work on mysterious way, and like Yog-Sothoth, I'm totally and utterly incomprehensible. Don't even try to understand what I write, you'll end up as mad as a Call of Cthulhu RPG character that survived too many sessions !
azreal13 wrote: Models I find a little close to the line, yet I'm the one who other posters have attempted to label sexist?
Yep. Also note I have twice posted pictures from a totally exploitative movie called Planet Terror, one of which main protagonist is a stripper with a machinegun attached to her stump. The movie does include some stereotypical “sexy nurse” outfits too. That's certainly another reason to label me, rather than you, a sexist.
Who knows, maybe they'll do now. We'll see.
And it seems more like nationalist undertones than racial undertones. Not that hating an ethnic group is better than hating a race, but let's not make that confusion again.
I'm aware that your objection to the original picture wasn't on the grounds of nudity per sé, but I'm somewhat surprised you can view those models, especially considering you've participated in the thread as it has developed into a wider overall discussion about women and their representation, and feel only amusement?
EDIT
Can we please leave your original argument, your failure to express it in terms that make sense to me, or my failure to comprehend it behind now? I have made an effort, but I'm afraid there seems to be a distinctly nuanced line with regard to the context of the image, and what you would have preferred to have seen in the image, which apparently has nothing to do with the boob window specifically, but I'm just not getting it, for whatever reason, and that particular dialogue isn't really relevant at this point in the ongoing discussion anyway.
Azazelx wrote: As for that Hasslefree Libby - you could use her as an Inquisitorial/retinue type in a Sisters army quite easily. They don't have standardised power armour like the Sororitas or Astartes, after all.
Noone in the Ecclesiarchal conclave have access to power armor. The best way to use her is as some allied inquisitor in power armor ! Or just as a priest, without any respect for wysiwyg. I don't think my opponents will mind. But I'm currently too busy with my trollbloods to do some sisters.
azreal13 wrote: but I'm somewhat surprised you can view those models, especially considering you've participated in the thread as it has developed into a wider overall discussion about women and their representation, and feel only amusement?
Well, first, those aren't some game models, so they are way less “enforced” than display/custom models. Yeah, I know one never have any real obligation to choose a specific unit or faction in a game, that one can use count-as, and that one can refuse to play games against some specific models if they want to. Still way less pressure with custom models than with official models linked to a game you might otherwise enjoy, in a faction you might otherwise decide to play, or might find yourself facing. Since I can totally see how it might disturb and unsettle people, especially girls and newcomers, I wouldn't like my LGS to put that miniature at the forefront of their display window, or even to allow it to be regularly used by someone as an “objective token”. And I won't personnally buy it, of course. But why cry about it, and argue against their very existence ? It's like porn : I guess it's okay that some people have porn, as long as they keep relatively quiet about it in public. Just don't rub it in other people's face ! I personally have some equally shocking tastes too, though on a very different manner, with movies like Vampire girl versus Frankenstein girl. (Please note that Vampire Girl versus Frankenstein Girl is in no conceivable way a porno, even though it does have some particularly ridiculous (NSFW and spoilers)“sexy nurse” outfit.)
Second, I don't know any more natural reaction to something extremely silly and stupid than to laugh at it . Even if it's offensive ! I also laugh a lot when reading some Chick Comics (the hardline Christian guy. Again, no porn involved !), for instance, even though it can be pretty offensive sometime. It's just too silly to be taken seriously.
azreal13 wrote: Personally, Brother Vinni's work has made me feel more uncomfortable than pretty much anything else I've seen, except maybe the Kingdom: Death Wet Nurse, in terms of subject matter/portrayal of women.
Same here. I don't really like Vinni's "victim girls" at all, and personally I'd say they're probably worse for me than anything else I've seen, even the KD wet nurse, and do far more harm than the usual "cheesecake" crap that we've been talking about. Speaking of the wet nurse, somehow that model didn't quite affect me the same way it seemed to for everyone else, it wasn't really that shocking and I don't feel that bothered by it...probably because it's a monster/demon and I just kinda expect horribleness from them in general. But when we're talking about humans doing horrific things to each other I just find that infinitely more disturbing than a multi-boobed tentacle sex monster.
As for why it hasn't been featured, well...it does kinda speak for itself. I mean do we really need anyone to explain in detail exactly what's wrong with them? If that stuff doesn't immediately set off alarm bells and make you uncomfortable in any way then there might be something wrong with you.
I guess I felt compelled to bring it up precisely to couch the FemPred in some sort of context.
While I'm sure some would protest that it is somehow different, if people believe there are women who feel obstructed from participating in this hobby because of the way females are presented in model form, citing something like the FemPred for being, at worst, disproportionate, when items like that exist in the same niche whiffs more than a bit, to me, of fiddling while Rome burns.
Maybe a little bit, yeah. Honestly I think I was just trying to forget those models even existed, but then you had to go remind me!
But yeah, I'd say there are definitely worse things than a predator with huge baps. It also goes without saying that the predator model isn't even really that bad, the breasts are the worst thing about it and even that could be excused away with "heroic scale proportions, hurr!", but I'm sure that's already been established.
It seems to me that the Predator's breast size is less of a problem than how they are displayed. I'd rather see free-sagging flap jacks than a wonderbra, although an armored sports bra would work better.
There's a reason why certain bras are not worn during sports activities:
NSFW!
Brother Vinni's "victim" line is troubling to me in a degree that the FemPredator isn't, It's not just the nudity, but the nudity + the bondage poses. There has to be a market for them, I suppose. I just wouldn't want to see them in my opponent's Dark Eldar army as objective markers or pain tokens (though thematically accurate for the drugged-out-serial-killer angle), and even painting for one display would make me feel a bit skeevy. I paint using real world references a lot, but do I really want to spend my time researching THAT?
Ouze wrote: In the lore, which may or may not be canon, they do indeed have breasts and are substantially stronger and larger than the male Predators we have seen so far. They do not normally engage in the hunt, though.
Ah, that's pretty interesting, thanks for the info.
That would have been interesting to see. Maybe even keep the breasts as a visual shorthand for the gender, but have her be bigger and bulkier than the males. I can't tell the scale from the Prodos pictures, but she looks pretty skinny there.
My favorite “victim girl” is “Ukrainian Slavegirl” because… well, because how the hell are we supposed to notice that she is Ukrainian, since she's just walking completely naked ? The only explanation for the title is that the sculptor has weird fetishes.
Basically, the head and Hairstyle is a dead ringer for a former Ukranian President, who is currently jailed for corruption on what many suspect are trumped-up charges by a Russian-controlled proxy government (I seem to remember Tulashenko or whatever her name was was rather anti-Russian Politically). Brother Vinni happens to be Russian, so it's really kinda a cheap shot.
