However for the good there are the bad and i seem to see the bad in 40k more. For instance ephrael stern with a constipated face looking like she has no boobs. I don't need massive boobs but i think they should still exist. I get sisters of battle aren't supposed to be the most appealing but sometimes they don't feel feminine or look aesthetically good. Perhaps things look better in the old Hollywood form of something that looks appealing (both the men and women) rather than a scarred gross looking model because it just doesn't look like something a person wants to buy.
Maybe some will say the women in the living saint were too slight of figure or a little curvy (not massively so) but the one in the 2020 seraphim have ugly looking faces. Sometimes it doesn't even look like a good human or female face anymore.
This is a gsc magus and it's decent and i get the ridged head but i think GW has issues making female sculpts heads overall these days and i don't know why.
That said i can't seem to stop seeing models like this. The inquistior with an ugly face and armor that is so fat, squat and ugly that if the head wasn't there i probably couldn't tell if it was a female model.
Am i being unfair? Don't get me wrong GW can make some decent female models but there is a pattern of some atrocious looking female models. I honestly think GW needs to hire female models and have them wear armor props just to properly get the female form or even if it ends up being a female boxer maybe at least get proper movements and positioning so the models look right. Probably have some gymnasts wear the armor?
I honestly think the female magus is mostly fine but the face is a bit off. Perhaps when it comes to human faces GW is just terrible. It's a shame because back in 8th edition WHFB i saw some of the prettiest models i've seen GW make. The coven throne/mortis engine kit still stands out to me.
May I ask exactly what your definition, not example, of what is not "atrocious looking female models"?
From your post I was able to gather the following criteria which you deem to be 'decent looking' female models:
...ephrael stern with a constipated face looking like she has no boobs.
-female models must not have constipated face and must have boobs.
...I don't need massive boobs but i think they should still exist.
-female models must have boobs. They don't have to be overly exaggerated, but females must have discernible boobs.
...I get sisters of battle aren't supposed to be the most appealing but sometimes they don't feel feminine or look aesthetically good.
-females must be pretty at the worst, if they're not SUPER pretty.
...things look better in the old Hollywood form of something that looks appealing (both the men and women) rather than a scarred gross looking model.
-females must be pretty, and scars are not pretty.
...The inquistior with an ugly face and armor that is so fat, squat and ugly that if the head wasn't there i probably couldn't tell if it was a female model.
-Fat females are indiscernible as females. Females must be skinny.
I mean, if you want pin-up miniatures, there are plenty other game system/companies that make them. I think you should look there instead.
Your post is dangerously misogynist, and no, I am not a female.
When I read just the thread title the first thing I thought was I like the female magus, Celestine and Greyfax (as models that is, it's not that I find them attractive). But I'm not a big fan of the new hospitaller and some others of the new Sisters. So tastes can and do differ and it's fine to have your own taste.
Many GW female models don't look very feminine in a traditional way, especially when compared to some 3rd party minis, but really they don't have to be feminine in a traditional way for wargaming. I'm absolutely fine with that, but given how little free time I have and how much time one has to invest in a miniature I will not paint or use any I don't like, female or not.
My point is the female models must look female. Which is basically slighter features and maybe existence of boobs rather than completely boob-less.
That's not what i said. I said men and women in entertainment must be somewhat attractive or look aesthetically good for people to want to buy them. Look at ironman, captain america, Thor and various others. The characters meant to be cool look good. This works with men and women.
If you make ladies overly masculine or give them really ugly faces and you're selling models then why do people want them. If they think that's cool then fine i guess that's your audience. I just think some of these models look ugly. People want things that look good. Do you want a static pose or an action theme pose even if it makes no sense?
It's not misogynist. People use that word and i don't think they all know what it means. Being that means i hate women right? I don't hate women i just think it's a physically weird look and not something i want to buy. I like some female models but GW definitely doesn't make good ones or at least not anymore.
Saying a person wants an appealing model so they can buy what they want isn't too much to ask. Keep in mind i said the faces of a lot of these models were awful too but you avoided that. I suggest you go look at women and see if they tend to be represented by these models. Afterwards re-examine the misogynist line you stated.
Max Moray wrote: When I read just the thread title the first thing I thought was I like the female magus, Celestine and Greyfax (as models that is, it's not that I find them attractive). But I'm not a big fan of the new hospitaller and some others of the new Sisters. So tastes can and do differ and it's fine to have your own taste.
Many GW female models don't look very feminine in a traditional way, especially when compared to some 3rd party minis, but really they don't have to be feminine in a traditional way for wargaming. I'm absolutely fine with that, but given how little free time I have and how much time one has to invest in a miniature I will not paint or use any I don't like, female or not.
What don't you like about the new Sisters?
Personally I like most of the female models I've seen. Off the top of my head I can't think of a model I dislike because I take issue with the way they've done the "femaleness" of it. Females shouldn't look massively different to males in 40k, I think. I do wish there were more explicitly female Eldar rather than the ambiguity most have.
Edit: Between the weird action poses and static poses I 100% choose the static pose. I'm sick of the weird rock jumping.
I think the aesthetic on many of the models matches the setting in which they are depicted
There are some outliers, but overall, they seem to be harping on the physical strain (and adaptation of muscle mass over the bodies) and the damage suffered in the harsh conditions of 10,000 years of war. It makes sense that their figures look more like this:
And just about every female model in 40K has more of a feminine appearance that the typical female soldier in body armor in the field. Trust me, there's a term for it overseas...
Max Moray wrote: When I read just the thread title the first thing I thought was I like the female magus, Celestine and Greyfax (as models that is, it's not that I find them attractive). But I'm not a big fan of the new hospitaller and some others of the new Sisters. So tastes can and do differ and it's fine to have your own taste.
Many GW female models don't look very feminine in a traditional way, especially when compared to some 3rd party minis, but really they don't have to be feminine in a traditional way for wargaming. I'm absolutely fine with that, but given how little free time I have and how much time one has to invest in a miniature I will not paint or use any I don't like, female or not.
What don't you like about the new Sisters?
Personally I like most of the female models I've seen. Off the top of my head I can't think of a model I dislike because I take issue with the way they've done the "femaleness" of it. Females shouldn't look massively different to males in 40k, I think. I do wish there were more explicitly female Eldar rather than the ambiguity most have.
Edit: Between the weird action poses and static poses I 100% choose the static pose. I'm sick of the weird rock jumping.
Perhaps it's just current GW models overall whether male or female. I liked some primaris but hate a lot of the new models as well. Necrons feel fine. GW usually is decent at making elves or eldar type models. I'm mostly ok with the female magus but the head is a little weird. I could maybe accept it since it is a genestealer hybrid after all and the dudes also look alien. Yvrainne just always looked weird to me. Eldar usually don't look so strange. I'm not into the new GW aesthetic for models at times. Perhaps since i started this hobby 13 years ago the model range has changed and not always for the better. I still say 8th ed fantasy (pre-end times) had the best models.
GW is doing a better job than they ever have with female models, honestly.
OP, you've got a big double standard if you feel like the female models need to be attractive according your particular tastes in order to be "good models".
(and you also clearly don't understand that misogyny encompasses prejudice, not simply "hate of women", and arbitrary beauty standards certainly falls within its scope)
Uh....
I don't have a good response to this. Reading this kind of makes me feel gross.
I think that GW makes plenty good models of females, plenty more good female models than bad ones. The Sisters of Battle are good, the Dark Eldar are good. Those that I don't like generally have to do with choices entirely unrelated to the "female form", like Ephrael Stern's cape and overly dramatic pose, which is a complaint that can generally equally be leveled against male models at a similar rate, like Shrike.
I'm not sure what's wrong with the Seraphim. I think they look really good, and I'm not seeing this apparent serious difference between them and the Geminae.
And yeah, the GW female models are extremely feminine looking and obviously female.
rbstr wrote: GW is doing a better job than they ever have with female models, honestly.
OP, you've got a big double standard if you feel like the female models need to be attractive according your particular tastes in order to be "good models".
Except i said male and female models need to look good. Read what i said. I know it's a long post but i didn't write much.
My point is the female models must look female. Which is basically slighter features and maybe existence of boobs rather than completely boob-less.
That's not what i said. I said men and women in entertainment must be somewhat attractive or look aesthetically good for people to want to buy them. Look at ironman, captain america, Thor and various others. The characters meant to be cool look good. This works with men and women.
If you make ladies overly masculine or give them really ugly faces and you're selling models then why do people want them. If they think that's cool then fine i guess that's your audience. I just think some of these models look ugly. People want things that look good. Do you want a static pose or an action theme pose even if it makes no sense?
It's not misogynist. People use that word and i don't think they all know what it means. Being that means i hate women right? I don't hate women i just think it's a physically weird look and not something i want to buy. I like some female models but GW definitely doesn't make good ones or at least not anymore.
Saying a person wants an appealing model so they can buy what they want isn't too much to ask. Keep in mind i said the faces of a lot of these models were awful too but you avoided that. I suggest you go look at women and see if they tend to be represented by these models. Afterwards re-examine the misogynist line you stated.
This (the OP) is a clear example of gender profiling, which falls under gender-based discrimination, which is well within the boundaries of misogyny.
The response wasn't meant to label YOU as a misogynist, and I will apologize if you were offended by it.
As stated, I asked for your opinion on exactly what constitutes 'acceptable' female models, as the explanation you've listed are quite 'debatable' which may come off quite offensive and are often cause for thread lock.
I think there's a reason why you can't stop seeing the female faces as distractingly ugly, and I don't think it has anything to do with the way the plastic is shaped.
The miniatures that GW puts out for their grim-dark universe Warhammer 40,000 are not as attractive on average as the characters portrayed in popular marvel movies.
It could just be me, and I guess feel free to chime in here if people are not in on this, but the general over-the-top grim nature of 40k, and the fact that stuff is generally a little bit uglier, and a little bit less sleek than other science fiction universes...that was a selling point for me for sure. I looked at the fighting mech suit from 40k, and I saw that it was basically a coffin with squat, ugly stompy legs, a gun slapped on the side and a blunt, nasty, squared-off claw with just enough articulation to rip and tear and I thought "Yeah. Actually, no. HELL YEAH."
rbstr wrote: GW is doing a better job than they ever have with female models, honestly.
OP, you've got a big double standard if you feel like the female models need to be attractive according your particular tastes in order to be "good models".
Pretty sure they made the SOB minis specifically to not be attractive per se, they're battlefield warriors; not supermodels.
Many GW female models don't look very feminine in a traditional way, especially when compared to some 3rd party minis, but really they don't have to be feminine in a traditional way for wargaming. I'm absolutely fine with that, but given how little free time I have and how much time one has to invest in a miniature I will not paint or use any I don't like, female or not.
Honestly once you put muscle and armour on them a lot of typical "feminine curves" tend to vanish anyway.
I think if you want slightly more pin-up style females then there's several good resources like Wargame Exclusive and Raging Heroes (though they both might just go that touch too far for some).
Plus I'd say the females are in line with the males for GW. As plastic casting has advanced some of the designs have markedly improved. I think also there have clearly been set ethos of design that have shifted, the overmuscled design of the old Catchans is clearly something more "of that age". Then again its a sci-fi setting so we will get odd body adjustments like that.
Finally don't forget that the game is designed to be a tabletop game, not a close up pin up game. As a result sometimes things in scale get adapted to suit the visual situation rather than sticking to purity of sculpting and scale accuracy. You see this very heavily as you shift scales - 15mm and 6mm models have vastly oversized weapons and other parts for the practicality of assembly, game use and for seeing 1ft away on a table.
Which is basically slighter features and maybe existence of boobs rather than completely boob-less.
That's not what female means. There are women out there with "harsh" features, and men with "slight" features. Under all the armour, do you really think bobs would be present? Look at female soliders today compared to males. You can barely tell the difference. And that's not even getting into non-binary and trans folks.
That's not what i said. I said men and women in entertainment must be somewhat attractive or look aesthetically good for people to want to buy them.
Well, that's nonsense, because Space Marines don't appeal to anything I look for in men. Do I like the aesthetic of their armour? Yes. Do I find their faces appealing? No. Are they appealing models? Yes.
If you make ladies overly masculine or give them really ugly faces and you're selling models then why do people want them.
Because I don't treat my models as gendered objects?
Also MASSIVE yikes on the whole concept of "who would want an overly masculine woman" - like, CHRIST.
I just think some of these models look ugly.
Right - but that doesn't mean they don't look like women, unless you have a very specific (and frankly insulting) idea of what women should look like.
People want things that look good.
I think Space Marines look good. The actual transhuman inside it? Hell no. The armour and sculpted aesthetics? Yes.
Do you want a static pose or an action theme pose even if it makes no sense?
Entirely a matter of opinion, with no right or wrong.
It's not misogynist. People use that word and i don't think they all know what it means. Being that means i hate women right? I don't hate women i just think it's a physically weird look and not something i want to buy.
You're calling ostensibly 'female' models "not women" because they don't look like what you expect when you think of a woman. Sorry, but there's some deep issues I have with that.
Saying a person wants an appealing model so they can buy what they want isn't too much to ask.
Yes, but implying that they don't look like women because they have certain facial features and NEED breasts isn't just "wants an appealing model".
Space Marines don't look particularly handsome. Where's the outcry about them not being "appealing"?
I suggest you go look at women and see if they tend to be represented by these models.
Yes, I do suggest you go look at women - and not just the ones with "slighter features".
TL;DR They look fine, because I don't need attractive faces to find models "appealing". Space Marines are proof of that.
flamingkillamajig wrote: My point is the female models must look female. Which is basically slighter features and maybe existence of boobs rather than completely boob-less.
That's not what i said. I said men and women in entertainment must be somewhat attractive or look aesthetically good for people to want to buy them. Look at ironman, captain america, Thor and various others. The characters meant to be cool look good. This works with men and women.
If you make ladies overly masculine or give them really ugly faces and you're selling models then why do people want them. If they think that's cool then fine i guess that's your audience. I just think some of these models look ugly. People want things that look good. Do you want a static pose or an action theme pose even if it makes no sense?
Wow. I don't even know where to start.
Traditionally, especially in the States, physical attractiveness was often linked to moral righteousness. The matinee idol in the white stetson, for example. This changed in the late 60s and 70s. Anti-heroes with grizzled or atypical looks started to come to the fore. Hollywood has since re-established the good-looking hero trope but has left some rough edges, usually in the shape of personality flaws eg. Tony Stark.
However, and I stress, this cultural phenomenon is very much a USA thing. In Europe there isn't the same link between physical good looks and heroism/effective personality. A lot of European heroes tend to be lacking physically.
It does tend to be universal, though, that women have to be 'hot'. But there are pretty serious cultural divergences in what constitutes attractive.
My final and most salient point is this: No matter where in the world you hail from, plastic toy soldiers are never attractive. They're plastic. Toy. Soldiers.
rbstr wrote: GW is doing a better job than they ever have with female models, honestly.
OP, you've got a big double standard if you feel like the female models need to be attractive according your particular tastes in order to be "good models".
Pretty sure they made the SOB minis specifically to not be attractive per se, they're battlefield warriors; not supermodels.
Exactly - I'd have more issues if they were conventionally attractive, and not hard-as-nails utter badasses. They're no less female for it.
Female to me equals a body that's somewhat slighter than a male's, a feminine face and possibly muscles but maybe not hulk looking muscles.
Yvrainne's model just looks bad. It looks female but the model just feels very AoS and i don't like it.
There's a reason why i don't have much issue with the gsc magus lady. Her proportions feel right but the face looks weird and alien. Maybe it's how GW paints their models. Since she's a hybrid that's mostly fine. As far as some of the sisters models go i'm ok with them but others just feel a bit i dunno not traditional to say the least. I get that sisters of battle are often strong but i prefer the hollywood look where you get attractive men and women as opposed to ugly men and women.
---------
Keep in mind i'm not saying GW hasn't been able to do female models. I'm not exactly asking for naked dark eldar slave girls. GW is normally good with elves and i like GSC in aesthetic. Perhaps it's just my tastes but i don't like most of the new sisters of battle. It's just my tastes.
the_scotsman wrote: I think there's a reason why you can't stop seeing the female faces as distractingly ugly, and I don't think it has anything to do with the way the plastic is shaped.
The miniatures that GW puts out for their grim-dark universe Warhammer 40,000 are not as attractive on average as the characters portrayed in popular marvel movies.
It could just be me, and I guess feel free to chime in here if people are not in on this, but the general over-the-top grim nature of 40k, and the fact that stuff is generally a little bit uglier, and a little bit less sleek than other science fiction universes...that was a selling point for me for sure. I looked at the fighting mech suit from 40k, and I saw that it was basically a coffin with squat, ugly stompy legs, a gun slapped on the side and a blunt, nasty, squared-off claw with just enough articulation to rip and tear and I thought "Yeah. Actually, no. HELL YEAH."