I had missed that. It moves Brother Vinni's stuff from 'disturbing' to 'disgusting.' And I thought my opinion of him couldn't get any lower.
azreal13 wrote: While I'm sure some would protest that it is somehow different, if people believe there are women who feel obstructed from participating in this hobby because of the way females are presented in model form, citing something like the FemPred for being, at worst, disproportionate, when items like that exist in the same niche whiffs more than a bit, to me, of fiddling while Rome burns.
Well, one is part of a big set of miniatures in a very specific, already established and quite popular setting, designed for a specific game, while the others are obscure one-shot from an obscure studio.
I can imagine a girl thinking “Woah, they made some Alien versus Predator miniature game ? Awesome, let's try it.” and then having a problem with the FemPred or something. But I couldn't imagine a girl wanting to buy Brother Vinni's miniature and then, afterward, discovering it's a naked girl.
MetalOxide wrote: Vinni's work is absolutely disgusting, I don't know why anyone would want to buy his stuff.
To be fair, some of the slave girls would be useful in a Slanneshi themed army. They would also be useful in an RPG, as victims that have to rescued. My only big disapointment is the lack of similar slave boys.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, i have been after one of those pinup models for some time
I have a couple of Birdies with machine pistols from Vinnie that I use for some zombie games or moderns, they are absolutly friggin cool.
I've said time and again, for the talent, he or she is wasting it on the BDSM figures and honestly putting some uniforms on the chickies and just up and offering them at that. The mastery of the resin is stunning, compared to some. For the price, as well? Vinnies got a pretty good selection of wheat within the chaff.
I honestly thought at first that vinnie had some hands in on that female pred.
And just in case, I want to reiterate that my first and main issue about “boob windows” or other “sexy” design is that most of the time they either don't look good, or don't integrate well with the rest of the universe and/or the nature of the character. If reducing it to case it's actually relevant happens makes more girls interested in gaming, that's nothing but an awesome side-effect.
(And also, Brother Vinni's models are to GW's models what RapeLay is to Blizzard games. Definitely not at all the same games, scales, audiences, and therefore totally different questions. One is clearly designed by and for creeps only, one is mainstream. The AvP kickstarter may not be as mainstream as 40k, but surely it's not comparable in any way to a creepy game whose only focus is raping.)
And just in case, I want to reiterate that my first and main issue about “boob windows” or other “sexy” design is that most of the time they either don't look good, or don't integrate well with the rest of the universe and/or the nature of the character. If reducing it to case it's actually relevant happens makes more girls interested in gaming, that's nothing but an awesome side-effect.
(And also, Brother Vinni's models are to GW's models what RapeLay is to Blizzard games. Definitely not at all the same games, scales, audiences, and therefore totally different questions. One is clearly designed by and for creeps only, one is mainstream. The AvP kickstarter may not be as mainstream as 40k, but surely it's not comparable in any way to a creepy game whose only focus is raping.)
O.o ?
That is called a formal fallacy. Thanks for the example.
The difference with the majority of those Excalibur minis (at least, as far as I can tell from the lousy photography) is that while they are undoubtedly NSFW, and overtly sexual, they differ from Vinni's (or at least the ones that give me pause) in there isn't really a sadistic edge, most have either a consensual, or even humorous edge to them (I'll admit to not trolling through every model on every page though, so might have missed some slightly edgier ones.)
Lets see. I play Warmachine. My faction is Menoth. They have a unit called Wracks. They look like this.
Mine look like this.
Yup, I added breasts to one of them. Why? Because I wanted one to be female and felt there was no reason why she should cover up if the males in the exact same predicament didn't have to. Does it make me a perv? Donno. I don't feel like a perv. I wanted one to be female so I made one female. With no head to speak of, there is very little else anatomy wise you can do to show that one is female.
And thats the rub. in Minitures there are only two ways to depict the female form. Head and boobs. Thats it. Even tight asses can easily belong to both genders. But heads and breasts are the dead give a ways. So you want female guardsmen? Take your normal guardsmen, go to pig iron minis and buy a bunch of female heads. Ta-da. Female guardsmen. Because I have seen my fair share of real life females in body armor. The breasts go away. They really do. So that leaves heads, and there are quite a few places that can supply those.
azreal13 wrote: The difference with the majority of those Excalibur minis (at least, as far as I can tell from the lousy photography) is that while they are undoubtedly NSFW, and overtly sexual, they differ from Vinni's (or at least the ones that give me pause) in there isn't really a sadistic edge, most have either a consensual, or even humorous edge to them (I'll admit to not trolling through every model on every page though, so might have missed some slightly edgier ones.)
They also are not supposed to be serious soldiers, commanders or heroes. Those models represent women (and men? didn't look at too many.) who have a good reason to be naked, assuming everything is consensual. Now, if they were supposed to be player characters on a quest or frontline troops, and they were mostly sexualized, then it wouldn't be appropriate.
azreal13 wrote: The difference with the majority of those Excalibur minis (at least, as far as I can tell from the lousy photography) is that while they are undoubtedly NSFW, and overtly sexual, they differ from Vinni's (or at least the ones that give me pause) in there isn't really a sadistic edge, most have either a consensual, or even humorous edge to them (I'll admit to not trolling through every model on every page though, so might have missed some slightly edgier ones.)
Well, there are also S&M, bondage, torture mini's in there, they have been around for a while, so some look somewhat comical.
But the point is that these miniatures do exactly metaloxide finds offensive.
Vinni's girls are just in shackles, i see nothing sexual they could be used for a slave market as well as a S&M bondage diorama (or for a slanees sacrifice ) depending purely on the intentions of the dioarama maker.
Those from Excaliber well that should be clear
Here in Japan there is a (un)healthy market of gachapon and normal size figures of bondage and semi rape poses.
Jehan-reznor wrote: Here in Japan there is a (un)healthy market of gachapon and normal size figures of bondage and semi rape poses.
Yeah, but seriously, Japan. I mean, it's well known as the country of fethed-up porn. Let's not even mention all the horrible, terrible porn stuff that comes from Japan, for our sanities' sake !
Jehan-reznor wrote: Here in Japan there is a (un)healthy market of gachapon and normal size figures of bondage and semi rape poses.
Yeah, but seriously, Japan. I mean, it's well known as the country of fethed-up porn. Let's not even mention all the horrible, terrible porn stuff that comes from Japan, for our sanities' sake !
But it is a very valid point, in that different cultures, as well as individuals, have a different benchmark when it comes to what's acceptable with regard to the subject.
For instance, there is a whole subtext that could be applied to Vinni's models, considering the geographical context, with regard to human trafficking. I'm not saying that's the case, indeed I'm not saying whether it is satire, exploitation, protest or whatever, but it is something that a European might project onto the sculpt that someone in Asia may not pick up on.
azreal13 wrote: but it is something that a European might project onto the sculpt that someone in Asia may not pick up on.
Maybe. But I'ld like to point out that Japan's closest neighbor (culturally), like Korea and China, are way, way more conservative ! Porn is just forbidden in South Korea (I know because of some very funny news about how since distributing porn is illegal, porn companies were unable to take legal action against people that illegally downloaded their video. I thought it was hilarious.), and I'm pretty sure China is also very conservative.
Japan, on the other hand, has a bunch of quite strict rules, and very inventive ways to circumvent them for horrible, horrible results !
(The simple fact I know that is proof I spend way too much time on the internet for my own good !)
Grot 6 wrote: O.o I guess when you go in slow, you should go full on slow.
Oh, come on ! I was just kidding you.
Grot 6 wrote: THESE are the figs by the way. Don't let them get in the way of your virtual huff and puff.
They just look like normal skinhead-girl models. [edit]Though, to make the perfect skinhead girl model, I'd take the baseball bat, shoes, pants and suspenders (no suspenders : not a real skinhead !!!) from the first one, and the shirt (which should go all the way into the pants ! But at least we have the collar, it's quite important !), and haircut from the second one. Skinheads !!![/edit]Nothing cringe-worthy about them. But I thought we were talking about this “victim girls” category.
Automatically Appended Next Post: OMFG, my new grade is AWESOME !
azreal13 wrote: but it is something that a European might project onto the sculpt that someone in Asia may not pick up on.
Maybe. But I'ld like to point out that Japan's closest neighbor (culturally), like Korea and China, are way, way more conservative ! Porn is just forbidden in South Korea (I know because of some very funny news about how since distributing porn is illegal, porn companies were unable to take legal action against people that illegally downloaded their video. I thought it was hilarious.), and I'm pretty sure China is also very conservative.
Japan, on the other hand, has a bunch of quite strict rules, and very inventive ways to circumvent them for horrible, horrible results !
(The simple fact I know that is proof I spend way too much time on the internet for my own good !)
But that's just explicit sexual imagery.
The countries you mention have some fairly different cultural norms about women in society when viewed through a Western lens, so while the nudity may be more of an issue, the depiction of women as slaves and victims is potentially less likely to have the impact it had on me for instance, because women are, or have been in recent history, very much second tier in many Far East/Asian countries.
Maybe. But I'ld like to point out that Japan's closest neighbor (culturally), like Korea and China, are way, way more conservative !
Wow talk about a massively broad and uninformed statement. Do you feel that Spain and Germany have cultures similar to France simply because they neighbor each other? Or that Scotland, Ireland, and England are all happy bedfellows?
Korea, China and Japan are very different culturally. Go ahead and ask an Asian how much they like to be lumped into the same category with their neighboring countries and you'll likely get punched in the face. They have a lot of bad blood with the neighboring countries and have some rather extreme prejudices towards neighboring nationals. They are far more divided on cultural ideals and standards than most European countries are.
Maybe. But I'ld like to point out that Japan's closest neighbor (culturally), like Korea and China, are way, way more conservative !
Wow talk about a massively broad and uninformed statement. Do you feel that Spain and Germany have cultures similar to France simply because they neighbor each other? Or that Scotland, Ireland, and England are all happy bedfellows?
Korea, China and Japan are very different culturally. Go ahead and ask an Asian how much they like to be lumped into the same category with their neighboring countries and you'll likely get punched in the face. They have a lot of bad blood with the neighboring countries and have some rather extreme prejudices towards neighboring nationals. They are far more divided on cultural ideals and standards than most European countries are.
Heck, South Korea's closest neighbour is North Korea, and we should really treat those as the same thing, right?
Maybe. But I'ld like to point out that Japan's closest neighbor (culturally), like Korea and China, are way, way more conservative !
Wow talk about a massively broad and uninformed statement. Do you feel that Spain and Germany have cultures similar to France simply because they neighbor each other? Or that Scotland, Ireland, and England are all happy bedfellows?
Korea, China and Japan are very different culturally. Go ahead and ask an Asian how much they like to be lumped into the same category with their neighboring countries and you'll likely get punched in the face. They have a lot of bad blood with the neighboring countries and have some rather extreme prejudices towards neighboring nationals. They are far more divided on cultural ideals and standards than most European countries are.
Thats a very inflammatory and needlessly pessimistic statement. England, Ireland, and Scotland are happy bedfellows thanks very much. Exactly what about their relationship makes you think that they arent? Does the occasional political disagreement sit happily alongside genocide and death?
I dont see how occasionally arguing about the football and the borders while happily drinking together in taverns and fething each other counts as being locked in perpetual war. Its hardly fething Slaanesh vs Grey Knights is it?
paulson games wrote: Do you feel that Spain and Germany have cultures similar to France simply because they neighbor each other?
No. I feel that Spain and Germany have cultures similar to France because there has been A LOT of cultural exchanges for, say, the last thousand years at least. Well, of course being close neighbor helped, but still, I think France is culturally closer to Russia or the United States of America than to Turkey or Egypt, so it's not just a question of distance. That's why I didn't add Russia to the list, even though Japan territory overlaps with Russia (in the Kuril Islands) just like it does with Korea (in Liancourt rocks) and China (in the Pinnacle islands). Japan sure knows how to have a lot of territory overlap .
paulson games wrote: Or that Scotland, Ireland, and England are all happy bedfellows?
Being culturally close is definitely not the same as being happy bedfellow. See all kind of civil wars and revolutions as an example. Heck, I'm pretty sure most wars happens between countries that are fairly close culturally. Just because nobody usually goes on the other side of the globe to have war against someone they usually have absolutely no contact with (and when they do, the war usually ends pretty quick and it's called colonization ).
paulson games wrote: Go ahead and ask an Asian how much they like to be lumped into the same category with their neighboring countries and you'll likely get punched in the face.
Depends on how you say it. Ask some Chinese if Korean and Japanese cultures were influenced by the glorious Chinese culture, I'm pretty sure you'd get a much more enthusiastic result than if you ask him if he has the same cultural identity as Korean and Japanese people. Each country does have its particularities and uniqueness, but they still have influenced each other quite a bit over their history. Really, Asians may be quite nationalistic and maybe even chauvinistic sometime, but they are not stupid. They are not out to deny obvious truth, they just rather have it presented in ways that glorifies their country rather than ways they would deem derogatory. For instance, Korea used to write in a Chinese alphabet until quite late actually (and even then, when hangeul was introduced, it wasn't greatly considered. I have seen some old signs in Seoul National University that were still using Chinese characters. Nowaday, Hangeul is more of a national pride, though ). Japanese Kanji also burrowed quite a lot from Chinese ideograms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Asian_cultural_sphere
Depends on how you say it. Ask some Chinese if Korean and Japanese cultures were influenced by the glorious Chinese culture, I'm pretty sure you'd get a much more enthusiastic result than if you ask him if he has the same cultural identity as Korean and Japanese people. Each country does have its particularities and uniqueness, but they still have influenced each other quite a bit over their history.