Actually i'm a refugee from when WHFB died so grim and dark doesn't always appeal to me. I enjoy plenty of humor spread in there. I do like the over-the-top nature of 40k though but it kept getting grimmer and darker in some ways and it wasn't my thing.
I'm a big fan of the Wych models, they look exactly like what they supposed to be - Elves that have been abusing roids, rather than some cheesecake fantasy art.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Female to me equals a body that's somewhat slighter than a male's, a feminine face and possibly muscles but maybe not hulk looking muscles.
Well, sorry to say it, but that's not what female means, no more than all men are muscled out Schwarznegger-like with thick beards and bold, scarred faces.
I get that sisters of battle are often strong but i prefer the hollywood look where you get attractive men and women as opposed to ugly men and women.
That's with your false misconception of what women should look like.
Again, I don't see you complaining about Space Marines being ugly. Why is that?
Keep in mind i'm not saying GW hasn't been able to do female models. I'm not exactly asking for naked dark eldar slave girls. GW is normally good with elves and i like GSC in aesthetic. Perhaps it's just my tastes but i don't like most of the new sisters of battle. It's just my tastes.
Nothing wrong with "tastes", but when you're implying that they're "not women" because they don't fit your ideal looks and calling them ugly, saying "who would buy an ugly non-feminine model of a woman" and then not also complaining about Space Marines not looking gorgeous, then there's some big problems.
That said i can't seem to stop seeing models like this. The inquistior with an ugly face and armor that is so fat, squat and ugly that if the head wasn't there i probably couldn't tell if it was a female model.
I rather appreciate that inquisitor model. It's armor without boobplate and unconventinal design, and I don't see why an Inquisitor needs to have a traditionally pretty face. Actually I think that particular face and the way it's painted looks like Tilda Swinton, who I think is quite beautiful in an unconventional way (and who would make an amazing Inquisitor if cast as such). Honestly, it'd be weirder if an inquisitor looked like a pouty-lipped supermodel.
And yeah, you're being unfair. There are plenty of ugly male model faces/bodies in the GW line. The shoveljaw marine Scouts come to mind. Maybe the entire Cadian line. The real underlying problem as I understand it is that culturally we are harsher judges of women when it comes to looks.
I can't for the life of me see a huge difference between the Seraphim and the guardians of Celestine. The hips on the Celestine models look a bit bigger, but that's about it. Also, paint has a TON to do with how the face winds up looking. (see the makeup industry for reference)
Insectum7 wrote: I rather appreciate that inquisitor model. It's armor without boobplate and unconventinal design, and I don't see why an Inquisitor needs to have a traditionally pretty face. Actually I think that particular face and the way it's painted looks like Tilda Swinton, who I think is quite beautiful in an unconventional way (and who would make an amazing Inquisitor if cast as such). Honestly, it'd be weirder if an inquisitor looked like a pouty-lipped supermodel.
Draxus is a gorgeous model. There's elegance to it without being too gender coded, and you're absolutely right on Swinton.
And yeah, you're being unfair. There are plenty of ugly male model faces/bodies in the GW line. The shoveljaw marine Scouts come to mind. Maybe the entire Cadian line. The real underlying problem as I understand it is that culturally we are harsher judges of women when it comes to looks.
Yup. Again, note how little criticism there is of the unattractive (in my opinion) look of the Space Marines, but when Sisters don't look "slighter", this happens.
Victoria Miniatures are, imho, a gold standard for female miniatures. And that's a tiny company. GW has a £2b market value, they can afford to hire better sculptors.
Max Moray wrote: When I read just the thread title the first thing I thought was I like the female magus, Celestine and Greyfax (as models that is, it's not that I find them attractive). But I'm not a big fan of the new hospitaller and some others of the new Sisters. So tastes can and do differ and it's fine to have your own taste.
Many GW female models don't look very feminine in a traditional way, especially when compared to some 3rd party minis, but really they don't have to be feminine in a traditional way for wargaming. I'm absolutely fine with that, but given how little free time I have and how much time one has to invest in a miniature I will not paint or use any I don't like, female or not.
What don't you like about the new Sisters?
Personally I like most of the female models I've seen. Off the top of my head I can't think of a model I dislike because I take issue with the way they've done the "femaleness" of it. Females shouldn't look massively different to males in 40k, I think. I do wish there were more explicitly female Eldar rather than the ambiguity most have.
Edit: Between the weird action poses and static poses I 100% choose the static pose. I'm sick of the weird rock jumping.
Perhaps it's just current GW models overall whether male or female. I liked some primaris but hate a lot of the new models as well. Necrons feel fine. GW usually is decent at making elves or eldar type models. I'm mostly ok with the female magus but the head is a little weird. I could maybe accept it since it is a genestealer hybrid after all and the dudes also look alien. Yvrainne just always looked weird to me. Eldar usually don't look so strange. I'm not into the new GW aesthetic for models at times. Perhaps since i started this hobby 13 years ago the model range has changed and not always for the better. I still say 8th ed fantasy (pre-end times) had the best models.
That's fair enough. I'm noticing I tend to dislike newer models.
Edit: I may hate her rules but Draxus is definitely a great model, I cannot see why you'd dislike it unless you dislike power armoured things in general.
This has to be the most male gaze BS on these entire forums. As to the lack of boobs: Women in absolute peak physical form have almost 1% body fat. Someone else here said it best. Go play with other models if you are looking for pin up hooters models in power armor.
Drukhari and sororitas models are amazing, IMHO among the best looking miniatures in the entire GW catalogue.
If anything I think GW is worse in making male models. AM and SM aren't particularly good looking. Maybe SW if you're into their viking theme, but what about cadians, catachans, scouts and blood angels with bare heads?
harlokin wrote: I'm a big fan of the Wych models, they look exactly like what they supposed to be - Elves that have been abusing roids, rather than some cheesecake fantasy art.
Lelith is like the perfect example. She has the exact body type you'd expect a "proper" female fighter to have. She hasn't got massive tiddays flopping around because that's not what someone of that physique would look like. Look at Ronda Rousey or Shayna Baszler for example. Lelith's mini matches their body types almost perfectly.
I would say that of the faces they've put out in the brand-new primaris range, 0% of them look like someone you'd cast in a new Marvel movie.
GW's models don't look like hawt hollywood supermodels.haven't for a long time. Basically ever, I would say, either in concept art or in practice.
All the source material GW used for 40k was grim, and ugly, and blunt, and gross. Robocop and Judge Dredd and Starship Troopers and Alien and old scifi novel covers.
Majority of people are either plain or ugly. Every dude in the game look like Major Chip Hazard from Small Soldier after his face got melted. Why would the women be any different?
BaconCatBug wrote: Victoria Miniatures are, imho, a gold standard for female miniatures. And that's a tiny company. GW has a £2b market value, they can afford to hire better sculptors.
If you are attracted to ronda rousey then that's fine. I'm not and i think more guys than not don't like that.
@the_scotsman:
Honestly i think you hit the nail on the head for me. I prefer things in the old hollywood style of making things good even at times where it doesn't make sense. For instance in 300 all the dudes were running around half naked instead of fully dressed up in body armor. Totally stupid if an arrow hit one of em but in a movie it looks really good. I'm saying this as a straight man. I can see why people attracted to men would enjoy that.
I also never really enjoyed space marines for many reasons (mary sues, poster boys, get all the new and good toys, etc, etc). Maybe once WHFB comes back i will switch back to WHFB. We shall see.
If you are attracted to ronda rousey then that's fine. I'm not and i think more guys than not don't like that.
@the_scotsman:
Honestly i think you hit the nail on the head for me. I prefer things in the old hollywood style of making things good even at times where it doesn't make sense. For instance in 300 all the dudes were running around half naked instead of fully dressed up in body armor. Totally stupid if an arrow hit one of em but in a movie it looks really good. I'm saying this as a straight man. I can see why people attracted to men would enjoy that.
I also never really enjoyed space marines for many reasons (mary sues, poster boys, get all the new and good toys, etc, etc). Maybe once WHFB comes back i will switch back to WHFB. We shall see.
If you are attracted to ronda rousey then that's fine. I'm not and i think more guys than not don't like that.
@the_scotsman:
Honestly i think you hit the nail on the head for me. I prefer things in the old hollywood style of making things good even at times where it doesn't make sense. For instance in 300 all the dudes were running around half naked instead of fully dressed up in body armor. Totally stupid if an arrow hit one of em but in a movie it looks really good. I'm saying this as a straight man. I can see why people attracted to men would enjoy that.
I also never really enjoyed space marines for many reasons (mary sues, poster boys, get all the new and good toys, etc, etc). Maybe once WHFB comes back i will switch back to WHFB. We shall see.
Your...your sig is a Skaven forum, my dude.
....How pretty are your skaven?
Phwoarh! Those Skaven brood mothers with them big ol' multiple tiddays! Sign me up!
flamingkillamajig wrote: Female to me equals a body that's somewhat slighter than a male's, a feminine face and possibly muscles but maybe not hulk looking muscles.
Well, sorry to say it, but that's not what female means, no more than all men are muscled out Schwarznegger-like with thick beards and bold, scarred faces.
I get that sisters of battle are often strong but i prefer the hollywood look where you get attractive men and women as opposed to ugly men and women.
That's with your false misconception of what women should look like.
Again, I don't see you complaining about Space Marines being ugly. Why is that?
Keep in mind i'm not saying GW hasn't been able to do female models. I'm not exactly asking for naked dark eldar slave girls. GW is normally good with elves and i like GSC in aesthetic. Perhaps it's just my tastes but i don't like most of the new sisters of battle. It's just my tastes.
Nothing wrong with "tastes", but when you're implying that they're "not women" because they don't fit your ideal looks and calling them ugly, saying "who would buy an ugly non-feminine model of a woman" and then not also complaining about Space Marines not looking gorgeous, then there's some big problems.
Except i did think marines are ugly. The early primaris marines are ugly and i find marines awful. There are very few marine models i can stand.
This is funny though. You know i made this thread and tried to carefully point out that maybe GW could improve making women. I figured all the people ready with the -isms would be on my side (for once) to say that GW don't appreciate what's feminine but instead i got hated for stating i like feminine features on women. Go figure.
If you are attracted to ronda rousey then that's fine. I'm not and i think more guys than not don't like that.
@the_scotsman:
Honestly i think you hit the nail on the head for me. I prefer things in the old hollywood style of making things good even at times where it doesn't make sense. For instance in 300 all the dudes were running around half naked instead of fully dressed up in body armor. Totally stupid if an arrow hit one of em but in a movie it looks really good. I'm saying this as a straight man. I can see why people attracted to men would enjoy that.
I also never really enjoyed space marines for many reasons (mary sues, poster boys, get all the new and good toys, etc, etc). Maybe once WHFB comes back i will switch back to WHFB. We shall see.
Your...your sig is a Skaven forum, my dude.
....How pretty are your skaven?
They aren't human. Do you want to make attractive rat women for your bestiality fetish or no? Their point is they are monsters and baddies.
Sisters of battle's origin story is that they were the fetish female warriors of a corrupt imperial leader (unless they changed the lore). Personally i don't think it should specifically continue that way but it makes far more sense to be attractive than skaven would.
BaconCatBug wrote:Of course, the real problem is that people can't criticise the poor quality of GW's female miniatures without being called all the -isms.
People can start by not making insinuations that "they're not women, they're ugly!"
Get rid of that, and maybe we can get somewhere.
flamingkillamajig wrote:@Sgt_smudge:
If you are attracted to ronda rousey then that's fine. I'm not and i think more guys than not don't like that.
It doesn't matter if you find her attractive or not. She's a still a woman.
Still waiting on you to explain how much you hate Space Marines not looking like *insert attractive man here*.
For what it's worth, I'm not particularly attracted to her. That doesn't mean she's not a woman, unlike what you've implied.
My point is the female models must look female. Which is basically slighter features and maybe existence of boobs rather than completely boob-less.
That's not what i said. I said men and women in entertainment must be somewhat attractive or look aesthetically good for people to want to buy them. Look at ironman, captain america, Thor and various others. The characters meant to be cool look good. This works with men and women.
If you make ladies overly masculine or give them really ugly faces and you're selling models then why do people want them. If they think that's cool then fine i guess that's your audience. I just think some of these models look ugly. People want things that look good. Do you want a static pose or an action theme pose even if it makes no sense?
It's not misogynist. People use that word and i don't think they all know what it means. Being that means i hate women right? I don't hate women i just think it's a physically weird look and not something i want to buy. I like some female models but GW definitely doesn't make good ones or at least not anymore.
Saying a person wants an appealing model so they can buy what they want isn't too much to ask. Keep in mind i said the faces of a lot of these models were awful too but you avoided that. I suggest you go look at women and see if they tend to be represented by these models. Afterwards re-examine the misogynist line you stated.
Why?
The world is quite diverse my friend, not every girl looks the same. My first girlfriend was from Vietnam and had next to no tits. She was still a woman. I would suggest that if you are more interested in the male/female aesthetics of your models, you might have deeper issues.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Female to me equals a body that's somewhat slighter than a male's, a feminine face and possibly muscles but maybe not hulk looking muscles.
Well, sorry to say it, but that's not what female means, no more than all men are muscled out Schwarznegger-like with thick beards and bold, scarred faces.
I get that sisters of battle are often strong but i prefer the hollywood look where you get attractive men and women as opposed to ugly men and women.
That's with your false misconception of what women should look like.
Again, I don't see you complaining about Space Marines being ugly. Why is that?
Keep in mind i'm not saying GW hasn't been able to do female models. I'm not exactly asking for naked dark eldar slave girls. GW is normally good with elves and i like GSC in aesthetic. Perhaps it's just my tastes but i don't like most of the new sisters of battle. It's just my tastes.
Nothing wrong with "tastes", but when you're implying that they're "not women" because they don't fit your ideal looks and calling them ugly, saying "who would buy an ugly non-feminine model of a woman" and then not also complaining about Space Marines not looking gorgeous, then there's some big problems.
Except i did think marines are ugly. The early primaris marines are ugly and i find marines awful. There are very few marine models i can stand.
This is funny though. You know i made this thread and tried to carefully point out that maybe GW could improve making women. I figured all the people ready with the -isms would be on my side (for once) to say that GW don't appreciate what's feminine but instead i got hated for stating i like feminine features on women. Go figure.
No, you expressed it in the most incelish way possible. Constantly referring to women as "females" is a big red flag as that is a very neckbeard-esq trait on the internet, so will immediately set people's opinions as they can see from the verbiage used where said discussion is going.
flamingkillamajig wrote: This is funny though. You know i made this thread and tried to carefully point out that maybe GW could improve making women. I figured all the people ready with the -isms would be on my side (for once) to say that GW don't appreciate what's feminine but instead i got hated for stating i like feminine features on women. Go figure.
That might be because your reasons for deciding they were "bad" (and not just that you didn't like them) were "they aren't pretty and they don't show boobs".
More or less (I didn't read the whole thread).
Are they disproportionate, badly sculpted or whatnot ?
flamingkillamajig wrote: Except i did think marines are ugly. The early primaris marines are ugly and i find marines awful. There are very few marine models i can stand.
No, their FACES. Their lack of giant pendulous swinging ****s. You know, MALE things.
You're not talking about why they don't look like supermodels. Why not?
This is funny though. You know i made this thread and tried to carefully point out that maybe GW could improve making women.
You failed, because your idea of "women" is "hollywood women". That's not what all women, or even most women look like. My first question I asked you was what you defined as a woman. You failed at that hurdle.
I figured all the people ready with the -isms would be on my side (for once) to say that GW don't appreciate what's feminine but instead i got hated for stating i like feminine features on women. Go figure.
Yeah - because you basically said that you don't treat "ugly" or non-Hollywood women as women! It's not hard.
You could easily have just said "I would have liked a little more diversity in GW's female models to feature more slender-faced women" without having to say things like "women are slighter than men" or "who would want to buy an ugly female model".
flamingkillamajig wrote: This is funny though. You know i made this thread and tried to carefully point out that maybe GW could improve making women. I figured all the people ready with the -isms would be on my side (for once) to say that GW don't appreciate what's feminine but instead i got hated for stating i like feminine features on women. Go figure.
That might be because your reasons for deciding they were "bad" (and not just that you didn't like them) were "they aren't pretty and they don't show boobs".
More or less (I didn't read the whole thread).
Are they disproportionate, badly sculpted or whatnot ?
I made the point that the models look like crap. A female model with zero boob looks worse than ones with huge boobs. It just looks very horrible. Anyway my original point is the faces of the models looked bad but everybody jumped on the boob bandwagon. I wonder why....
Grimtuff wrote: No, you expressed it in the most incelish way possible. Constantly referring to women as "females" is a big red flag as that is a very neckbeard-esq trait on the internet, so will immediately set people's opinions as they can see from the verbiage used where said discussion is going.