Really, Asians may be quite nationalistic and maybe even chauvinistic sometime, but they are not stupid. They are not out to deny obvious truth, they just rather have it presented in ways that glorifies their country rather than ways they would deem derogatory.
For instance, Korea used to write in a Chinese alphabet until quite late actually (and even then, when hangeul was introduced, it wasn't greatly considered. I have seen some old signs in Seoul National University that were still using Chinese characters. Nowaday, Hangeul is more of a national pride, though ). Japanese Kanji also burrowed quite a lot from Chinese ideograms.
In areas of Japan they have plenty of signs and names using English characters. There's been a huge exchange of ideas and influences with the US for well over a hundred years, yet our two countries are not culturally similar. Hong Kong likewise has a tradition of freely intermixing in English and Chinese, but they certainly aren't the same culture as England. You can have lots of shared influences but remain very much apart in how the national identities perceive themselves and act. The written languages have some shared ancestry but that does not mean they should be treated the same. Most Europeans share languages based on Latin roots but that's not grounds to say all Europeans are culturally similar because their alphabets use the same characters.
There is a lot of exchanges between China, Korea, and Japan, but that doesn't mean that you can say x holds true in Korea so it should also be the same in Japan or China.
In a similar vein the US and Mexico share a border and have a fairly decent relationship, there's a lot of exchanges that take place and but I don't think you'll find many people who believe that our cultures are all that similar. There's areas in the southern US where Spanish is as common as English (or more) and we share a lot of the same foods and there's some mixing with US & Mexican/Spanish ideas, but politically, religiously, and culturally there's still a very big divide.
While there are some shared commonalities in France, The UK, and Germany there are many things that set them distinctly apart as a culture and I wouldn't be foolish enough to say they are the same culturally just because they have a shared alphabet or have a few shared customs. The US is an offshoot of England and we have some common culture, language, and we get along politically but we are also very different culturally.
paulson games wrote: The US is an offshoot of England and we have some common culture, language, and we get along politically but we are also very different culturally.
I disagree with you there as well, I live here now and made the transition entirely seamlessly, my missus lived in the UK for four years and did the same, exactly how do you think we are "very" different culturally?
We are almost totally identical, I think you are confusing individuality with culture. Sure if you take a very right wing, conservative from America, and introduce him to a very left leaning socialist from Britain you will think they are different, but if you introduce him to a very right wing conservative from England, they will be almost totally identical.
Our cultures are almost totally the same, we work, we spend time with our families, we relax, and we do all of these things the exact same way. We watch sports, we drink, we go for walks, we watch music, we practice the same religions, or lack of religions, we even celebrate the same holidays, and I've even seen (much to the amusement of my missus!) a pub with a banner outside celebrating "Independence Day" in London!
I also read about someone getting arrested today back home during a Black Friday sale. The modern digital age has ushered in a new age of understanding and cooperation, far from being culturally different, we are almost totally identical, I don't feel it is different in any major way walking around a big British city or a big Canadian city or a big American city in 2013.
Culturally, the United States is almost totally identical to every other nation in the Anglosphere, if you say otherwise, you are confusing the very different views people have of the political spectrum with the generic overriding culture of a nation.
Go have a walk around Afghanistan if you want to bask in a different culture, not Ontario, London, or Christchurch.
paulson games wrote: The US is an offshoot of England and we have some common culture, language, and we get along politically but we are also very different culturally.
I disagree with you there as well, I live here now and made the transition entirely seamlessly, my missus lived in the UK for four years and did the same, exactly how do you think we are "very" different culturally?
Lots of cowboys 'round London I take?
Our cultures are almost totally the same, we work, we spend time with our families, we relax, and we do all of these things the exact same way. We watch sports, we drink, we go for walks, we watch music, we practice the same religions, or lack of religions, we even celebrate the same holidays, and I've even seen (much to the amusement of my missus!) a pub with a banner outside celebrating "Independence Day" in London!
That's a really wide definition as it pretty much covers anyone on the planet. Worldwide people work, spend time with their families, watch sports, walk, listen to music etc, so we're all 100% the same right?
Do you know the difference between bars, saloons, lounges and pubs? While they are common in serving drinks each caters to a different type of presentation and cultural atmosphere. The typical English pub is a very different atmosphere than that of a western style cowboy saloon, the customs are different the music is different. Even though the same language is spoken in both and get people drunk they are each their own unique experience. (ie culture)
paulson games wrote: The US is an offshoot of England and we have some common culture, language, and we get along politically but we are also very different culturally.
I disagree with you there as well, I live here now and made the transition entirely seamlessly, my missus lived in the UK for four years and did the same, exactly how do you think we are "very" different culturally?
Lots of cowboys 'round London I take?
Our cultures are almost totally the same, we work, we spend time with our families, we relax, and we do all of these things the exact same way. We watch sports, we drink, we go for walks, we watch music, we practice the same religions, or lack of religions, we even celebrate the same holidays, and I've even seen (much to the amusement of my missus!) a pub with a banner outside celebrating "Independence Day" in London!
That's a really wide definition as it pretty much covers anyone on the planet. Worldwide people work, spend time with their families, watch sports, walk, listen to music etc, so we're all 100% the same right?
Do you know the difference between bars, saloons, lounges and pubs? While they are common in serving drinks each caters to a different type of presentation and cultural atmosphere. The typical English pub is a very different atmosphere than that of a western style cowboy saloon, the customs are different the music is different. Even though the same language is spoken in both and get people drunk they are each their own unique experience. (ie culture)
Not to pile on, but the culture within the United States varies greatly from North to South, coast to coast and region to region. Just within my own state, Philadelphia and Lancaster are easily distinguishable by the people and their attitudes.
The notion that London is the same as any given American city is rather easily foreclosed simply by spending some time just in cities on the East Coast. No offense, but if one cannot distinguish between the cultural elements of Miami, Orlando, Washington, DC, New York and Boston... well, then the sensitivity of the measurement is so course as to be meaningless.
Not to pile on, but the culture within the United States varies greatly from North to South, coast to coast and region to region. Just within my own state, Philadelphia and Lancaster are easily distinguishable by the people and their attitudes.
I agree 100% the US has a pretty diverse culture to it, the regions within the US vary a lot even though we're all Americans. It's even noticeable in or around major cities, there is a very different behavior pattern (culture) when you compare somebody from the major city to neighboring suburbs or rural areas. There's also a noticeable variety of cultures within the city itself depending on if somebody is in the uptown areas or they are from less affluent areas of the city or the hood. People from NY proper and people from Brooklyn or Queens are usually very different.