Agreed on the latter point - I'm substituting where I can, because it feels *uncomfortable* to use in this context.
GW has never been very good at doing faces. It's why the vast majority of their models have helmets. I don't think this is a gender problem; the male faces aren't very good either.
I mean, look at this guy. Total centerpiece model of the entire edition, and he looks badly constipated as well, rather than "epic" like they were clearly trying for.
If you are attracted to ronda rousey then that's fine. I'm not and i think more guys than not don't like that.
I think Ronda Rousey is very attractive
There's a lot of female characters in sci-fi and fantasy universes that look like porn stars or cheerleaders though, and a lot of people like them. I don't. Each one their own I guess.
yukishiro1 wrote: GW has never been very good at doing faces. It's why the vast majority of their models have helmets. I don't think this is a gender problem; the male faces aren't very good either.
I mean, look at this guy. Total centerpiece model of the entire edition, and he looks badly constipated as well, rather than "epic" like they were clearly trying for.
Eh, I think the faces on their women are better than their men. Not that that really changes the double standard OP here is holding women to (ie, complaining about Sisters not looking like supermodels, but not having said anything about Space Marines not looking the same).
Blackie wrote: There's a lot of female characters in sci-fi and fantasy universes that look like porn stars or cheerleaders though, and a lot of people like them. I don't. Each one their own I guess.
Oh, absolutely each to their own - but there's a difference between "I don't find you attractive" and "if you're not attractive, you're not a woman".
flamingkillamajig wrote: I made the point that the models look like crap. A female model with zero boob looks worse than ones with huge boobs. It just looks very horrible. Anyway my original point is the faces of the models looked bad but everybody jumped on the boob bandwagon. I wonder why....
Allow me to highlight all of the insensitivity on your OP:
However for the good there are the bad and i seem to see the bad in 40k more. For instance ephrael stern with a constipated face looking like she has no boobs. I don't need massive boobs but i think they should still exist. I get sisters of battle aren't supposed to be the most appealing but sometimes they don't feel feminine or look aesthetically good. Perhaps things look better in the old Hollywood form of something that looks appealing (both the men and women) rather than a scarred gross looking model because it just doesn't look like something a person wants to buy.
Maybe some will say the women in the living saint were too slight of figure or a little curvy (not massively so) but the one in the 2020 seraphim have ugly looking faces. Sometimes it doesn't even look like a good human or female face anymore.
This is a gsc magus and it's decent and i get the ridged head but i think GW has issues making female sculpts heads overall these days and i don't know why.
That said i can't seem to stop seeing models like this. The inquistior with an ugly face and armor that is so fat, squat and ugly that if the head wasn't there i probably couldn't tell if it was a female model.
Am i being unfair? Don't get me wrong GW can make some decent female models but there is a pattern of some atrocious looking female models. I honestly think GW needs to hire female models and have them wear armor props just to properly get the female form or even if it ends up being a female boxer maybe at least get proper movements and positioning so the models look right. Probably have some gymnasts wear the armor?
I honestly think the female magus is mostly fine but the face is a bit off. Perhaps when it comes to human faces GW is just terrible. It's a shame because back in 8th edition WHFB i saw some of the prettiest models i've seen GW make. The coven throne/mortis engine kit still stands out to me.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Except i did think marines are ugly. The early primaris marines are ugly and i find marines awful. There are very few marine models i can stand.
No, their FACES. Their lack of giant pendulous swinging ****s. You know, MALE things.
You're not talking about why they don't look like supermodels. Why not?
This is funny though. You know i made this thread and tried to carefully point out that maybe GW could improve making women.
You failed, because your idea of "women" is "hollywood women". That's not what all women, or even most women look like. My first question I asked you was what you defined as a woman. You failed at that hurdle.
I figured all the people ready with the -isms would be on my side (for once) to say that GW don't appreciate what's feminine but instead i got hated for stating i like feminine features on women. Go figure.
Yeah - because you basically said that you don't treat "ugly" or non-Hollywood women as women! It's not hard.
You could easily have just said "I would have liked a little more diversity in GW's female models to feature more slender-faced women" without having to say things like "women are slighter than men" or "who would want to buy an ugly female model".
So here's a shock for you....women tend to be smaller and shorter than men. Period. This is the case with muscles too. Xcom 1 and 2 got this. You have men and women in the same roles but women are physically smaller or thinner than the men. Thinner meaning lean but generally the muscles aren't as defined as the mens'.
Actually the space marines faces do suck or at least early primaris marines faces did. So much so that i wanted a helmet cover just to cover them up. Also i know a dude that made slaanesh models with giant visible spewing dongs. Not something i'd play with personally but i'd play against it.
How am i going to know the exact precise wording that isn't going to trigger you without asking you all in advance. This is where i can change it now but too little too late huh because you already read it and made up your minds.
So here's a shock for you....women tend to be smaller and shorter than men. Period. This is the case with muscles too. Xcom 1 and 2 got this. You have men and women in the same roles but women are physically smaller or thinner than the men. Thinner meaning lean but generally the muscles aren't as defined as the mens'.
Good thing there's not anything like genetic engineering and selective breeding in 40k then. Phew! You almost had us there!
Blackie wrote: There's a lot of female characters in sci-fi and fantasy universes that look like porn stars or cheerleaders though, and a lot of people like them. I don't. Each one their own I guess.
Oh, absolutely each to their own - but there's a difference between "I don't find you attractive" and "if you're not attractive, you're not a woman".
Not what i said or at least not what i meant.
I said not feminine. I didn't mean say or at least didn't mean not a woman. Feminine being slighter features whereas masculine is muscles.
So here's a shock for you....women tend to be smaller and shorter than men. Period. This is the case with muscles too. Xcom 1 and 2 got this. You have men and women in the same roles but women are physically smaller or thinner than the men. Thinner meaning lean but generally the muscles aren't as defined as the mens'.
Good thing there's not anything like genetic engineering and selective breeding in 40k then. Phew! You almost had us there!
Available to peasants? Perhaps sisters of battle but genetic engineering was more for space marines i thought.
flamingkillamajig wrote: I made the point that the models look like crap. A female model with zero boob looks worse than ones with huge boobs. It just looks very horrible. Anyway my original point is the faces of the models looked bad but everybody jumped on the boob bandwagon. I wonder why....
Spoiler:
They know how to represent a wide range of women.
With the amount of ladies straying quite far from beauty pageants standards in the ranks of the Sororita, it might be something they did... on purpose.
I don't know. I have the new sisters of battle and they are so "feminine" than they have actually more realistic proportions than normal male miniatures.
They look like they are from a different miniature range all together.
And I love that know sisters of battle have SO MUCH personality. I mean I love the bob ones but now they look like humans from a star spanning empire, not clones.
I quite like the female magus, most of the new sisters, and the escher models. I'd like some orlocks next, since they are so present in the lore and art. I'm actually fine with GWs output in this regard, I find their miniatures fit the 40k universe well enough.
Also, I don't think female warrior models should be extra-sexy or feminine. This sort of expectation that female models are somehow insufficiently attractive kind of irritates me actually.
In fact, GW's armored female models are generally more sexy and in-line with the ideal female form than they need to be. Sisters of Battle definitely have larger breasts than real women [if you assume that the armor represents their real cup size], and their armor is really tight-fitting compared to others in the same armor. Like, note how they're wearing a corset, and their shin and thigh plates are sculpted to be shapely legs that are proportioned as the normal shape of a person's legs, while male power armor has bulky segmented plates. Like, they're almost wearing an armored catsuit versus a heavy set of thick plates. Sisters of Silence, and Inquisitor Greyfax also are pretty shapely in their armor, and both of them also have heels, with SoS having wedges and greyfax having some pretty monstrous high heels.
That said, I do love the Sisters of Battle. We're pretty conditioned to expect warrior women to look svelte and sexy and "womanly" even in their armor while it might be a stretch to even describe warrior men as "human" even before they put on their armor.
Also, I like the fact that the new Xenos inquisitor model doesn't have a boob-plate. I think she also looks good. I do think she looks a little too Eldar in general, and could be forgiven for thinking she was an Eldar model before being told otherwise [and the shuricat isn't helping]. Her face also looks kind of "elvish", being more angular and narrow and tall compared to other human faces of GW.
flamingkillamajig wrote: So here's a shock for you....women tend to be smaller and shorter than men. Period. This is the case with muscles too. Xcom 1 and 2 got this. You have men and women in the same roles but women are physically smaller or thinner than the men. Thinner meaning lean but generally the muscles aren't as defined as the mens'.
One word. *TEND*
Also, that's implying that Sisters of Battle aren't wearing goddamn power armour, most likely peak physical specimens of all humanity (easily more capable than most men), and that you can even SEE the muscle on them!
And no matter how "different" their face or body might look from what you consider the "norm" - guess what - THEY'RE STILL WOMEN.
Actually the space marines faces do suck or at least early primaris marines faces did.
At least early Primaris? They're some of the better looking ones! Hardly ANY Space Marine faces are "hollywood" material - but I don't see you going to anywhere NEAR the same effort over it.
How am i going to know the exact precise wording that isn't going to trigger you without asking you all in advance.
Well, not implying that women who don't fit your hollywood stereotype aren't women would be a pretty easy start.
It's a low barrier. Don't blame anyone else for your failure to cross it.
This is where i can change it now but too little too late huh because you already read it and made up your minds.
If you're that remorseful or felt any degree of self-reflection on the subject, you can apologise, for a start.
Up to you whether you do that or not.
I can see where you're coming from OP.
For me it's particularly the faces that can seem a bit off most the time. With SoB they done a really good job at being faithful to the aesthetic with the body, but then when it comes to faces GW can get a bit hit and miss.
Part of it could be down to simple scale of the model, hard to get the typical finer/fairer details. But I th8nk ultimately GW is stuck in a spot where they can't win.
They make them blemishless supermodels and one camp screams at them for an unrealistic look. They make them look like sly marbo or grotesquely scarred warrior women and the other camp screams and then both camps start screaming at each other. Best GW can do is try to do a mixed bag so we get some faces that look good and have those feminine looks (people who need to ask need to look at women in general) and others that look like a screaming sly marbo or Sam Jackson in a wig.
Someone will always be unhappy no matter how hard they try.
Max Moray wrote: When I read just the thread title the first thing I thought was I like the female magus, Celestine and Greyfax (as models that is, it's not that I find them attractive). But I'm not a big fan of the new hospitaller and some others of the new Sisters. So tastes can and do differ and it's fine to have your own taste.
Many GW female models don't look very feminine in a traditional way, especially when compared to some 3rd party minis, but really they don't have to be feminine in a traditional way for wargaming. I'm absolutely fine with that, but given how little free time I have and how much time one has to invest in a miniature I will not paint or use any I don't like, female or not.
What don't you like about the new Sisters?
Personally I like most of the female models I've seen. Off the top of my head I can't think of a model I dislike because I take issue with the way they've done the "femaleness" of it. Females shouldn't look massively different to males in 40k, I think. I do wish there were more explicitly female Eldar rather than the ambiguity most have.
Edit: Between the weird action poses and static poses I 100% choose the static pose. I'm sick of the weird rock jumping.
It's some of the faces and poses I don't like. Especially the over the top comically exaggerated grimaces and the hair that often looks like wigs (my opinion). I've simply converted them to my liking. It's not that I want them to be cute or traditionally beautiful. My Sisters are not cute in my opinion, they have scars, many look rather worn down, but so do many heroines in sci fi movies and books.
Many GW female models don't look very feminine in a traditional way, especially when compared to some 3rd party minis, but really they don't have to be feminine in a traditional way for wargaming. I'm absolutely fine with that, but given how little free time I have and how much time one has to invest in a miniature I will not paint or use any I don't like, female or not.
Honestly once you put muscle and armour on them a lot of typical "feminine curves" tend to vanish anyway.
I think if you want slightly more pin-up style females then there's several good resources like Wargame Exclusive and Raging Heroes (though they both might just go that touch too far for some).
Plus I'd say the females are in line with the males for GW. As plastic casting has advanced some of the designs have markedly improved. I think also there have clearly been set ethos of design that have shifted, the overmuscled design of the old Catchans is clearly something more "of that age". Then again its a sci-fi setting so we will get odd body adjustments like that.
Finally don't forget that the game is designed to be a tabletop game, not a close up pin up game. As a result sometimes things in scale get adapted to suit the visual situation rather than sticking to purity of sculpting and scale accuracy. You see this very heavily as you shift scales - 15mm and 6mm models have vastly oversized weapons and other parts for the practicality of assembly, game use and for seeing 1ft away on a table.
The sisters of battle look ugly but not in a good way, some of them look like uruk hai and all need helmets. A few pull off the withered old nun look but the sisters of sigmar did it much better. I think gw is just bad at human faces that aren't scowling brutes or gaunt and sullen.
So here's a shock for you....women tend to be smaller and shorter than men. Period.
Yah, and if they're wearing armor, no bewbs either. But you're asking for bewbs anyways. Why is it that you're specifically saying a female model is "bad" when they're not overtly displaying . . .
Irkjoe wrote: The sisters of battle look ugly but not in a good way, some of them look like uruk hai and all need helmets. A few pull off the withered old nun look but the sisters of sigmar did it much better. I think gw is just bad at human faces that aren't scowling brutes or gaunt and sullen.
Why would they be grinning in the middle of a battlefield?
flamingkillamajig wrote: dhallnet: Shockingly out of all the ones you showed i can only see about 3 i dislike. The commissar, yvraine and maybe the sister of silence (maybe).
Since we know they can do "pretty" sisters, then your issue is probably just with some of the SoB's heads which you might find pushed too much a style that doesn't correspond to you.
It happens. Doesn't mean, they are bad.
YES! OMG!!! Finally somebody gets it's more the faces that are my issue. Yes sometimes other parts of the model look off too. Interesting how it just became about muscles.
Sadly the both camps issue is a problem. Clearly you can't appease both groups and i feel like they've chosen one more than the other.
At least elf models look alright to me mostly.
Funny how i said GW made some good models and some bad models imo but the sexism thing got thrown around.
Can i not like how some models were made? Maybe a woman thrown into completely genderless armor looks really bad to me. It kinda just seems like it erases anything feminine about the woman.
Blackie wrote: There's a lot of female characters in sci-fi and fantasy universes that look like porn stars or cheerleaders though, and a lot of people like them. I don't. Each one their own I guess.
Oh, absolutely each to their own - but there's a difference between "I don't find you attractive" and "if you're not attractive, you're not a woman".
Not what i said or at least not what i meant.
I said not feminine. I didn't mean say or at least didn't mean not a woman. Feminine being slighter features whereas masculine is muscles.
No, you've very much implied that.
"scarred gross looking model because it just doesn't look like something a person wants to buy"
"Sometimes it doesn't even look like a good human or female face anymore." (Why the need to call it out as a 'female' face?)
"i think GW has issues making female sculpts heads overall these days"
"The inquistior with an ugly face and armor that is so fat, squat and ugly that if the head wasn't there i probably couldn't tell if it was a female model"
"just to properly get the female form"
"the female models must look female. Which is basically slighter features and maybe existence of boobs rather than completely boob-less" (completely missing what makes someone female)
"men and women in entertainment must be somewhat attractive or look aesthetically good for people to want to buy them"
"If you make ladies overly masculine or give them really ugly faces... then why do people want them"
"Female to me equals a body that's somewhat slighter than a male's, a feminine face and possibly muscles" (again, an incredibly harmful stereotype of women)
"A female model with zero boob looks worse than ones with huge boobs. It just looks very horrible"
I rest my case. A series of comments DRIPPING with sentiments of "women should look like this" and "who'd want to buy a model of an ugly (read: non-feminine) woman".
I figured all the people ready with the -isms would be on my side (for once)
Perhaps what this shows is that you do not really understand or "get" their arguments/line of thought ?
At least with regards to the terms female/feminine and 1 inch or so models used for a wargame anyway.
One would suggest that the wide varieties in what is/isn't considered attractive on our own planet over a relatively short period of time, may well suggest that what is or isn't attractive is going to diverge even more so in the Grim Dark blah blah blah of the 40k setting.
And that's just for the humans...
That said of course much of the range is based off of various tropes or stereotypes too
We'll leave this thread open for now but if we're forced to have to delete or edit more posts or it degenerates further into bickering and name calling then it's destination locksville.
Funny how i said GW made some good models and some bad models imo but the sexism thing got thrown around.
No, that got brought up because of your horrifically reductive comments on what "females" were (can we say women? It's a much better word). Look, if you worded it badly, then please do apologise, reclarify, and we can move on.
It kinda just seems like it erases anything feminine about the woman.
Why do women need to look feminine?!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
reds8n wrote:
I figured all the people ready with the -isms would be on my side (for once)
Perhaps what this shows is that you do not really understand or "get" their arguments/line of thought ?
Except a lot of sci-fi movies are a product of their time. Which is why Star Wars looks very 70's and why Aliens also looks pretty dated.
Personally my issue with Raging Heroes is it goes full stop in the other direction. I want feminine looking women models or even somewhat tough women but mildly Safe For Work is better. Ofc i play at a local GW so i don't really have a choice.
Irkjoe wrote: The sisters of battle look ugly but not in a good way, some of them look like uruk hai and all need helmets. A few pull off the withered old nun look but the sisters of sigmar did it much better. I think gw is just bad at human faces that aren't scowling brutes or gaunt and sullen.
Why would they be grinning in the middle of a battlefield?
I'll keep my Rhea Ripley SOBs TVM...
I'm not sure, all I know it that I take one look at them and think that they're genuinely bad face sculpts. No logic, just instantaneous dislike that I can't argue myself out of.
Funny how i said GW made some good models and some bad models imo but the sexism thing got thrown around.
No, that got brought up because of your horrifically reductive comments on what "females" were (can we say women? It's a much better word).
Look, if you worded it badly, then please do apologise, reclarify, and we can move on.
It kinda just seems like it erases anything feminine about the woman.
Why do women need to look feminine?!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
reds8n wrote:
I figured all the people ready with the -isms would be on my side (for once)
Perhaps what this shows is that you do not really understand or "get" their arguments/line of thought ?
Quite.
Absolutely 100% of everyone who has ever said something about someone not looking 'feminine' enough has just been dogwhistling for more T&A.
That said, I do love the Sisters of Battle. We're pretty conditioned to expect warrior women to look svelte and sexy and "womanly" even in their armor while it might be a stretch to even describe warrior men as "human" even before they put on their armor.
In ways space marine with humans in a relationship would be very near bestiality. May as well boink with a monkey i guess. Ofc all marines are castrated . What was the general lore consensus of that anyway?
flamingkillamajig wrote: Except a lot of sci-fi movies are a product of their time. Which is why Star Wars looks very 70's and why Aliens also looks pretty dated.
Aliens is not dated and contains two of the most badass female characters put to cinema. If your takeaway from it is neither now look "hawt" then you missed the point completely.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Except a lot of sci-fi movies are a product of their time. Which is why Star Wars looks very 70's and why Aliens also looks pretty dated.
Aliens is not dated and contains two of the most badass female characters put to cinema. If your takeaway from it is neither now look "hawt" then you missed the point completely.
I've always been sad that we never got a big wave of "Ripley" characters in other films.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Except a lot of sci-fi movies are a product of their time. Which is why Star Wars looks very 70's and why Aliens also looks pretty dated.
Aliens is not dated
It kinda is . Outside of a space ship, there isn't much from the top of my head screaming SciFi in it nowadays. It isn't the point of the movie though.
I think the issue stems from badly written posts. He had no issue with Shadowsun !
flamingkillamajig wrote: Personally my issue with Raging Heroes is it goes full stop in the other direction.
They also have completely unrealistic bodies (like 3/5th are legs on some). I can't field mines because of it.
Thank you. At least somebody understands preference without calling me the biggest bigot to exist. Maybe i don't wish to buy something i don't like. That's all the reason i need to have. The reasons could be very shallow for buying. Is it ok to want something others don't want? Apparently not.
Man I LOVE the new sororitas range. I actually ended buying a ton of them because both my wife and both my daughters (already teens) said that they considered them REAL women and not some sort of fantasy parody. They do LOVE the models as warrior badasses furiosa/ripley/sarahconnor types and not overboobed bimbos.
The Hospitaller is manificent and honestly the entire range. As someone said before, they are not pretty and are not supposed to be, (although they look fit, as olympic athletes), although a couple of them are indeed nice looking.
I haven't seen Draxus in the plastic yet, but I bought rhe model. Honestly I don't like the head, makes her look too eldari, so I'll swap it for a sororitas one or the one of the rogue trader from blackstone that I bought for bits. I'll see. But I like the way her armor looks, really unique. First time I see a proper xenos inquisitor. But then again, I haven't seen the model physically yet, but should arrive in a couple of days.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Except a lot of sci-fi movies are a product of their time. Which is why Star Wars looks very 70's and why Aliens also looks pretty dated.
Aliens is not dated and contains two of the most badass female characters put to cinema. If your takeaway from it is neither now look "hawt" then you missed the point completely.
It's quite intriguing that the OP didn't use starship troopers as an example despite being the closest sci-fi equivalent of 40k, where in its depicted time, soldiers, both male and female, shower in the same room together because they're depicted as equals - as 'soldiers' without considerations for one's gender.
If the above quote is true, then startship trooper was a political movie.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Except a lot of sci-fi movies are a product of their time. Which is why Star Wars looks very 70's and why Aliens also looks pretty dated.
Aliens is not dated and contains two of the most badass female characters put to cinema. If your takeaway from it is neither now look "hawt" then you missed the point completely.
"Hey Vasquez, have you ever been mistaken for a man?"
flamingkillamajig wrote: Except a lot of sci-fi movies are a product of their time. Which is why Star Wars looks very 70's and why Aliens also looks pretty dated.
Aliens is not dated and contains two of the most badass female characters put to cinema. If your takeaway from it is neither now look "hawt" then you missed the point completely.
Dated in the fact the computers in the movie are. There is tech present in certain sci fi movies that comes off as silly now. Remember in Back to the Future when they go to 2015 and marty mcfly's boss faxes him a sheet saying "YOU'RE FIRED!" Yeah that aged well.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Except a lot of sci-fi movies are a product of their time. Which is why Star Wars looks very 70's and why Aliens also looks pretty dated.
Aliens is not dated and contains two of the most badass female characters put to cinema. If your takeaway from it is neither now look "hawt" then you missed the point completely.
"Hey Vasquez, have you ever been mistaken for a man?"
the_scotsman wrote: I would say that of the faces they've put out in the brand-new primaris range, 0% of them look like someone you'd cast in a new Marvel movie.
GW's models don't look like hawt hollywood supermodels.haven't for a long time. Basically ever, I would say, either in concept art or in practice.
All the source material GW used for 40k was grim, and ugly, and blunt, and gross. Robocop and Judge Dredd and Starship Troopers and Alien and old scifi novel covers.
I will say that my wife constantly states that the faces of female models made by GW look manly - she's not a strict gamer, but it occasionally affects her enthusiasm for certain models, but I'm not sure why. I think a lot of it comes down to the paint job they do on the faces.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Except a lot of sci-fi movies are a product of their time. Which is why Star Wars looks very 70's and why Aliens also looks pretty dated.
Aliens is not dated and contains two of the most badass female characters put to cinema. If your takeaway from it is neither now look "hawt" then you missed the point completely.
"Hey Vasquez, have you ever been mistaken for a man?"
Have you?
Funny side note, that line is what some people are speculating is why there is a content warning of "outdated ideologies" or somesuch words on the version on Sky Cinema. That or because it's blatantly Xenophobic.
I didn't read all the replies, mainly the first page only.
I just want to say GW does a much better job with their female models than most other companies in wargaming. Brother Vinni, Kingdom Death, Raging Heroes, Wargame Exclusive of the top of my head, all the companies that produce pin-up miniatures for Wargames seem... strange to me. I don't get what they're up to and I think they also produce a strange picture of our Hobby. i like to call their miniatures Brazzers 40K for reasons... (as a sidenote those companies often design outstanding male miniatures and show great skills, but their design decisions concerning women are dubios to me)
On the other hand you have GW and even more so victoria miniatures that design outstanding, reasonable female miniatures. In the case of 40K reasonable is possibly an unfitting Term, but... A Walking washmachine with guns doesn't break my immersion. If said Dreadnought faces Geena Wild naked with her pulse rifle? Yeah....no, I don't need that.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Except a lot of sci-fi movies are a product of their time. Which is why Star Wars looks very 70's and why Aliens also looks pretty dated.
Aliens is not dated and contains two of the most badass female characters put to cinema. If your takeaway from it is neither now look "hawt" then you missed the point completely.
"Hey Vasquez, have you ever been mistaken for a man?"
Have you?
Funny side note, that line is what some people are speculating is why there is a content warning of "outdated ideologies" or somesuch words on the version on Sky Cinema. That or because it's blatantly Xenophobic.
Aliens is my fav movie and I love this tangent but please someone start a thread about it in the Geek Media subforum for the sake of Rule Number Two, which is Stay On Topic. Thanks!
BaconCatBug wrote: Victoria Miniatures are, imho, a gold standard for female miniatures. And that's a tiny company. GW has a £2b market value, they can afford to hire better sculptors.
Of course, the real problem is that people can't criticise the poor quality of GW's female miniatures without being called all the -isms.
I cannot help but notice that with all these models I cannot see a single breast: A major contention of the OP.
I suggest you look better (especially the last one)
By the way, I don't like most of those models, but the tank commander from Artel is very nice.
At the same time, I find none of the GW models attractive, which in some cases it IS a quality problem for the miniature.
It is perfectly fine that my sisters are not attractive in the least, but it is an issue for the miniature if something like this https://www.games-workshop.com/it-IT/Sisters-of-the-Watch isn't. When those models were made, they were supposed to be the personal retinue of the High Elf princess. By all possible thropes and expectations, those had to be quite beatiful elves. The fact that they are not, is a fault of the sculptor.
So, my point is that the attractiveness or not of a miniature CAN BE an issue for a model. It all depends if the design of that model is supposed to be good looking or not. If a battle sister looked like this https://artelw.com/Rogue-Skipper-p160590790 , I would despise it. This look is instead perfect for them https://www.games-workshop.com/it-IT/Adepta-Sororitas-Canoness-2020, but that same look on Morathi would make the model "wrong", because her being extremely beatiful is a focal point of that character.
Women in the 40K universe don't have to be beatiful and feminine, except if they are supposed to.
By the way, using the term "female" in this context isn't so wrong IMHO. We are talking about subjects that go from zombies, to ghosts, to orks to constructs. We are not talking only about humans or human-like models. It could be because English isn't my first language, but I can't think of another term for this application.
I'm sure it's not an issue with the sculptors or that they can't do it but rather an intent to not have all sisters look "pretty" when their representation in other art form isn't really flattering either.
I'm sure it's not an issue with the sculptors or that they can't do it but rather an intent to not have all sisters look "pretty" when their representation in other art form isn't really flattering either.
The sister from the announcement trailer looks like a real woman, not some barbie doll. The first picture is just bad line art.
I'm sure it's not an issue with the sculptors or that they can't do it but rather an intent to not have all sisters look "pretty" when their representation in other art form isn't really flattering either.
The sister from the announcement trailer looks like a real woman, not some barbie doll. The first picture is just bad line art.
Yeah she looks fine, she isn't "standard" pretty though. The first picture is just a choice. I'm sure anyone working in that line can draw a whole range of woman faces, even when heavily stylised.
Oh, nothing wrong with a preference. But paired with the comments I've highlighted (namely, ones where they describe what "females" are)? Not a pretty picture painted.
I think the issue stems from badly written posts. He had no issue with Shadowsun !
I do hope it's badly written posts - not that anyone's attempted to clear them up (especially the "female" definitions).
flamingkillamajig wrote: Thank you. At least somebody understands preference without calling me the biggest bigot to exist.
Preference is fine. Implying that models of women are not, in fact, women, because they don't fit the Hollywood ideal is the problem here. Again - you're welcome to go over and reword those comments, but you've not done so.
If what you were trying to display was just preference in models alone (and not your preference in what women look like), then your words didn't carry that, and instead had some pretty grim connotations.
flamingkillamajig wrote:Funny how i said GW made some good models and some bad models imo but the sexism thing got thrown around.
Can i not like how some models were made? Maybe a woman thrown into completely genderless armor looks really bad to me. It kinda just seems like it erases anything feminine about the woman.
The sexism thing got and is getting thrown around because of the myriad of things like that second sentence that you've said and continue to say and defend.
Why do male models not have to look picturesquely masculine, but female models have to ooze femininity and look ideal for the "masculine gaze"? That is sexism.
So here's a shock for you....women tend to be smaller and shorter than men. Period.
Yah, and if they're wearing armor, no bewbs either. But you're asking for bewbs anyways. Why is it that you're specifically saying a female model is "bad" when they're not overtly displaying . . .
Ahh forget it. Sigh.
I generally assume that having multiple layers of armor and then some shoved between one's breasts would not be comfortable in general, much less in a fight.
That said, I find it an acceptable break from realism. [I even drew my avatar with a boob-plate, so I obvious find it okay]. It comes down to the issue of dressing and presenting oneself how we want to, not how males want us to.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Except a lot of sci-fi movies are a product of their time. Which is why Star Wars looks very 70's and why Aliens also looks pretty dated.
Aliens is not dated and contains two of the most badass female characters put to cinema. If your takeaway from it is neither now look "hawt" then you missed the point completely.
It's quite intriguing that the OP didn't use starship troopers as an example despite being the closest sci-fi equivalent of 40k, where in its depicted time, soldiers, both male and female, shower in the same room together because they're depicted as equals - as 'soldiers' without considerations for one's gender.
If the above quote is true, then startship trooper was a political movie.
Starship Troopers is a political movie but not for that reason. It's about imperialism and the propaganda that sells it to the masses. Everything worth talking about makes a political statement of some sort, despite what the gatekeepers like to believe.
As for the actual topic... yeah GW's portrayal of women in miniature has gotten better, actually, despite their overall issues with faces of any gender. Y'all remember the dark eldar slaves? Yikes on all fronts on that one.
flamingkillamajig wrote:Funny how i said GW made some good models and some bad models imo but the sexism thing got thrown around.
Can i not like how some models were made? Maybe a woman thrown into completely genderless armor looks really bad to me. It kinda just seems like it erases anything feminine about the woman.
The sexism thing got and is getting thrown around because of the myriad of things like that second sentence that you've said and continue to say and defend.
Why do male models not have to look picturesquely masculine, but female models have to ooze femininity and look ideal for the "masculine gaze"? That is sexism.
Exactly. No-one cares about your own preference, but when it's paired with the various feelings of "that's not a woman, they don't look feminine, so they're ugly", and then not calling out Space Marines and male models for the same thing, there's an issue there.
There's been more than enough chances to clarify and move away from those comments, but as of me writing this, nothing has been said.
I think that GW's proclivity for "heroic" proportions for its models tends to make them end up looking chonky and difficult to sometimes identify as female.
*Jokingly* I think all their painters must be male. They don't seem to know how to/don't want to apply make-up to the female models, and without it, they often look androgynous or like they are cross-dressing with wigs.
For example, I didn't even realize Kyganil was female until someone pointed it out upthread.
Stormonu wrote: I think that GW's proclivity for "heroic" proportions for its models tends to make them end up looking chonky and difficult to sometimes identify as female.
*Jokingly* I think all their painters must be male. They don't seem to know how to/don't want to apply make-up to the female models, and without it, they often look androgynous or like they are cross-dressing with wigs.
For example, I didn't even realize Kyganil was female until someone pointed it out upthread.
You heard it hear folks, you need to be wearing makeup to look like a woman
Stormonu wrote: I think that GW's proclivity for "heroic" proportions for its models tends to make them end up looking chonky and difficult to sometimes identify as female.
*Jokingly* I think all their painters must be male. They don't seem to know how to/don't want to apply make-up to the female models, and without it, they often look androgynous or like they are cross-dressing with wigs.
For example, I didn't even realize Kyganil was female until someone pointed it out upthread.
I'm sure it's not an issue with the sculptors or that they can't do it but rather an intent to not have all sisters look "pretty" when their representation in other art form isn't really flattering either.
I think it is mostly an artistic choice. Humans in the imperium have never looked "pretty" to me. Both the men and the women. Even partial nudity on some of the old artwork showing Repentia doesn't look sexy at all. I have read 40k writers describe the imperium as the most oppressive regime imaginable. Also there is no "veneer" on top like with the Tau, the imperium is ugly just like its government. They even describe Imperial planets as dirty and inefficient compared to the Tau in the fluff.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Except a lot of sci-fi movies are a product of their time. Which is why Star Wars looks very 70's and why Aliens also looks pretty dated.
Aliens is not dated and contains two of the most badass female characters put to cinema. If your takeaway from it is neither now look "hawt" then you missed the point completely.
It's quite intriguing that the OP didn't use starship troopers as an example despite being the closest sci-fi equivalent of 40k, where in its depicted time, soldiers, both male and female, shower in the same room together because they're depicted as equals - as 'soldiers' without considerations for one's gender.
If the above quote is true, then startship trooper was a political movie.
Starship Troopers is a political movie but not for that reason. It's about imperialism and the propaganda that sells it to the masses. Everything worth talking about makes a political statement of some sort, despite what the gatekeepers like to believe.