That holds true in most other areas of the world, people in a large city will typically act and think quite a bit differently than somebody who lives in a rural area.
People can always adapt to a new culture and become part of it, but that takes time. If you take some Cowboy from Austin and drop them in the center of Harlem NY it'll be pretty obvious that he sticks out like a sore thumb.
Take the same poses and situations and make them men.
Wonder if we would be having this discussion?
The only unfair thing with this is there is not much of a taboo for men "topless".
I think also he is aiming for a market.
I would really like to see how many women would want a miniature of a "slave/captured guy".
They are well sculpted, just the consistent topless pose is rather um... obvious.
paulson games wrote: The US is an offshoot of England and we have some common culture, language, and we get along politically but we are also very different culturally.
I disagree with you there as well, I live here now and made the transition entirely seamlessly, my missus lived in the UK for four years and did the same, exactly how do you think we are "very" different culturally?
Lots of cowboys 'round London I take?
A pointlessly facetious comment, does everything here have to turn into an aggressive debate? Regardless, I have been in California for 4 weeks and I have spent months in New York, Virginia, and Washington, I havent seen a single one in any of those places either, so lets stop being silly eh? Why ask me a question when you know the answer?
Do you know the difference between bars, saloons, lounges and pubs? While they are common in serving drinks each caters to a different type of presentation and cultural atmosphere. The typical English pub is a very different atmosphere than that of a western style cowboy saloon, the customs are different the music is different. Even though the same language is spoken in both and get people drunk they are each their own unique experience. (ie culture)
Yes I do, no big difference. The fact of the matter is, you obviously haven't spent much time in the far flung places of the world if you think that the UK and US have vastly different cultures. These cowboy places you are talking about are as different from California or New York as they are from London or Ontario, does that mean that different states in the exact same country have "hugely" different cultures? Of course they don't. They have small, nuanced differences, we clearly take a different meaning of the word "very different"
I have spent more time than most abroad, in very strict Muslim cultures they are "very" different, because you have to learn things before you go. There is even a whole page on wikipedia about middle eastern etiquette, they teach you all of these things before you go with the service, don't speak to the women, don't look at this or that, don't show your feet to people, dont use certain hands to do certain things, flashing your thumbs up is an offensive insult, different headwears have different meanings, etc etc etc
What does an American need to learn before he goes to Scotland? What does an Australian need to learn before he goes to America?
Ill tell you, absolutely feth all.
You rock up, and say "alright lads, lets go to the pub" and they say "great dude, lets go" there is absolutely no requirement to learn anything, or adjust your behavior in any way.
Tiny little nuances, but thats it. Perhaps we watch a different sport, or we drink a different beer, but that is the end of it. We do the exact same gak to relax, and we talk about the exact same gak, in this day and age, we even shop in the exact same shops, wear the exact same clohtes, listen to the exact same music, watch the exact same movies, and lust after the exact same women.
Im struggling to see where you are getting the "very" from.
Not to pile on, but the culture within the United States varies greatly from North to South, coast to coast and region to region. Just within my own state, Philadelphia and Lancaster are easily distinguishable by the people and their attitudes.
I agree 100% the US has a pretty diverse culture to it, the regions within the US vary a lot even though we're all Americans. It's even noticeable in or around major cities, there is a very different behavior pattern (culture) when you compare somebody from the major city to neighboring suburbs or rural areas. There's also a noticeable variety of cultures within the city itself depending on if somebody is in the uptown areas or they are from less affluent areas of the city or the hood. People from NY proper and people from Brooklyn or Queens are usually very different.
That holds true in most other areas of the world, people in a large city will typically act and think quite a bit differently than somebody who lives in a rural area.
People can always adapt to a new culture and become part of it, but that takes time. If you take some Cowboy from Austin and drop them in the center of Harlem NY it'll be pretty obvious that he sticks out like a sore thumb.
Indeed. It's always mystifying when people act as if "Americans" are a monolithic cultural block. To imagine that the entire Anglosphere is one homogeneous culture? At that point one might as well wonder what the person making the statement is even trying to measure.
You mention a cowboy from Austin, but that's a great example of how different even within one state people can be: a Texan will quickly tell you that there is a very big difference between Austin and Houston in terms of the people!
Indeed. It's always mystifying when people act as if "Americans" are a monolithic cultural block. To imagine that the entire Anglosphere is one homogeneous culture? At that point one might as well wonder what the person making the statement is even trying to measure.
You mention a cowboy from Austin, but that's a great example of how different even within one state people can be: a Texan will quickly tell you that there is a very big difference between Austin and Houston in terms of the people!
So where do you draw a line then? My wife likes Sprite, I like Coke, does that make us "very different" culturally?
The line simply seems to be in what we class as very different, I am not some kind of hippy who thinks the entire world is one big love fest because we are all identical, but clearly the bar is set at a different level for everyone, and having spent years in Asia and the Middle East, I see only miniscule differences between the cultures around the English speaking world, and indeed, only slightly larger ones between the UK/US and Western Europe as a whole when compared with other places.
YMMV obviously, but the utterly seamless and entirely effortless integration between the UK/US and vice versa that I and my wife have gone through in the last 5 years seems to make a mockery of the idea we have very different cultures.
As I said, define "very different" well for me, and we may wind up singing off the same hymn sheet.
mattyrm wrote: I have spent more time than most abroad, in very strict Muslim cultures they are "very" different, because you have to learn things before you go. There is even a whole page on wikipedia about middle eastern etiquette, they teach you all of these things before you go with the service, don't speak to the women, don't look at this or that, don't show your feet to people, dont use certain hands to do certain things, flashing your thumbs up is an offensive insult, different headwears have different meanings, etc etc etc
Not unlike going to several of the "urban areas" or hoods in the US where wearing certain colors, style of head ware, tattoos, or using the wrong handshake will get you shot or stabbed. You'll also find different social conventions used in back wood locations where good old boys have their own etiquette codes, etc. You don't need to travel half a world away to find other local cultures that vary a lot from your own. There's plenty of books written on understanding those cultures as well.
mattyrm wrote: I have spent more time than most abroad, in very strict Muslim cultures they are "very" different, because you have to learn things before you go. There is even a whole page on wikipedia about middle eastern etiquette, they teach you all of these things before you go with the service, don't speak to the women, don't look at this or that, don't show your feet to people, dont use certain hands to do certain things, flashing your thumbs up is an offensive insult, different headwears have different meanings, etc etc etc
Not unlike going to several of the "urban areas" or hoods in the US where wearing certain colors, style of head ware, tattoos, or using the wrong handshake will get you shot or stabbed. You'll also find different social conventions used in back wood locations where good old boys have their own etiquette codes, etc. You don't need to travel half a world away to find other local cultures that vary a lot from your own. There's plenty of books written on understanding those cultures as well.
Well obviously yeah, but your starting to clutch at straws there, whats that got to do with anything? We were talking about different countries, then different states, now you are talking about how very different the place around the corner is! Were massively off topic, so lets just draw a line under it and say that the term very different means different things to different people shall we? After spending a deal of time in Asia and the middle east, I do not find Western cultures in general to be very different at all, and you do. It means different things to different people, and if you think British culture is very different to American, then thats your right to do so, but matty and his very American missus certainly don't, and she had zero adjusting to do when she moved to the UK, perhaps you would struggle, I'm sure the term means different things to different people, but personally I see no major differences between any of the English speaking nations of the modern world.
It's whether you concentrate on the 10% that is very different or the 90% that's damn near identical when comparing European/European derived cultures.
Oriental culture vs Western culture is different down to its boots.
There seem to be an awful lot of Americans defining "different culture" as simply using different terms for a soft drink. The differences between DC and London - or between DC and Dallas, for that matter - are pretty insignificant in comparison to the differences between DC and Kandahar.
Seaward wrote: There seem to be an awful lot of Americans defining "different culture" as simply using different terms for a soft drink. The differences between DC and London - or between DC and Dallas, for that matter - are pretty insignificant in comparison to the differences between DC and Kandahar.
Aye pretty much what I was getting at, I fit right in over here.
paulson games wrote: In areas of Japan they have plenty of signs and names using English characters.
In Seoul too. But don't push it and try to speak English with most people . Been there, tried that, doesn't work ! I had an easier time speaking English in Iran. But I must confess I mostly met family or family's friend there, while I was all by my own in Seoul.
paulson games wrote: There's been a huge exchange of ideas and influences with the US for well over a hundred years
Well over a thousand years ? I would have said about 68 years .
paulson games wrote: Most Europeans share languages based on Latin roots but that's not grounds to say all Europeans are culturally similar because their alphabets use the same characters.
I feel like most Europeans are fairly similar.
paulson games wrote: There is a lot of exchanges between China, Korea, and Japan, but that doesn't mean that you can say x holds true in Korea so it should also be the same in Japan or China.
And I never said so. On the contrary, I think all this discussion started when I pointed out that grotesque, horrible porn fetishes is quite unique to Japan, and that it puts Japan apart from China and Japan. But you reacted by telling me that this was a “broad and uniformed statement”, because I mentioned China and Korea were Japan's closest cultural neighbor. Which is not even saying they are close, it's just saying there are no countries that are closer. If you feel some country is closer culturally to Japan than Korea and China, please name it !
paulson games wrote: While there are some shared commonalities in France, The UK, and Germany there are many things that set them distinctly apart as a culture and I wouldn't be foolish enough to say they are the same culturally just because they have a shared alphabet or have a few shared customs. The US is an offshoot of England and we have some common culture, language, and we get along politically but we are also very different culturally.
So, I guess we both agree that Japan, China and Korea are as close culturally to each other as, say, France, UK and Germany. Wherever we should call this being very close, or being very different.
(I hope my use of wherever here is correct here. I'm not sure this word means what I think it means, but I can't find the right one !)
Talizvar wrote: Take the same poses and situations and make them men.
Wonder if we would be having this discussion?
I'm sorry, is your question “If there were a few models and illustration of men with cleavage, boob windows and T&A pose, would we be having a discussion on the representation of women in miniature games” ? Or is it “If we gender-reversed every model and illustration, would we wonder why male are so few, and so uniform in their body shape, … while women are so prevalent, with so much more variety” ? Or are you talking about Brother Vinni's miniature only, and wondering how we would react to some model of a nude guy with a huge member holding a bazooka, and to a section called “victim boys” ? Or maybe something else entirely ?
What does an American need to learn before he goes to Scotland? What does an Australian need to learn before he goes to America?
Ill tell you, absolutely feth all.
What does an American need to know about Scotland? Plenty. Try Glasgow. Wrong accent/name and football strip in the wrong bar and you're in for a good chance of getting your head kicked in. Especially if their team lost. I'm serious, the sectarianism between Celtic and rangers fans can get that bad, that I, as an Irishman will not enter any bar that's flying the blue and white.
Try Northern Ireland. Even worse. To the extent that you should be extremely wary about giving your surname to folks.Just in case. You laugh, but I've got close friends who grew up in the north, and refuse to go back. I grew up hearing on the news about daily car bombings, shootings and knee cappings. That's not gone. There is 'peace' but there is a lot of anger below the surface. The communities are still divided along their fault lines. The levels of animosity, bitterness and anger is serious. It's been there for four hundred years. People know the hate, and they live their lives and die by it. Some towns are incredibly intimidating and full on and obvious about it with the flags that they fly. Everywhere. If you're from the side that flies the other flags, you really don't wan to be stuck there. Laugh all you want but it is extremely intimidating. Or if you say or do the wrong thing, or ask the wrong question (debates on politics or religion are simply out) and you're sticking your neck out.
Now saying all that, it's not a lawless warzone. You'll probably be ok. But absolutely everyone will tell you to be extremely wary. So as an american, let me tell you you've got plenty to learn about.
Deadnight wrote: What does an American need to know about Scotland? Plenty. Try Glasgow. Wrong accent/name and football strip in the wrong bar and you're in for a good chance of getting your head kicked in. Especially if their team lost. I'm serious, the sectarianism between Celtic and rangers fans can get that bad, that I, as an Irishman will not enter any bar that's flying the blue and white.
Try Northern Ireland. Even worse. To the extent that you should be extremely wary about giving your surname to folks.Just in case. You laugh, but I've got close friends who grew up in the north, and refuse to go back. I grew up hearing on the news about daily car bombings, shootings and knee cappings. That's not gone. There is 'peace' but there is a lot of anger below the surface. The communities are still divided along their fault lines. The levels of animosity, bitterness and anger is serious. It's been there for four hundred years. People know the hate, and they live their lives and die by it. Some towns are incredibly intimidating and full on and obvious about it with the flags that they fly. Everywhere. If you're from the side that flies the other flags, you really don't wan to be stuck there. Laugh all you want but it is extremely intimidating. Or if you say or do the wrong thing, or ask the wrong question (debates on politics or religion are simply out) and you're sticking your neck out.
Now saying all that, it's not a lawless warzone. You'll probably be ok. But absolutely everyone will tell you to be extremely wary. So as an american, let me tell you you've got plenty to learn about.
Or in some cases which part of the North you're from
Or in some cases which part of the North you're from
I'm not disagreeing. All I know is every time I pass through, I'm extremely wary and watchful. Most folks will be fine. Let's be clear about this. Most folks will be fine. But sadly, even considering this, there are still too many people that can't let the hate die, and refuse to end the 'war'.