As for the actual topic... yeah GW's portrayal of women in miniature has gotten better, actually, despite their overall issues with faces of any gender. Y'all remember the dark eldar slaves? Yikes on all fronts on that one.
Starship Troopers is also a political book, which is completely opposite from the movie. I actually love the Starship troopers movie for that reason.
But yeah, I agree that most things worth talking about make some kind of statement. Even 40k makes a statement, since it's by and large a satire of fascism, [similar to the starship troopers movie!]
Stormonu wrote: I think that GW's proclivity for "heroic" proportions for its models tends to make them end up looking chonky and difficult to sometimes identify as female.
*Jokingly* I think all their painters must be male. They don't seem to know how to/don't want to apply make-up to the female models, and without it, they often look androgynous or like they are cross-dressing with wigs.
For example, I didn't even realize Kyganil was female until someone pointed it out upthread.
You heard it hear folks, you need to be wearing makeup to look like a woman
flamingkillamajig wrote:Funny how i said GW made some good models and some bad models imo but the sexism thing got thrown around.
Can i not like how some models were made? Maybe a woman thrown into completely genderless armor looks really bad to me. It kinda just seems like it erases anything feminine about the woman.
The sexism thing got and is getting thrown around because of the myriad of things like that second sentence that you've said and continue to say and defend.
Why do male models not have to look picturesquely masculine, but female models have to ooze femininity and look ideal for the "masculine gaze"? That is sexism.
So here's a shock for you....women tend to be smaller and shorter than men. Period.
Yah, and if they're wearing armor, no bewbs either. But you're asking for bewbs anyways. Why is it that you're specifically saying a female model is "bad" when they're not overtly displaying . . .
Ahh forget it. Sigh.
I generally assume that having multiple layers of armor and then some shoved between one's breasts would not be comfortable in general, much less in a fight.
That said, I find it an acceptable break from realism. [I even drew my avatar with a boob-plate, so I obvious find it okay]. It comes down to the issue of dressing and presenting oneself how we want to, not how males want us to.
I never said that once again. I said i hated the space marine models and yes i like the dudes to look masculine. It's why i liked 300. I love how different people have thrown out conflicting reasons for why i must obviously be sexist.
So you break from realism when you like it. How is that different from me? In my case i find gender-less armor to be erasing the feminine features of the woman. If the head wasn't there could you tell if the model was female or male? You can't and the lack of being able to tell between them makes it look ugly as a model. Keep in mind this is an over-the-top game. If something has over-the-top violence and an 6-8 boobed towering daemon then asking for slightly more feminine looking models (bit shorter and a bit more lean and more feminine faces) isn't asking a lot. They did it with morathi and it looks good. I can look at morathi and tell it's a woman without needing to look at it a while. It's not over-the-top like raging heroes and it's not as bad as the old dark eldar slave girl models. The current morathi model imo is perfect.
flamingkillamajig wrote:Funny how i said GW made some good models and some bad models imo but the sexism thing got thrown around.
Can i not like how some models were made? Maybe a woman thrown into completely genderless armor looks really bad to me. It kinda just seems like it erases anything feminine about the woman.
The sexism thing got and is getting thrown around because of the myriad of things like that second sentence that you've said and continue to say and defend.
Why do male models not have to look picturesquely masculine, but female models have to ooze femininity and look ideal for the "masculine gaze"? That is sexism.
So here's a shock for you....women tend to be smaller and shorter than men. Period.
Yah, and if they're wearing armor, no bewbs either. But you're asking for bewbs anyways. Why is it that you're specifically saying a female model is "bad" when they're not overtly displaying . . .
Ahh forget it. Sigh.
I generally assume that having multiple layers of armor and then some shoved between one's breasts would not be comfortable in general, much less in a fight.
That said, I find it an acceptable break from realism. [I even drew my avatar with a boob-plate, so I obvious find it okay]. It comes down to the issue of dressing and presenting oneself how we want to, not how males want us to.
I never said that once again. I said i hated the space marine models and yes i like the dudes to look masculine. It's why i liked 300. I love how different people have thrown out conflicting reasons for why i must obviously be sexist.
So you break from realism when you like it. How is that different from me? In my case i find gender-less armor to be erasing the feminine features of the woman. If the head wasn't there could you tell if the model was female or male? You can't and the lack of being able to tell between them makes it look ugly as a model. Keep in mind this is an over-the-top game. If something has over-the-top violence and an 6-8 boobed towering daemon than asking for slightly more feminine looking models (bit shorter and a bit more lean and more feminine faces) isn't asking a lot. They did it with morathi and it looks good. I can look at morathi and tell it's a woman without needing to look at it a while. It's not over-the-top like raging heroes and it's not as bad as the old dark eldar slave girl models. The current morathi model imo is perfect.
So... some models you like. Others you don't.
Then whats the problem. GW for doing a bit of everything so each one can have models they like? Or you for expecting everything to adapt to your tastes?
I will never understand people that comes to a game like this and expect for everything to adapt to what they like. Is like when Kharadron Overlords came out and many people started asking why they even did something as ugly... Because some people like it, even love it? If you don't like it thats totally fine. You are not alone on the universe even if your personal perception of reality makes oneself miss the fact that he/she's not the protagonist of the universe arc.
flamingkillamajig wrote:I never said that once again.
You said this: "the female models must look female. Which is basically slighter features and maybe existence of boobs rather than completely boob-less"
How else am I meant to take that?
I said i hated the space marine models
You said that *some* Primaris faces looked bad, not that all Space Marine faces (because, let's be honest, it is all Astartes faces) look unhandsome.
and yes i like the dudes to look masculine. It's why i liked 300. I love how different people have thrown out conflicting reasons for why i must obviously be sexist.
I've shown you why your comments were inappropriate. Nothing to do with what you like in your models. It's what you've said WOMEN should look like.
I've asked you twice to define what a woman is for me, and both times, the answer's been an issue for me, because it's not just about models, it's about the perception of women (and trans women) in the real world.
Keep in mind this is an over-the-top game.
Over-the-top violence, not over-the-top sexual objectification. There's a difference.
If something has over-the-top violence and an 6-8 boobed towering daemon than asking for slightly more feminine looking models (bit shorter and a bit more lean and more feminine faces) isn't asking a lot.
You're being wilfully ignorant now.
There's nothing wrong with asking for some slightly more feminine looking models. What IS the problem is you saying that the existing ones don't look like women, because of your reductive view on what women look like!
Don't blame anyone else for your bad phrasing! Apologise, correct it, and rephrase - don't double down.
I can look at morathi and tell it's a woman without needing to look at it a while
Again! This isn't just "it's a good looking woman", it's "it's good because it fits into my idea of what a woman should look like". It's not hard to tell the Sisters look like women - that is, if your idea of women isn't the hollywood stereotype.
This is what I mean by having a problem with what you're saying. I don't care about your preference, but your comments are indicating more than just what you like about models, and more into what you think a woman should look like - which has some pretty terrible RL implications.
Ditch THOSE kinds of comments, and you wouldn't have an issue.
flamingkillamajig wrote:Funny how i said GW made some good models and some bad models imo but the sexism thing got thrown around.
Can i not like how some models were made? Maybe a woman thrown into completely genderless armor looks really bad to me. It kinda just seems like it erases anything feminine about the woman.
The sexism thing got and is getting thrown around because of the myriad of things like that second sentence that you've said and continue to say and defend.
Why do male models not have to look picturesquely masculine, but female models have to ooze femininity and look ideal for the "masculine gaze"? That is sexism.
So here's a shock for you....women tend to be smaller and shorter than men. Period.
Yah, and if they're wearing armor, no bewbs either. But you're asking for bewbs anyways. Why is it that you're specifically saying a female model is "bad" when they're not overtly displaying . . .
Ahh forget it. Sigh.
I generally assume that having multiple layers of armor and then some shoved between one's breasts would not be comfortable in general, much less in a fight.
That said, I find it an acceptable break from realism. [I even drew my avatar with a boob-plate, so I obvious find it okay]. It comes down to the issue of dressing and presenting oneself how we want to, not how males want us to.
I never said that once again. I said i hated the space marine models and yes i like the dudes to look masculine. It's why i liked 300. I love how different people have thrown out conflicting reasons for why i must obviously be sexist.
So you break from realism when you like it. How is that different from me? In my case i find gender-less armor to be erasing the feminine features of the woman. If the head wasn't there could you tell if the model was female or male? You can't and the lack of being able to tell between them makes it look ugly as a model. Keep in mind this is an over-the-top game. If something has over-the-top violence and an 6-8 boobed towering daemon then asking for slightly more feminine looking models (bit shorter and a bit more lean and more feminine faces) isn't asking a lot. They did it with morathi and it looks good. I can look at morathi and tell it's a woman without needing to look at it a while. It's not over-the-top like raging heroes and it's not as bad as the old dark eldar slave girl models. The current morathi model imo is perfect.
I literally quoted your exact post!
Personally, I like the new Inquisitor more than Morathi. The Inquisitor is something I've wanted to see in general and want to see more of going forward, which is a woman in armor that looks like a woman in armor.
Also, like, you're complaining about the Inquisitor or Sisters of Battle's faces but don't think Morathi's face looks weird? I don't own a Morathi model, but I can assure you that what I'm looking at on the website looks way more distorted and wierd-miniature-facey than even the metal SoB I have.
GW has done well by me as far as general representation of women has gone. At least, better than a lot of other media out there, which I appreciate, though it's a low bar to clear. But one thing that they could work on, that I really like that they've addressed with the new Inquisitor model, is that it's not important that they're female. Inquisitior Draxus is a radical xenophile Inquisitor Lord with a pseudodragon familiar. No part of that requires her to be female, no part of that says she's female, she could be male, but she's not. Her look really shows that, she's not a woman in men's clothes nor is she dressed up to show off her femininity. She's just a radical xenophile inquisitor with a pseudrodragon and a thing for Eldar.
I would like to see more of this, more models and units that are "casually female".
flamingkillamajig wrote: Except a lot of sci-fi movies are a product of their time. Which is why Star Wars looks very 70's and why Aliens also looks pretty dated.
Aliens is not dated and contains two of the most badass female characters put to cinema. If your takeaway from it is neither now look "hawt" then you missed the point completely.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Except a lot of sci-fi movies are a product of their time. Which is why Star Wars looks very 70's and why Aliens also looks pretty dated.
Aliens is not dated and contains two of the most badass female characters put to cinema. If your takeaway from it is neither now look "hawt" then you missed the point completely.
It's quite intriguing that the OP didn't use starship troopers as an example despite being the closest sci-fi equivalent of 40k, where in its depicted time, soldiers, both male and female, shower in the same room together because they're depicted as equals - as 'soldiers' without considerations for one's gender.
If the above quote is true, then startship trooper was a political movie.
Starship Troopers is a political movie but not for that reason. It's about imperialism and the propaganda that sells it to the masses. Everything worth talking about makes a political statement of some sort, despite what the gatekeepers like to believe.
As for the actual topic... yeah GW's portrayal of women in miniature has gotten better, actually, despite their overall issues with faces of any gender. Y'all remember the dark eldar slaves? Yikes on all fronts on that one.
Starship Troopers is also a political book, which is completely opposite from the movie. I actually love the Starship troopers movie for that reason.
But yeah, I agree that most things worth talking about make some kind of statement. Even 40k makes a statement, since it's by and large a satire of fascism, [similar to the starship troopers movie!]
Stormonu wrote: I think that GW's proclivity for "heroic" proportions for its models tends to make them end up looking chonky and difficult to sometimes identify as female.
*Jokingly* I think all their painters must be male. They don't seem to know how to/don't want to apply make-up to the female models, and without it, they often look androgynous or like they are cross-dressing with wigs.
For example, I didn't even realize Kyganil was female until someone pointed it out upthread.
You heard it hear folks, you need to be wearing makeup to look like a woman
Oh gee. Someone should have told me earlier.
My wife doesn't wear make up either. The joke is that models are "painted".
Sci fi can look dated in technology. Look at the computers. I explained everything perfectly. It'd be like watching a sci fi movie where everybody is using phones with spin dials and with outdated haircuts.
Insectum7 wrote: I think I still prefer the idea behind the old Repentia better (more insanity), but I can sure understand why they didn't go that route.
Some tattered sleeves and tabards, and boots rather than trainers would do the new models a world of good IMO. They look a little too much like models from a different game that someone has kitbashed with fluers and purity seals, and the lack of robes hurts their appearance of speed and movement.
flamingkillamajig wrote:I never said that once again.
You said this: "the female models must look female. Which is basically slighter features and maybe existence of boobs rather than completely boob-less"
How else am I meant to take that?
I said i hated the space marine models
You said that *some* Primaris faces looked bad, not that all Space Marine faces (because, let's be honest, it is all Astartes faces) look unhandsome.
and yes i like the dudes to look masculine. It's why i liked 300. I love how different people have thrown out conflicting reasons for why i must obviously be sexist.
I've shown you why your comments were inappropriate. Nothing to do with what you like in your models. It's what you've said WOMEN should look like.
I've asked you twice to define what a woman is for me, and both times, the answer's been an issue for me, because it's not just about models, it's about the perception of women (and trans women) in the real world.
Keep in mind this is an over-the-top game.
Over-the-top violence, not over-the-top sexual objectification. There's a difference.
If something has over-the-top violence and an 6-8 boobed towering daemon than asking for slightly more feminine looking models (bit shorter and a bit more lean and more feminine faces) isn't asking a lot.
You're being wilfully ignorant now.
There's nothing wrong with asking for some slightly more feminine looking models. What IS the problem is you saying that the existing ones don't look like women, because of your reductive view on what women look like!
Don't blame anyone else for your bad phrasing! Apologise, correct it, and rephrase - don't double down.
I can look at morathi and tell it's a woman without needing to look at it a while
Again! This isn't just "it's a good looking woman", it's "it's good because it fits into my idea of what a woman should look like". It's not hard to tell the Sisters look like women - that is, if your idea of women isn't the hollywood stereotype.
This is what I mean by having a problem with what you're saying. I don't care about your preference, but your comments are indicating more than just what you like about models, and more into what you think a woman should look like - which has some pretty terrible RL implications.
Ditch THOSE kinds of comments, and you wouldn't have an issue.
Hold your horses there.
You are making your point and you have your right to do so, but saying that a person has problems in real because of his tastes in miniature is quite uncalled for.
That's a personal attack against someone you literally have no idea who he is or what is his attitude toward women in his life.
His points are correct even if badly expressed. He like models more feminine, which is not a crime nor a reason for personal attacks.
Now, this game has a small scale, so expressing that cannot be done in many ways, we simply don't have enough details. The easier ways to make a model look like a women are indeed:
1) A bit exagerated body curves
2) Slender figure
3) Makeup
Those 3 things makes it easy for our eye to identify that piece of plastic as a small representation of a women.
A figure in that scale without any of those 3 does indeed not look like a women to our eyes. That's simply how our brain works. It would take an incredibly skilled sculptor to make something look like a women in 28mm without any of those 3 traits.
You may think that such a style is not in line with 40K, to which I agree, and you are free to make your point about it.
Personal attacks though are not cool, or are you really convinced that our preferences in miniatures/anime/marvel/whatever are really related to something deeper than a mere visual preference?
Insectum7 wrote: I think I still prefer the idea behind the old Repentia better (more insanity), but I can sure understand why they didn't go that route.
Some tattered sleeves and tabards, and boots rather than trainers would do the new models a world of good IMO. They look a little too much like models from a different game that someone has kitbashed with fluers and purity seals, and the lack of robes hurts their appearance of speed and movement.
I wished the Repentia had looked like the one on the cover of the old codex, or the Dialogus, wearing a tabard of parchment for clothing instead of chains, leather, and nipple piercings as a BDSM cult.
phones with spinning dials can totally fit into the 40K world. There are a million inhabited worlds, and all levels of technological advancement are present somewhere in the galaxy.
As for GW miniature representations' of women, I think its much better than in many other miniature games. However, I'd still feel like a dirty old man if I collected corset clad boob plate SoB, but at least it wouldn't be as pathetic as owning a collection of Kindom Death hentai miniatures. I think any of you with teenage kids can relate.
Now, this game has a small scale, so expressing that cannot be done in many ways, we simply don't have enough details. The easier ways to make a model look like a women are indeed:
1) A bit exagerated body curves
2) Slender figure
3) Makeup
Those 3 things makes it easy for our eye to identify that piece of plastic as a small representation of a women.
A figure in that scale without any of those 3 does indeed not look like a women to our eyes. That's simply how our brain works. It would take an incredibly skilled sculptor to make something look like a women in 28mm without any of those 3 traits.
Uh...
Does a model need to have a chiseled jawlone, broad shoulders, and pants bulge to look like a man?