And the thing is, they're not exactly definable by exact geographic locations. Better be wary, wherever you are. I'm not sure where you grew up, or what you're experiences are of the situation in the north, but mine are ones of 'just be careful, and watch what you say to everyone'. Don't mention sports, politics or religion either.
paulson games wrote: There's been a huge exchange of ideas and influences with the US for well over a hundred years
Well over a thousand years ? I would have said about 68 years .
The American Navy has had a major presence in Japan since the 1850's. (so a bit closer to 160 years). The US was a huge influence in Japan becoming a modernized power and building their pre-war navy. A lot of the senior Japanese naval officers were trained in US military academies or by liaisons that were sent to Japan to work with building the Imperial Army and Imperial Navy.
It may not be the lengthy run of fighting with Korea and China but a 160 year period is not a short stint of time either.
What does an American need to know about Scotland? Plenty. Try Glasgow.
Yup. Most travel agencies and even the US state department will give you plenty of information for places like Glasgow before you are allowed to travel there as there are a lot of nuances to the local culture you need to know if you want to be safe. It might not be as extreme as going to Somalia Afghanistan but it's certainly not someplace the average Joe should go uninformed.
Seaward wrote: So I diced with danger and didn't even know it. I'm even more of a badass than I thought I was.
Yeah, clearly half of the boards users don't actually know what culture is. This for example...
Yup. Most travel agencies and even the US state department will give you plenty of information for places like Glasgow before you are allowed to travel there as there are a lot of nuances to the local culture you need to know if you want to be safe. It might not be as extreme as going to Somalia Afghanistan but it's certainly not someplace the average Joe should go uninformed.
Is laugh out loud funny. Have you ever even been to the UK?
And even if you actually were likely to get a good kicking if god forbid, you dared to brazenly walk around such a bizarre and alien place as Glasgow without being thoroughly educated by the United States State Department, it still doesn't have anything at all to do with culture, it has something to do with daft gak like sectarianism and football hooliganism, oh and most importantly, booze.
The fact that every nation has stupid people who get drunk and fill people in occasionally, has literally nothing at all to do with culture, and even if every single time you went walking around Glasgow you would be brutally assaulted for not working out the staggeringly complicated nuances of "not pissing the local nutters off" it still wouldnt make Scotland culturally different from the United States in any significant way.
Seriously, if you want to think of yourself as some sort of jet setting travel hound because you went to Scotland for a fortnight, you are entitled to do so, but you really havent visited anywhere that is culturally different to the United States.
Well said Matty. I am currently failing to see how Scotland is any more dangerous than any other first world city. Sure, we Scottish (or part, in my case) have a reputation. A Hollywood reputation. There is no real difference in danger between Glasgow and, say, New York. Infact, given the population size, Glasgow is probably safer.
What does an American need to know about Scotland? Plenty. Try Glasgow.
Yup. Most travel agencies and even the US state department will give you plenty of information for places like Glasgow before you are allowed to travel there as there are a lot of nuances to the local culture you need to know if you want to be safe. It might not be as extreme as going to Somalia Afghanistan but it's certainly not someplace the average Joe should go uninformed.
Being a Glasgow native I don't think there's any information I'd give any tourists that concern safety that are unique to Glasgow. Yes there are some rivalries that exist but it'd be rare for a foreigner to get caught up in, and that could easily be summed up as "be careful with your surroundings, and no football (soccer) colours".
Culturally, as an American, you'd get on fine in Glasgow (Glasgae). You've got a common history and culture. Now try visiting Cairo instead; they have different traffic systems, writing systems, majority religions, histories and even toilets. You don't want to accidentally end up in a local Egyptian toilet, because you'll probably not know what to do. At least in Glasgow you can figure everything out or just ask.
I'm offended by feminist double standards. A woman in a loincloth makes as much sense as a man in a loincloth. You don't appreciate the male or female form so you don't notice the half naked men and get offended by the half naked women. It's a primarily heterosexual male hobby. Fan service if it enters into the equation (not so much for Games Workshop) tends to reflect that.
You're basically just arguing for more conservative standards under the banner of progress. Models and art only need to be justified in their own reality. Not ours. If a repentia is fit and naked with a big sword that's appropriate because she's being humbled and shamed by her nudity on the way to certain death in battle for her failures. If an inquisitor shows cleavage that's how she dresses. Since when is showing the throat and collar in bad taste? Her erogenous nipples are well concealed. There's not a hint of her crotch or bottom.
She's a tough independent woman and she's in charge making decisions and her gender doesn't enter that. Men in the setting usually kowtow to some authority, often female. I think Warhammer is liberal enough without intentionally going out of it's way for equal representation.
paulson games wrote: The American Navy has had a major presence in Japan since the 1850's. (so a bit closer to 160 years). The US was a huge influence in Japan becoming a modernized power and building their pre-war navy. A lot of the senior Japanese naval officers were trained in US military academies or by liaisons that were sent to Japan to work with building the Imperial Army and Imperial Navy.
Oh, my bad. I thought Japan's isolation period had ended way later than that.
I'm offended by people not reading a few pages of the thread before posting.
Col. Tartleton wrote: If a repentia is fit and naked with a big sword that's appropriate because she's being humbled and shamed by her nudity on the way to certain death in battle for her failures.
Yeah, I'm so much offended by repentia being naked that my avatar comes from what is as far as I know the only official 40k illustration showing a naked human breast .
If an Inquisitor wears a boob window, it is ridiculous looking, and stupid. In other not totally unrelated news, if an Inquisitor wears a bandana and a cap, it is ridiculous looking and stupid. And it has nothing to do with feminism, does it ?
Also, some things are perfectly fit for this kind of fan service. For instance, Rodriguez movies are awesome, and they do include a lot of pretty ladies. Others are not. For instance, 40k. 40k is where you ought to find stuff that, especially when naked, look horrible and repulsive, not attractive. Like my avatar .
To be fair, that isn't a "boob window" it an entirely normal looking dress.
If she was absolutely hanging out of it, I could understand the complaints, but its a normal bit of cleavage on a normal bit of evening wear.
Its been said plenty of times already, but there are heaps of better examples of needless tit, dripping about that picture only serves to make feminists look needlessly pedantic, and I say this as a bloke who concedes that in many cases they take the piss.
KDM is ridiculous, needless and senseless nudity is ridiculous (Brother Vinni) but that picture is just.. so far away from being offensive I don't even know where to start.
mattyrm wrote: To be fair, that isn't a "boob window" it an entirely normal looking dress.
There is cloth above, below and all around the cleavage. I call that a boob window. Just like that :
Spoiler:
mattyrm wrote: dripping about that picture only serves to make feminists look needlessly pedantic
Except to people that actually read my post enough to know there is no feminism aspect in my complaint.
mattyrm wrote: but that picture is just.. so far away from being offensive I don't even know where to start.
Then it is a good thing I only called it “ridiculous looking, and stupid”. And not, never ever offensive.
I trust it is possible to be ridiculous looking and stupid while not being offensive, is it not ?
Except to people that actually read my post enough to know there is no feminism aspect in my complaint.
Then just shut up, please.
Representation of women in games is an actual (somewhat) serious issue, and some of us care about it.
If this is not about feminism, then it is only about your personal preferences regarding what you think looks good. And frankly, no one cares about that.
The original picture that started this isn't really problematic at all. She has a dress and a cloak. Now, if all (or even most) women in the game's artwork show cleavage while men are fully dressed, that might be a problem. But that's not really the case with GW games. Their issue is that women are really underrepresented both as characters and as models. But I said this all already on the first page.
Except to people that actually read my post enough to know there is no feminism aspect in my complaint.
Then just shut up, please.
Representation of women in games is an actual (somewhat) serious issue, and some of us care about it.
If this is not about feminism, then it is only about your personal preferences regarding what you think looks good. And frankly, no one cares about that.
The original picture that started this isn't really problematic at all. She has a dress and a cloak. Now, if all (or even most) women in the game's artwork show cleavage while men are fully dressed, that might be a problem. But that's not really the case with GW games. Their issue is that women are really underrepresented both as characters and as models. But I said this all already on the first page.
Ah! *clouds part! sunbeam shines down!*
His problem with the picture doesn't actually involve feminism/portrayal of women at all! Silly me, trying to reconcile a poster's argument with the subject of the thread that poster himself started! Ok, I get it now.
pgmason wrote: It's nothing like the same. It's a normal dress worn with a cloak. Two separate garments. Totally different from Power girl's silly outfit.
You forgot the collar. Which happens to be made of a surprisingly similar cloth, with a surprisingly similar color as the rest of the dress. Let's not even mention the metal on the bra.
Crimson wrote: Representation of women in games is an actual (somewhat) serious issue, and some of us care about it.
Yeah. And why does it have to be only about feminism ?
azreal13 wrote: His problem with the picture doesn't actually involve feminism/portrayal of women at all!
It has something to do with portrayal of women. It has nothing to do with feminism. Is that really so hard ? Or is any portrayal of women necessarily either feminist or sexist ?
You forgot the collar. Which happens to be made of a surprisingly similar cloth, with a surprisingly similar color as the rest of the dress. Let's not even mention the metal on the bra.
Wait, you mean you can tell what kind of CLOTH it is just by looking!? I envy your powers. My girlfriend usually touches and feels the cloth to see what kind it is!
Wait, you mean that women try to match COLORS when drawing together their attire for an evening? My girlfriend usually just puts on like a yellow shirt with bright blue pants and a bright red coat with pink-polka-dot headband.
Wait, you mean there's METAL in BRAS? I... I don't even know what to say. All my life I thought there were little metal wireframe thingies in some bras. Clearly, I'm all wrong and should be ashamed.
azreal13 wrote: His problem with the picture doesn't actually involve feminism/portrayal of women at all!
It has something to do with portrayal of women. It has nothing to do with feminism. Is that really so hard ? Or is any portrayal of women necessarily either feminist or sexist ?
Any relevant portrayal, yes.
Basically, after all this time, it turns out your issue with the image was completely divorced from whether the original image contained a woman or not, and was basically down to the fact that it wasn't exactly your flavour of absurd! If it was a man in that image that was wearing something you had deemed inaccurately inappropriate/stupid from your own opinion of what you want to see in 40K derived art, the. Your issue would remain the same.
azreal13 wrote: If it was a man in that image that was wearing something you had deemed inaccurately inappropriate/stupid from your own opinion of what you want to see in 40K derived art, the. Your issue would remain the same.
Yeah. I can actually provide an example that I've already mentioned in this thread, with a “male” (kind of), though it's a bit different from that one since it's not exactly closing : I find the Exalted Ctan's barbie doll anatomy ridiculous too, and I've complained about it.
But it tend to happens much much more often with women.
Kojiro wrote: To those who 'oppose' the kind of artwork that set all this off I have a question: what would you have done about such art? What is your 'fix'?
Remove the boob window by filling the gap between the purple dress and the purple collar by, say, purple cloth.
And in the case of the Exalted Ctan, well, just stay true to the original material .
azreal13 wrote: If it was a man in that image that was wearing something you had deemed inaccurately inappropriate/stupid from your own opinion of what you want to see in 40K derived art, the. Your issue would remain the same.
Yeah. I can actually provide an example that I've already mentioned in this thread, with a “male” (kind of), though it's a bit different from that one since it's not exactly closing : I find the Exalted Ctan's barbie doll anatomy ridiculous too, and I've complained about it.
But it tend to happens much much more often with women.
But still has nothing to do with how women are represented in miniatures and everything to do with how various random things are represented in a manner that is different from how you would like.
mattyrm wrote: Honestly, my wife would wear a dress like that, I think its a massive stretch to get pissed off about it.
Well, I would wear a hoodie and bandana. Does that mean I want to see an Inquisitor with a hoodie and a bandana ?
mattyrm wrote: There are literally hundreds of better examples of needless cleavage, lets be honest..
Ok. Let us discuss them too, then.
Kojiro wrote: Ok, now provide me a reason why the artist should be in any way obligated or compelled to do so.
The artist has absolutely no reason to be obligated to do so. Why would it ? Now he or she can follow my sugggestion to make better art (which is of course subjective), or just to make its art more attractive to me personally .
I'm pretty sure that is the case for most, if not all criticism of model and illustration that happens on this website. The only exception I could see is when some model or illustration, for some reason, involve legal problem, like featuring a big black swastika on a white circle over some red background in Germany .
azreal13 wrote: But still has nothing to do with how women are represented in miniatures and everything to do with how various random things are represented in a manner that is different from how you would like.
It has to do with how random thing, including many women, are represented in miniatures in a manner that is different from how I would like.
azreal13 wrote: But still has nothing to do with how women are represented in miniatures and everything to do with how various random things are represented in a manner that is different from how you would like.
It has to do with how random thing, including many women, are represented in miniatures in a manner that is different from how I would like.
So, we've had a 28 page long discussion not based on any great higher moral issue, but rather because things don't look the way that HSoO thinks they should.
Ya it's about that time. I hope one day a thread involving discussion of women and wargaming in any context will be able to be conducted in a civilized manner for more than 2 pages... sigh...
) Just because the stereotypical gamer (and yes, they do sadly exist) gets off over his little toy soldier womens it dosnt mean we all do. Hell I would be surprised if any here do.
.
.
!