I think that models like Inquisitor Draxus are good for slowly dismantling the androcentric assumption of military-themed things. And she's still a woman even without a narrow corseted waist, a boobplate, flowing hair, and makeup. I'd say she's pretty obviously female:
You are making your point and you have your right to do so, but saying that a person has problems in real because of his tastes in miniature is quite uncalled for.
I'm saying nothing about their taste in miniatures. I simply asked them what defined a "female", in their own words. Their answers did not fill me with confidence.
That's a personal attack against someone you literally have no idea who he is or what is his attitude toward women in his life.
As I said - I've asked. They answered. I'm yet unconvinced.
His points are correct even if badly expressed. He like models more feminine, which is not a crime nor a reason for personal attacks.
I never said there was anything wrong with how you like your models. What I *do* have a problem with is how they seem to classify what is, and is not, a woman.
If badly expressed, I've invited them to clear that up several times. They have not.
Now, this game has a small scale, so expressing that cannot be done in many ways, we simply don't have enough details. The easier ways to make a model look like a women are indeed:
1) A bit exagerated body curves
2) Slender figure
3) Makeup
Those 3 things makes it easy for our eye to identify that piece of plastic as a small representation of a women.
And yet I can quite easily tell that Draxus, the Magus, hell, all the SoB, Severina, Greyfax, etc - are all women. Funny that.
And again - playing into the idea that women *should* have curves, slender figures, and makeup, when that's a gross oversimplification of women!
Here's a novel idea - how about we move AWAY from the idea that those features define what a woman is. Otherwise, what about men? I mean, what are the "easier ways to make a model look like a man"? A big bushy beard, rippling Arnie-like muscles, and a massive, pendulous... member? Those are all "masculine" things, right? Maybe we should be exaggerating those more, because, you know, the game's at such a small scale, who would ever be able to tell that those guardsmen are male?
Why the double standard? Why do we need to make exaggerated details for women (and not even realistic depictions of most women, at that) and not for men?
A figure in that scale without any of those 3 does indeed not look like a women to our eyes. That's simply how our brain works.
To YOUR eyes and brain, not mine.
It would take an incredibly skilled sculptor to make something look like a women in 28mm without any of those 3 traits.
GW must have a lot of talented sculptors, because I have no trouble identifying models of women as women.
You may think that such a style is not in line with 40K, to which I agree, and you are free to make your point about it.
It's nothing to do with "what you want your models to look like" - it's comments implying that OP doesn't regard models as female if they don't look feminine! Which is something that DEFINITELY bleeds over into the real world!
Personal attacks though are not cool, or are you really convinced that our preferences in miniatures/anime/marvel/whatever are really related to something deeper than a mere visual preference?
From the answers I've received from my questions? Yes.
I asked plainly and simply what OP classed as "female". Their answer did not do them any favours.
I couldn't care less about their model preferences. I *do* care about their perception of what women are and should look like, in the same way I care about what people say men should look like.
I again, welcome them to attempt clarify or apologise.
Now, this game has a small scale, so expressing that cannot be done in many ways, we simply don't have enough details. The easier ways to make a model look like a women are indeed:
1) A bit exagerated body curves
2) Slender figure
3) Makeup
Those 3 things makes it easy for our eye to identify that piece of plastic as a small representation of a women.
A figure in that scale without any of those 3 does indeed not look like a women to our eyes. That's simply how our brain works. It would take an incredibly skilled sculptor to make something look like a women in 28mm without any of those 3 traits.
Uh...
Does a model need to have a chiseled jawlone, broad shoulders, and pants bulge to look like a man?
I think that models like Inquisitor Draxus are good for slowly dismantling the androcentric assumption of military-themed things. And she's still a woman even without a narrow corseted waist, a boobplate, flowing hair, and makeup.
Exactly! Why are we assuming it's so easy to tell what a man is when they're not objectified, but there's no possible way you could tell that's a women without certain features? Why are we assuming that men are the "default"?
Look, if we're going to accept the idea that women need makeup, slender figures, and exaggerated curved to be identifiably...female, all I'm asking for is for all male models to have an absolutely HUGE codpiece, unreasonably large muscles, and a thick beard. Otherwise, how I tell they're male?
I had to read the text under the picture to know that the new Inquisitor miniature was representing a woman.
And not because of my taste but because it lacks any easily identifiable traits usually associated with women.
Doesn't mean the model is bad though, just that it was designed that way. And I can understand why since I believe at this scale, most soldiers should look alike, whatever their sex is.
The feminine models are great. The paint job on faces is sometimes strange, but that's more GW's style of painting than anything else and applies to all gender representations.
Now, this game has a small scale, so expressing that cannot be done in many ways, we simply don't have enough details. The easier ways to make a model look like a women are indeed:
1) A bit exagerated body curves
2) Slender figure
3) Makeup
Those 3 things makes it easy for our eye to identify that piece of plastic as a small representation of a women.
A figure in that scale without any of those 3 does indeed not look like a women to our eyes. That's simply how our brain works. It would take an incredibly skilled sculptor to make something look like a women in 28mm without any of those 3 traits.
Uh...
Does a model need to have a chiseled jawlone, broad shoulders, and pants bulge to look like a man?
I think that models like Inquisitor Draxus are good for slowly dismantling the androcentric assumption of military-themed things. And she's still a woman even without a narrow corseted waist, a boobplate, flowing hair, and makeup.
Maybe all those features on a small model of a man would make him readily look like a man. This game is over the top. Maybe the dude should have muscles on more muscles. This game has knights and titans in it as well as orks that need infinite more dakka. Seriously an ork armed with like 20 different guns having not enough dakka. I'm surprised we haven't seen absurdly sexual things in 40k like a slaanesh daemon with a 20 foot dong.
I would much rather models looked more alike than adding in forced "gender signifiers" like makeup or curves that lead into real world stereotypes of women. Not that I have a particular problem right now identifying models like Severina or Traxus as women.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I would much rather models looked more alike than adding in forced "gender signifiers" like makeup or curves that lead into real world stereotypes of women. Not that I have a particular problem right now identifying models like Severina or Traxus as women.
We could always add a bow in the hair of all feminine models. It'll be like Ms. Pacman.
"Why are we assuming it's so easy to tell what a man is when they're not objectified, but there's no possible way you could tell that's a women without certain features? Why are we assuming that men are the "default"?"
It's the default because it still is, 90% of the miniatures represents men. It won't change overnight.
So all it would take for this to become morally acceptable to some would be to change "they don't look like women" to "I can't tel their gender"?
flamingkillamajig wrote: Maybe all those features on a small model of a man would make him readily look like a man. This game is over the top. Maybe the dude should have muscles on more muscles.
But where's my unreasonably massive phallus? How can I tell it's a man without that! /s
This game has knights and titans in it as well as orks that need infinite more dakka. Seriously an ork armed with like 20 different guns having not enough dakka.
The difference is that Orks and Knights and Titans are fictional. Women, and the depictions of them, are real. The game is over-the-top, but humans are still, by and large, humans. And funnily enough, human women can, and do, look masculine. Not that you seem to recognise that, given the several times I've asked you what women are.
I'm surprised we haven't seen absurdly sexual things in 40k like a slaanesh daemon with a 20 foot dong.
Because that's not the direction GW want to go. And I have nothing wrong with that.
Again - 40k is OTT violent. Not explicitly sexual, and not on the tabletop.
Now, this game has a small scale, so expressing that cannot be done in many ways, we simply don't have enough details. The easier ways to make a model look like a women are indeed:
1) A bit exagerated body curves
2) Slender figure
3) Makeup
Those 3 things makes it easy for our eye to identify that piece of plastic as a small representation of a women.
A figure in that scale without any of those 3 does indeed not look like a women to our eyes. That's simply how our brain works. It would take an incredibly skilled sculptor to make something look like a women in 28mm without any of those 3 traits.
Uh...
Does a model need to have a chiseled jawlone, broad shoulders, and pants bulge to look like a man?
I think that models like Inquisitor Draxus are good for slowly dismantling the androcentric assumption of military-themed things. And she's still a woman even without a narrow corseted waist, a boobplate, flowing hair, and makeup. I'd say she's pretty obviously female:
I didn't realize that was a woman. At a glance it's a man and not even gw, looks like a pp elf. I didn't know this existed but what an absolute travesty of design.
dhallnet wrote: "Why are we assuming it's so easy to tell what a man is when they're not objectified, but there's no possible way you could tell that's a women without certain features? Why are we assuming that men are the "default"?"
It's the default because it still is, 90% of the miniatures represents men. It won't change overnight.
It's no excuse not to start now though.
So all it would take for this to become morally acceptable to some would be to change "they don't look like women" to "I can't tel their gender"?
Gender androgyny would be superior to hyper-masculine or hyper-feminine models, yes. However, GW have demonstrated that they can make perfectly suitable models that aren't hyper-gendered that look like their appropriate genders.
To add to this: Catachans being hyper-muscled? That applies to ALL Catachans, not just Catachan men. They're muscled because they're from Catachan. Cadian men, on the other hand, don't need to be hyper-muscled to show that they're men, for example. Just in case anyone was going to call me out on Catachans premptively.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I would much rather models looked more alike than adding in forced "gender signifiers" like makeup or curves that lead into real world stereotypes of women. Not that I have a particular problem right now identifying models like Severina or Traxus as women.
I can tell instantly that severina represents a woman, it's just the inq that feels off.
And I actually would rather have diversity than all look alike minis, and judging how much everyone is thirsty for new models, I'm sure most people would too.
I didn't realize that was a woman. At a glance it's a man and not even gw, looks like a pp elf. I didn't know this existed but what an absolute travesty of design.
Well, I can tell she's a woman without any effort. Very Tilda Swinton-esque.
And, more importantly, on the "design" front - her being a woman isn't the important part of her design. The important parts of her design are the meldings of Imperial and xenos tech - which I think the design covers perfectly. Her being a woman ("casually", and I believe Inquisitor Lord Katherine put it) isn't the focus of her character - which is what I want to see more of. More "casual" women, more characters that happen to be women, not characters that are special for being women.
She's clearly an eldar wannabe, so I think they were going for the eldar female look. Which looks bad enough on say Yvraine. Maybe it's partially intentional that she looks a bit odd?
Insectum7 wrote: I think I still prefer the idea behind the old Repentia better (more insanity), but I can sure understand why they didn't go that route.
Some tattered sleeves and tabards, and boots rather than trainers would do the new models a world of good IMO. They look a little too much like models from a different game that someone has kitbashed with fluers and purity seals, and the lack of robes hurts their appearance of speed and movement.
I wished the Repentia had looked like the one on the cover of the old codex, or the Dialogus, wearing a tabard of parchment for clothing instead of chains, leather, and nipple piercings as a BDSM cult.
That would have worked well, yeah. I think my beef with the new ones is that they're relatively un-decorated or un-ceremonious in a faction that is all about aesthetic over-embellishment. I don't remember nipple piercings on the old ones, though I'm having trouble finding decent reference pictures.
That said, I liked aspects of the BDSM imagery. That probably sounds awkward but I liked how it played into some of the lore. Iirc there was a story that always stuck in my mind about a Superior who was writing with a pen that was specifically barbed in order to make writing hurt. There seemed to be an underlying theme of physical self-flagellation as part of a sort of hyper-Catholicism. I think the new ones are a little too tame. Parchment tabard would have been a good route, maybe they were afraid of potential red-carpet-sexy-leg and side-boob.
I didn't realize that was a woman. At a glance it's a man and not even gw, looks like a pp elf. I didn't know this existed but what an absolute travesty of design.
dhallnet wrote: And I actually would rather have diversity than all look alike minis, and judging how much everyone is thirsty for new models, I'm sure most people would too.
Diversity can be done without hyper-gendering the models. And again, it comes back to the topic of why don't we hyper-masculise the men, with giant bulges and beards, instead of hyper-feminising the women?
dhallnet wrote: "Why are we assuming it's so easy to tell what a man is when they're not objectified, but there's no possible way you could tell that's a women without certain features? Why are we assuming that men are the "default"?"
It's the default because it still is, 90% of the miniatures represents men. It won't change overnight.
It's no excuse not to start now though.
It's starting to grow but getting angry on a forum at people using the default because it still represents 90% of the content, is weird.
So all it would take for this to become morally acceptable to some would be to change "they don't look like women" to "I can't tel their gender"?
Gender androgyny would be superior to hyper-masculine or hyper-feminine models, yes. However, GW have demonstrated that they can make perfectly suitable models that aren't hyper-gendered that look like their appropriate genders.
Nope, the over representation of hyper sexualised or androgynous models are both bad. Particularly when you advocate representing our society. Not that I think this game in particular should try to represent reality at any time.
I think that models like Inquisitor Draxus are good for slowly dismantling the androcentric assumption of military-themed things. And she's still a woman even without a narrow corseted waist, a boobplate, flowing hair, and makeup. I'd say she's pretty obviously female:
While I agree with what you said in general, Draxus does not look obviously female. Not that she has to or that the sculpt is bad because of that, but I honestly mistook her for a male at first, especially since the name doesn't give it away either.
dhallnet wrote: And I actually would rather have diversity than all look alike minis, and judging how much everyone is thirsty for new models, I'm sure most people would too.
Diversity can be done without hyper-gendering the models. And again, it comes back to the topic of why don't we hyper-masculise the men, with giant bulges and beards, instead of hyper-feminising the women?
Aren't Marines selling so well because they are a man power fantasy or something ? That's what I've been told in one of "these" threads elsewhere.
Also, bob the guardman isn't particularly hyper masculine. Nor is Karedron the guardian, or Strgfdt the hormagaunt.
dhallnet wrote: "Why are we assuming it's so easy to tell what a man is when they're not objectified, but there's no possible way you could tell that's a women without certain features? Why are we assuming that men are the "default"?"
It's the default because it still is, 90% of the miniatures represents men. It won't change overnight.
It's no excuse not to start now though.
It's starting to grow but getting angry on a forum at people using the default because it still represents 90% of the content, is weird.
I'm not getting angry at people using the default. I'm annoyed because people aren't seeing the double standard and thinking "oh, yeah, maybe that is a bit of a double standard, we should do something about that".
So all it would take for this to become morally acceptable to some would be to change "they don't look like women" to "I can't tel their gender"?
Gender androgyny would be superior to hyper-masculine or hyper-feminine models, yes. However, GW have demonstrated that they can make perfectly suitable models that aren't hyper-gendered that look like their appropriate genders.
Nope, the over representation of hyper sexualised or androgynous models are both bad. None represents the reality, since that's what you're after. Not that I think this game in particular should try to represent reality.
Just because this game isn't trying to recreate reality doesn't give it a free pass on blatant double standards between men and women! Again - if you support using things like makeup, curves, and slenderness to represent women, I also want you support giving all male characters an absolutely giant member, and a great big bushy beard. Simple as.
I'm not after reality. I just want to deal with the idea that women *have* to look a certain way to be identifiable as women*, because it's a topic that extends beyond the tabletop, like it or not.
*and the same to be said of men - men with slighter faces, lighter frames, long hair, etc.
So here's a shock for you....women tend to be smaller and shorter than men. Period.
Yah, and if they're wearing armor, no bewbs either. But you're asking for bewbs anyways. Why is it that you're specifically saying a female model is "bad" when they're not overtly displaying . . .
Ahh forget it. Sigh.
I generally assume that having multiple layers of armor and then some shoved between one's breasts would not be comfortable in general, much less in a fight.
That said, I find it an acceptable break from realism. [I even drew my avatar with a boob-plate, so I obvious find it okay]. It comes down to the issue of dressing and presenting oneself how we want to, not how males want us to.
Agree. My point was more that if flamingkillamajig was going to make a 'realism' based argument that could easily swing the other way.
And yeah the Sisters armor is both feminine and badass, acknowledging femininity and empowering it without being trivializing. (unlike the sculpts from several other manufacturers)
Bonus points to whoever set that picture up, btw - look at the side-eye Coteaz is shooting towards Draxus. Reckon he's irritated by her lizard, or jealous of it?
I seem to recall he's a bit of a Puritan, so it's probably irritation.
Odd that Greyfax doesn't seem phased, but I'm less surprised by Gregor "emergency daemonhost" Eisenhorn being accepting of her gear.
dhallnet wrote: "Why are we assuming it's so easy to tell what a man is when they're not objectified, but there's no possible way you could tell that's a women without certain features? Why are we assuming that men are the "default"?" It's the default because it still is, 90% of the miniatures represents men. It won't change overnight.
It's no excuse not to start now though.
So all it would take for this to become morally acceptable to some would be to change "they don't look like women" to "I can't tel their gender"?
Gender androgyny would be superior to hyper-masculine or hyper-feminine models, yes. However, GW have demonstrated that they can make perfectly suitable models that aren't hyper-gendered that look like their appropriate genders.
To add to this: Catachans being hyper-muscled? That applies to ALL Catachans, not just Catachan men. They're muscled because they're from Catachan. Cadian men, on the other hand, don't need to be hyper-muscled to show that they're men, for example. Just in case anyone was going to call me out on Catachans premptively.
You are trying to contest how imagine recognition of the human eye work.
Eyes have a certain way they work, you can't contest it nor change it. Multiple persons have already told you that the new inquisitor does not look like a woman, and indeed if she had an helmet there would be no way at all to know. Even without an helmet you need to look at it long and hard to understand that it is intended to be a women. That's 28mm scale for you. You either make things exagerated and obvious, or your eye simply defaults to the standard interpretation due to an absence of additional info. The default interpreation is that of a male soldier, because 99% of the miniatures are male soldiers. Maybe that one of my primaris intercessors is a woman, but I have no way to tell them apart, so my eyes just see male soldiers.
It is curious that you name sisters as being easily recognizable as women, when that happens exactly because they are much slender than a marine. The chestplate also definitely counts as an exagerated body curve.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Diversity can be done without hyper-gendering the models. And again, it comes back to the topic of why don't we hyper-masculise the men, with giant bulges and beards, instead of hyper-feminising the women?
Am I wrong in thinking that the core army most bought and played is space marines the army of super men body builders . How could GW make them any more hyper masculine Or do people mean hyper sexualized, when they say that?
I'm not after reality. I just want to deal with the idea that women *have* to look a certain way to be identifiable as women*, because it's a topic that extends beyond the tabletop, like it or not.
As far as our discussion is concerned, you don't get it.
Women don't have to look like something particular to be a woman. I can tell the difference IRL whatever way they look like, outside of the rarest cases (which I never encountered) there are multiple tells in real life that indicate which gender people are.
The MINIATURES otherwise, if your goal is to make them easily identifiable, "have to" have certain features (or lack them because there is an established "default setting"), otherwise it makes it harder to identify them as the representation of a woman/man.
dhallnet wrote: And I actually would rather have diversity than all look alike minis, and judging how much everyone is thirsty for new models, I'm sure most people would too.
Diversity can be done without hyper-gendering the models. And again, it comes back to the topic of why don't we hyper-masculise the men, with giant bulges and beards, instead of hyper-feminising the women?
Or ya know we could have both hyper masculine men and hyper feminine women. Ofc you want the sexes to look the same which makes people not notice the sexes have some difference. I guess my fantasy dudes and girls have to stay true to absolutely realistic proportions in a game about huge orks, undead robots and space elves.
Honestly I didn't even say I want women with huge boobs and massive curves with next to no clothing. I just said showing zero female features makes the female figure look boring and masculine or hard to distinguish.
Look at greyfax and then look at the new inquisitor lady. Which can you immediately spot as female? I spot greyfax out in less than a second. I have to look at the other and people might confuse her for a dude. That's a problem.
dhallnet wrote: And I actually would rather have diversity than all look alike minis, and judging how much everyone is thirsty for new models, I'm sure most people would too.
Diversity can be done without hyper-gendering the models. And again, it comes back to the topic of why don't we hyper-masculise the men, with giant bulges and beards, instead of hyper-feminising the women?
Aren't Marines selling so well because they are a man power fantasy or something ? That's what I've been told in one of "these" threads elsewhere.
That's not really provable, as there's many many reasons Space Marines sell well, such as:
Customisability (big flat armour panels, an encouraged diversity in chapter cultures and styles and colour schemes)
Ease of access (pretty quick and simple to assemble and paint, as models go)
Iconic (40k's posterboys, with tonnes of media about and featuring them - if you mention 40k, most people slightly knowledgeable or even not that clued in on the setting will know what a Space Marine looks like)
Well supported by GW (no models particularly lacking, supported by the rules often, models well available, no massive content droughts)
And many many more. That's not to say there aren't people who see them as a male power fantasy, but that's like saying people only play Sisters for the female power fantasy (or other female related fantasies), which simply isn't generalisable.
Also, bob the guardman isn't particularly hyper masculine. Nor is Karedron the guardian, or Strgfdt the hormagaunt.
But Bob the Guardsmen IS a male, right? Or supposed to be, I can't tell without their massive bulge.
That's my point. Sisters are women. Not hyper-feminine. Women. They don't *need* to be hyper-feminine. And what of female guardsmen, or Inquisitors? Why do they need to be hyper-feminine? If they need to be hyper-feminine so I can tell they're female, why don't Eisenhorn and Bob the Guardsmen show off their masculinity?
nekooni wrote: While I agree with what you said in general, Draxus does not look obviously female. Not that she has to or that the sculpt is bad because of that, but I honestly mistook her for a male at first, especially since the name doesn't give it away either.
Serious question - did you actively mistake her for male, or did you just not see any gender markings one way or the other and assume she was male?
Because to me, Draxus is very deliberately sculpted as an androgynous woman, with no real gender markers either way, partly because it's an unusual look and partly because gender is (AFAICT) not relevant to the character.
Personally, I think Severina Raine is probably my favourite depiction of a woman in 40K because it succeeds at looking female without needing to look feminine and, in particular, without having over-exaggerated, gratuitous proportions. It looks like an officer who happens to be a woman, rather than a woman who happens to be an officer.
That's my point. Sisters are women. Not hyper-feminine. Women. They don't *need* to be hyper-feminine. And what of female guardsmen, or Inquisitors? Why do they need to be hyper-feminine? If they need to be hyper-feminine so I can tell they're female, why don't Eisenhorn and Bob the Guardsmen show off their masculinity?
It's the double standard I'm talking about.
I understand your point but nobody has any trouble identifying the miniture of SoB as a women. There are definitive tells. It doesn't need to be "hyper" feminine, there just needs to be some tells.
I'm just going to say this and get heck for it if I will. I love a feminine form, I find it pleasing. Over all, I'm a big fan and not of a perfect ideal but just in general, perfection and all in between. Saying that or admitting that isn't popular these days but I don't care, I am who I am and like what I like and until I die that to my own self I will be true.
That said, I actually don't mind some female models aren't super pretty, some are, some are busty, some are lighter, that is life. In combat form you'd often not notice. It's good they are there in all the variance they can have. I find it instead more odd that all men are totally uniform in look, seems more odd to me honestly as they'd be varied as well with height, body types, etc.
At the end of the day this is a model war game. I'm not looking to be enticed by my models as they are more often than not going to be killed in the course of the game. I am however happy to see more inclusion for women in it as models as its a battle for survival and lets be honest when push comes to shove everyone fights or everyone will die.
Aelyn wrote: Serious question - did you actively mistake her for me, or did you just not see any gender markings one way or the other and assume she was male?
Is it a "did you assume my gender" joke ? it's a miniature. In a range filled with 90% of miniatures representing dudes, that all mostly look alike within the same faction. Ofc most people will "assume" something.
Because to me, Draxus is very deliberately sculpted as an androgynous woman, with no real gender markers either way, partly because it's an unusual look and partly because gender is (AFAICT) not relevant to the character.
Couldn't be an androgynous man ? That's the property of being androgynous. Did YOU assume its gender ?
Personally, I think Severina Raine is probably my favourite depiction of a woman in 40K because it succeeds at looking female without needing to look feminine and, in particular, without having over-exaggerated, gratuitous proportions.
And yet, Severina is way easier to identify as the representation of a woman.
I think victoria miniatures show that female faces can be sculpted to higher standards. But that's resin, maybe plastic is limiting. Honestly I think gw often make pretty bad male faces too, especially on marines. Often the chin or the nose bothers me. A typical example would be that new imperial fist guy.
Spoletta wrote: You are trying to contest how imagine recognition of the human eye work.
Eyes have a certain way they work, you can't contest it nor change it. Multiple persons have already told you that the new inquisitor does not look like a woman, and indeed if she had an helmet there would be no way at all to know. Even without an helmet you need to look at it long and hard to understand that it is intended to be a women. That's 28mm scale for you. You either make things exagerated and obvious, or your eye simply defaults to the standard interpretation due to an absence of additional info. The default interpreation is that of a male soldier, because 99% of the miniatures are male soldiers. Maybe that one of my primaris intercessors is a woman, but I have no way to tell them apart, so my eyes just see male soldiers.
While the human eye does work in a certain way, you're actually describing how the neurons which operate the pattern recognition systems with the brain work, not the eye. The eye translates photons into electrical signals along the optic nerve - nothing more, nothing less. How those signals are interpreted is determined by the brain, and how the neural pathways have been shaped by experience.
nekooni wrote: While I agree with what you said in general, Draxus does not look obviously female. Not that she has to or that the sculpt is bad because of that, but I honestly mistook her for a male at first, especially since the name doesn't give it away either.
Serious question - did you actively mistake her for me, or did you just not see any gender markings one way or the other and assume she was male?
Because to me, Draxus is very deliberately sculpted as an androgynous woman, with no real gender markers either way, partly because it's an unusual look and partly because gender is (AFAICT) not relevant to the character.
Personally, I think Severina Raine is probably my favourite depiction of a woman in 40K because it succeeds at looking female without needing to look feminine and, in particular, without having over-exaggerated, gratuitous proportions.
We are not discussing that Draxus should be more feminine. I personally think that it would look very wrong on that character. The fact that she can be easily mistaken for a man is part of her design... but she CAN be easily mistaken for a man. There is no contesting that.
If you want to make a point that without certain features a miniature does not look like a woman, then there isn't much to contest. In the 28mm scale that is definitely true.
Does a model need to have a chiseled jawlone, broad shoulders, and pants bulge to look like a man?
I think that models like Inquisitor Draxus are good for slowly dismantling the androcentric assumption of military-themed things. And she's still a woman even without a narrow corseted waist, a boobplate, flowing hair, and makeup. I'd say she's pretty obviously female:
Going to be honest, I only know the one on the left is female because I've been explicitly told she was female. When the model was first revealed, I assumed it was male.
Hell, seeing that lineup, it looks like a younger version of the guy second from the left.
That said i can't seem to stop seeing models like this. The inquistior with an ugly face and armor that is so fat, squat and ugly that if the head wasn't there i probably couldn't tell if it was a female model.
Hey, thanks for posting this link! Swap out the weapon & pack, remove the grenade, and add some green stuff detail & that'll make a great Fantasy/D&D character. With it being an =I= model I likely wouldn't have even thought of it. I'll have to pick this up Fri.
So on behalf of my local shop, Thanks for the sale.
Spoletta wrote: You are trying to contest how imagine recognition of the human eye work.
Eyes have a certain way they work, you can't contest it nor change it. Multiple persons have already told you that the new inquisitor does not look like a woman, and indeed if she had an helmet there would be no way at all to know. Even without an helmet you need to look at it long and hard to understand that it is intended to be a women. That's 28mm scale for you. You either make things exagerated and obvious, or your eye simply defaults to the standard interpretation due to an absence of additional info. The default interpreation is that of a male soldier, because 99% of the miniatures are male soldiers. Maybe that one of my primaris intercessors is a woman, but I have no way to tell them apart, so my eyes just see male soldiers.
While the human eye does work in a certain way, you're actually describing how the neurons which operate the pattern recognition systems with the brain work, not the eye. The eye translates photons into electrical signals along the optic nerve - nothing more, nothing less. How those signals are interpreted is determined by the brain, and how the neural pathways have been shaped by experience.
Thanks for giving the detailed explanation, but it doesn't change my point. It is not a matter of misoginy or else if we need certain traits in a model to recognize it is a women... it's just biology.
People in military armor shouldn't be recognizable as female or male unless the armor in question is sexualized.
With Sister of Battle it makes sense their armor is sexualized, they are after all called Sisters of Battle and their gender is the only reason the rest of the IoM tolerates their existence.
But an Inquisitor shouldn't give a feths about gender, and thus sexualized armor doesn't make sense for them.
Spoletta wrote:You are trying to contest how imagine recognition of the human eye work.
Your eyes aren't mine. Don't act like some objective authority on "the human eye".
Eyes have a certain way they work, you can't contest it nor change it.
Clearly, I can contest it, because what you're seeing and what I'm seeing are very different things.
Multiple persons have already told you that the new inquisitor does not look like a woman, and indeed if she had an helmet there would be no way at all to know.
And multiple persons have told you that they see Draxus as female with little difficulty, and if she did put a helmet on, what's wrong with her not looking feminine? Put me and my girlfriend in something like power armour, put helmets on us, and figure out which is which. I doubt you'd be able to - why? Because it's bloody power armour.
Even without an helmet you need to look at it long and hard to understand that it is intended to be a women. That's 28mm scale for you. You either make things exagerated and obvious, or your eye simply defaults to the standard interpretation due to an absence of additional info. The default interpreation is that of a male soldier, because 99% of the miniatures are male soldiers. Maybe that some of my primaris intercessors is a woman, but I have no way to tell them apart, so my eyes just see male soldiers.
Yeah - and that's what should change - the idea that the "default" is a male soldier, not having to have a big flashing sign above non-male soldiers saying LOOK AT ME I'M DIFFERENT.
Introduce and normalise a variety of torsos, arms, and faces - round, slender, curvy, muscular, etc - don't gender-code them. It's absolutely possible to do, because companies like Anvil Industries have pulled it off at the 28mm scale.
As for Primaris - well, yeah - I have "female" Marines in my homebrew Chapter who DO look identical to the men. Why? Because you can't bloody tell under the armour, and it's not important to!
It is curious that you name sisters as being easily recognizable as women, when that happens exactly because they are much slender than a marine. The chestplate also definitely counts as an exagerated body curve.
Yet if I removed the head of one, and put it on a Marine or Guardsmen, I'd see that Marine or Guardsmen as female. Yes, Sisters of recognisably *female*, but that's in addition to their face sculpts, not in spite.
Karol wrote:Am I wrong in thinking that the core army most bought and played is space marines the army of super men body builders .
Body builders is the wrong term, I think. More genetically modified freaks that have masculine faces.
How could GW make them any more hyper masculine Or do people mean hyper sexualized, when they say that?
My point, when I talk about needing to make them hypermasculine is, underneath all that armour, how can you tell they're male? Honestly, you really can't - which is why, when faced with comments like "in order to tell Sisters are women, they need to be hyper-feminine", I respond by saying "in order to tell Marines are male*, they need to be hyper-masculine" - in which comedically exaggerated genitals would fit the analogy.
*I'm personally a believer that Marines shouldn't be called "men" in the cisgender sense - rather, they are transhumans, removed from the concept of sex and gender, but use male pronouns.
dhallnet wrote:As far as our discussion is concerned, you don't get it.
Likewise.
Women don't have to look like something particular to be a woman. I can tell the difference IRL whatever way they look like, outside of the rarest cases (which I never encountered) there are multiple tells in real life that indicate which gender people are.
The MINIATURES otherwise, if your goal is to make them easily identifiable, "have to" have certain features, otherwise it makes it harder to identify them as the representation of a woman. And we could say the same about the representation of men if it wasn't the default in this hobby.
I disagree. It is not *essential* to be able to tell that a model is a woman, and I refuse to support an idea that we should go to extra effort to differentiate models of women from models of men via blatant exaggeration and hyper-femininity without the same being applied to male models.
It's about setting a standard.
flamingkillamajig wrote:Or ya know we could have both hyper masculine men and hyper feminine women.
So where's your complaints about Cadians not having massive codpieces?
Honestly I didn't even say I want women with huge boobs and massive curves with next to no clothing. I just said showing zero female features makes the female figure look boring and masculine or hard to distinguish.
Well, sorry, but not all women DO have extreme "female features". I'm sorry that those women look "boring" if they don't have massive breasts, but that's on you.
If I say "showing no hyper-massive distractingly large genitals on male models makes men look boring and feminine and hard to distinguish" - do you support that? You stand by that?
Look at greyfax and then look at the new inquisitor lady. Which can you immediately spot as female? I spot greyfax out in less than a second. I have to look at the other and people might confuse her for a dude. That's a problem.
A problem for you, because I can identify them both as female. And other people have expressed the same feelings.
Clearly, there's no authority on the matter.
Does a model need to have a chiseled jawlone, broad shoulders, and pants bulge to look like a man?
I think that models like Inquisitor Draxus are good for slowly dismantling the androcentric assumption of military-themed things. And she's still a woman even without a narrow corseted waist, a boobplate, flowing hair, and makeup. I'd say she's pretty obviously female:
Going to be honest, I only know the one on the left is female because I've been explicitly told she was female. When the model was first revealed, I assumed it was male.
Hell, seeing that lineup, it looks like a younger version of the guy second from the left.
She's posed the exact same way as Coteaz, which is neat. It's also another good reason for me to get her when she comes out.
That said, I think she looks adequately obviously female. I don't think most people who hadn't heard of her before would insist she's a guy. I thought she was Eldar though when I first saw her, though, [which given her shuriken catapult, is understandable]
Maybe only up to age 13-14 this is the case. After that you easily spot who is male or female in full protection gear durning training, and I am talking here about 14+ aged people from sports schools. With adults the difference would be even bigger. There is zero chance for me to mix up my trainer with the trainers from any of the female groups. They could be wearing full TKD gear and the difference would be obvious.
Body builders is the wrong term, I think. More genetically modified freaks that have masculine faces.
I guess you don't follow mr Olympia then. But marines are just scaled up versions of Brock Lesner, that is all.
My point, when I talk about needing to make them hypermasculine is, underneath all that armour, how can you tell they're male?
I am assuming this is a serious questions. So I will anwser serious too. Yes I can, and I think everyone who ever did sports, would know the difference between male and female even in full protective gear. Specialy if they are racialy identical . If two people are trained, and over 13-14 there is zero chance to not see the difference. This goes to a point where when you are over 14+ you no longer can have same type of protective gear for male and female classes. They not only don't fit that well, but don't protect the people in most opitmal way.
dhallnet wrote:I understand your point but nobody has any trouble identifying the miniture of SoB as a women. There are definitive tells. It doesn't need to be "hyper" feminine, there just needs to be some tells.
Unless the same apply to men, no, there don't need to be any "tells".
If people are struggling to identify models of women if they don't have boobplate, slender frames, and curvy bodies, then that's something they should be dealing with themselves. Look closer, and work to remove your own pre-conceived ideas of what "female models" should look like.
Karol wrote: Maybe only up to age 13-14 this is the case. After that you easily spot who is male or female in full protection gear durning training, and I am talking here about 14+ aged people from sports schools. With adults the difference would be even bigger. There is zero chance for me to mix up my trainer with the trainers from any of the female groups. They could be wearing full TKD gear and the difference would be obvious.
TKD gear is not exactly comparable to power armor. It isn't even comparable to modern military armor.
I honestly think as someone said already this thread is a dumpster fire.
If people want sensual women models, thats fine, but that isn't what GW puts out. Other companies or places do that pretty well.
I'd hope no one commenting is seeking to shame anyone else on what they appreciate in stimulating visual appeal and we're all just being positively expressive with our views on models.
Aelyn wrote: Serious question - did you actively mistake her for male, or did you just not see any gender markings one way or the other and assume she was male?
Is it a "did you assume my gender" joke ? it's a miniature. In a range filled with 90% of miniatures representing dudes. Ofc most people will "assume" something.
Not a joke, a serious question. There's a significant difference between a model which looks male and one which doesn't really having an obvious gender (and is therefore defaulted to male, for whatever reason), and when you're talking about how gender is represented on minis, it's important to recognise that there's a difference.
Because to me, Draxus is very deliberately sculpted as an androgynous woman, with no real gender markers either way, partly because it's an unusual look and partly because gender is (AFAICT) not relevant to the character.
Couldn't be an androgynous man ? That's the property of being androgynous. Did YOU assume its gender ?
It's always hard to say for sure in retrospect what your first impression was. I honestly couldn't say whether I first thought the mini looked female, male, or whether its gender registered with me at all. It doesn't help that I may have seen some of the text stating her gender before even seeing the model in the first place, so I might not have had an unbiased opinion in the first place.
Nonetheless, when I look at the model, I see several things that are clearly intended to look androgynous as well as a couple minor, relatively subtle details that suggest that she's female.
Personally, I think Severina Raine is probably my favourite depiction of a woman in 40K because it succeeds at looking female without needing to look feminine and, in particular, without having over-exaggerated, gratuitous proportions.
And still, Severina is way easier to identify as the representation of a woman.
... Yes, I did say that she was clearly identifiable as a woman.
AngryAngel80 wrote:I'm just going to say this and get heck for it if I will. I love a feminine form, I find it pleasing. Over all, I'm a big fan and not of a perfect ideal but just in general, perfection and all in between. Saying that or admitting that isn't popular these days but I don't care, I am who I am and like what I like and until I die that to my own self I will be true.
That said, I actually don't mind some female models aren't super pretty, some are, some are busty, some are lighter, that is life. In combat form you'd often not notice. It's good they are there in all the variance they can have. I find it instead more odd that all men are totally uniform in look, seems more odd to me honestly as they'd be varied as well with height, body types, etc.
Exactly. I love both the feminine and masculine form, on both men, women, and everyone in between. But the models an be varied, and the idea that "at 28mm, there's no way we can tell what's what without exaggerating" just isn't correct. Plenty of companies have managed it, hell, GW can do it with little issue (Severina is a great one - as is the Catachan woman model, which I'm sure I've seen somewhere).
At the end of the day this is a model war game. I'm not looking to be enticed by my models as they are more often than not going to be killed in the course of the game. I am however happy to see more inclusion for women in it as models as its a battle for survival and lets be honest when push comes to shove everyone fights or everyone will die.
Spoletta wrote: You are trying to contest how imagine recognition of the human eye work.
Eyes have a certain way they work, you can't contest it nor change it. Multiple persons have already told you that the new inquisitor does not look like a woman, and indeed if she had an helmet there would be no way at all to know. Even without an helmet you need to look at it long and hard to understand that it is intended to be a women. That's 28mm scale for you. You either make things exagerated and obvious, or your eye simply defaults to the standard interpretation due to an absence of additional info. The default interpreation is that of a male soldier, because 99% of the miniatures are male soldiers. Maybe that one of my primaris intercessors is a woman, but I have no way to tell them apart, so my eyes just see male soldiers.
While the human eye does work in a certain way, you're actually describing how the neurons which operate the pattern recognition systems with the brain work, not the eye. The eye translates photons into electrical signals along the optic nerve - nothing more, nothing less. How those signals are interpreted is determined by the brain, and how the neural pathways have been shaped by experience.
Thanks for giving the detailed explanation, but it doesn't change my point. It is not a matter of misoginy or else if we need certain traits in a model to recognize it is a women... it's just biology
No, it isn't! I don't need "certain traits", as you put it, to tell if a model is female - especially when those "certain traits" are slenderness, makeup, and curves!
It is *experience* - and some people need to experience more.
Tyran wrote:People in military armor shouldn't be recognizable as female or male unless the armor in question is sexualized.
With Sister of Battle it makes sense their armor is sexualized, they are after all called Sisters of Battle and their gender is the only reason the rest of the IoM tolerates their existence.
But an Inquisitor shouldn't give a feths about gender, and thus sexualized armor doesn't make sense for them.
I've made my peace with boobplate as part of the Sister's design, as you said, as a piece of their identity as a faction, not as women themselves. It's for use within the setting itself, being a "hey! this is how I'm able to fight for the Ecclesiarchy!" gesture.
But as for Guardsmen and Inquisitors - yup, absolutely, don't need to be recognised by that. It really *should* be as simple as a headswap.
Karol wrote: Maybe only up to age 13-14 this is the case. After that you easily spot who is male or female in full protection gear durning training, and I am talking here about 14+ aged people from sports schools. With adults the difference would be even bigger. There is zero chance for me to mix up my trainer with the trainers from any of the female groups. They could be wearing full TKD gear and the difference would be obvious.
TKD gear is not exactly comparable to power armor. It isn't even comparable to modern military armor.
I live in a place where a large part of firefighters are what we call volenteer firefighters, mostly because state doesn't want to invest on spend money on saving stuff from burning that isn't in big cities, men and women are part of those. In full firefighter gear, with mask, helmet, long black trenchcoat, I can still tell who is male and who is female .
dhallnet wrote:As far as our discussion is concerned, you don't get it.
Likewise.
Women don't have to look like something particular to be a woman. I can tell the difference IRL whatever way they look like, outside of the rarest cases (which I never encountered) there are multiple tells in real life that indicate which gender people are.
The MINIATURES otherwise, if your goal is to make them easily identifiable, "have to" have certain features, otherwise it makes it harder to identify them as the representation of a woman. And we could say the same about the representation of men if it wasn't the default in this hobby.
I disagree. It is not *essential* to be able to tell that a model is a woman,
It's like, you know, you weren't even reading.
I said "if your goal is to make them easily identifiable". So yeah, it would be pretty essential to be able to tell. Of course you don't have to make every miniature of a female be easily identifiable.
and I refuse to support an idea that we should go to extra effort to differentiate models of women from models of men via blatant exaggeration and hyper-femininity without the same being applied to male models.
It's about setting a standard.
And the standard as already been set. "Lack feminine feature" = man, "has feminine feature" = woman. Doesn't mean we all operate like that outside of miniature ranges (of maybe even that particular range). It isn't real life, I'm sure most people here won't default to "it's a man" when presented a picture of an androgynous woman. They will actually think about it because they don't live in a world where 90% is represented by one gender.
Maybe it's worth regretting this, but I am not sure there is anything particularly wrong with it, it's just how we operate in a range set up like that.
Karol I'm going to go ahead and offer this. You're treading on dangerous ground to go down that thought path. Some people will take much exception to such statements so probably best to keep some things on topic of just how the GW female models look like or dislike of that. I'm not saying I do, I'm just trying to save you some headaches.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Karol I'm going to go ahead and offer this. You're treading on dangerous ground to go down that thought path. Some people will take much exception to such statements so probably best to keep some things on topic of just how the GW female models look like or dislike of that. I'm not saying I do, I'm just trying to save you some headaches.
dhallnet wrote: It's like, you know, you weren't even reading.
Again - likewise.
I said "if your goal is to make them easily identifiable". So yeah, it would be pretty essential to be able to tell. Of course you don't have to make every miniature of a female be easily identifiable.
Right - so long as for male more that *need* to be easily identifiable, the same should apply.
and I refuse to support an idea that we should go to extra effort to differentiate models of women from models of men via blatant exaggeration and hyper-femininity without the same being applied to male models.
It's about setting a standard.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Karol I'm going to go ahead and offer this. You're treading on dangerous ground to go down that thought path. Some people will take much exception to such statements so probably best to keep some things on topic of just how the GW female models look like or dislike of that. I'm not saying I do, I'm just trying to save you some headaches.
Yes, quite.
I'd hate to report that comment, or ones like it.
Well I'd like to believe civility can thrive for us smudge, though I think its just a matter of time before someone ends up getting riled up with the nature of the discussion. Lets try and be above it, the thread will kill itself in time.
and rational, intelligent conversation has already gone out of the window. Well done! You killed it in three letters! Are you proud?
Can we please not discuss stuff like this here? This is a touchy subject right now. Everything is misogyny and sexualized and genderized and discriminating and whatnot nowadays. GW is obviously afraid to sculpt pretty women because of that. Even pretty daemons are out of question.
Nope, not everything is misogyny and sexualised and discriminating.
But there are things that are, which people like you are happy to sweep under the rug.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: If people are struggling to identify models of women if they don't have boobplate, slender frames, and curvy bodies, then that's something they should be dealing with themselves. Look closer, and work to remove your own pre-conceived ideas of what "female models" should look like.
You know that is like saying that females don't have too look female to be female.
Yeah, they don't.
What is next males don't have to look like males to be males.
Again, yeah, they don't.
Trans pride.
You are throwing the whole biology aspect from real life.
Sex isn't gender.
Humans can spot if someone is male or female at a glance.
And your stance on trans folk is...?
We evolved to do it.
No, we didn't.
If something like model, plays the role of a female or male, but it looks like something hard to indentify, or what others have to tell you what it is, then there is a problem with the representation.
Again, transgender folks, and non-binary people.
Suffice to say, I disagree with absolutely everything in that paragraph. Appearances are not decisive.
And here we have a prime example of someone who is offended by literally everything gender related. SJW alert.
Got a problem with that?
Trans lives matter. Disagree? I'd be more than happy to report you.
I've said nothing in there that's you should have any issue with - unless, of course, if you're a transphobe. You're not, are you?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AngryAngel80 wrote: Well I'd like to believe civility can thrive for us smudge, though I think its just a matter of time before someone ends up getting riled up with the nature of the discussion. Lets try and be above it, the thread will kill itself in time.
I'm afraid it's too late for that, my friend - it appears someone's dropped the ol' SJW bomb.
Karol wrote: Maybe only up to age 13-14 this is the case. After that you easily spot who is male or female in full protection gear durning training, and I am talking here about 14+ aged people from sports schools. With adults the difference would be even bigger. There is zero chance for me to mix up my trainer with the trainers from any of the female groups. They could be wearing full TKD gear and the difference would be obvious.
Body builders is the wrong term, I think. More genetically modified freaks that have masculine faces.
I guess you don't follow mr Olympia then. But marines are just scaled up versions of Brock Lesner, that is all.
My point, when I talk about needing to make them hypermasculine is, underneath all that armour, how can you tell they're male?
I am assuming this is a serious questions. So I will anwser serious too. Yes I can, and I think everyone who ever did sports, would know the difference between male and female even in full protective gear. Specialy if they are racialy identical . If two people are trained, and over 13-14 there is zero chance to not see the difference. This goes to a point where when you are over 14+ you no longer can have same type of protective gear for male and female classes. They not only don't fit that well, but don't protect the people in most opitmal way.
When I went through through basic training, frankly with just greens and a helmet it was difficult to tell men men and women apart, let alone when you add armour and all the kit you have to lug round.
Actual combat uniform tends to be fairly baggy and not brilliantly flattering. And we’re just talking clothes here, let alone power armour! I’d expect everyone to look the same under that! (Although IMO Draxas’s armour looks noticeably more ‘femininely’ proportioned than Cortez’s next to her)
There’s a good scene in one of the Cain books where he sees Amberley Vail in power armour for the first time and assume she’s a random male Inquisitor before being rather embarrassed when he realises it’s his lover.
I've made my peace with boobplate as part of the Sister's design, as you said, as a piece of their identity as a faction, not as women themselves. It's for use within the setting itself, being a "hey! this is how I'm able to fight for the Ecclesiarchy!" gesture.
But as for Guardsmen and Inquisitors - yup, absolutely, don't need to be recognised by that. It really *should* be as simple as a headswap.
Sexualized armor is not necessarily bad if done properly. I mean, medieval armors with codpieces were a thing. If someone takes pride in their gender, they are likely to use some sort of sexualized armor.
And boob plate can work. What doesn't work is high heels *glares at Greyfax*.
Has anyone ever in the history of w40k, thought that a space marine model represents a woman ? There are no double standards for males. Marines look like men, guardsman look like man. No picks up a catachan and thinks, I think this one could be not a dude.
If there are any double standards, then those are for female models. GW is super hit and miss with how their sculpt faces. And this has nothing to do with being pretty or not. A SoB head should not look the par on space marine scout, and some of the SoB one ,like the Nic Fury one, very much do look like that.
The only thing i will say is that new inquisitor head reminds me way too much of the "coneheads" anyone remember coneheads? . I find it the ugliest face GW has ever done personally..
I really like the sculpt overall. I think I will replace her head with one of the enforcer or the new visorered spesh marines heads when/if I get around to doing his mini.
I won't lie the Greyfax high heels did make me quirk the brow, but then any combat armed women in high heels seem odd to me. A dark eldar might make it work, she'd probably kill people with them.
Karol wrote: Take any female sports woman and stand her up next to a man that does the same type of sports, and then tell that you can't see the clear difference.
Take a trans woman and a cis woman, and tell me which is which.
Yeah Cyborg may be bigger then 15 year old me, or some man that never trained in their life. But put here in front someone who is considered big for males, like lets say Brock or Batista, and there is no way you can mix them up.
And similarly, put my girlfriend and I in a boilersuit, put a facemask over us, and tell who's who. You wouldn't be able to.
Not all men look the same, not all women look the same, and appearances mean nothing when it comes down to how someone identifies their gender.
I have absolutly no idea what trans has anything to do with being or looking like a male or female in your example by the way.
Because many people regard someone born as a man, but later identifies as female to still be male - even though they may look female to the rest of the world.
Appearances are not universally indicative of gender. Sure, for the vast majority of people who are cisgender and look "typical" of their gender, you can tell - but it's not always true, and should never be assumed.
And your stance on trans folk is...?
you mean like in sports?
Nothing to do with sports. I mean how they relate on the whole "I can tell exactly what gender you are simply by looking" - you're 100% sure you'd never misgender someone?
the fact that models ment to be female or male should look like male or females.
Well, define for me what "males" and "females" look like then. With 100% accuracy.
And don't forget to factor in trans folk, and non-binary people.
If GW made an ork model, I would expect it to look like an orc etc.
That's great, but Orks are fictional. It's pretty easy to determine what a fictional creature looks like, as there's little variety.
People are not fictional creatures, and people do not look the same. And there are people whose appearance does not "match" their gender - what have you say on that matter?
Sexualized armor is not necessarily bad if done properly. I mean, medieval armors with codpieces were a thing. If someone takes pride in their gender, they are likely to use some sort of sexualized armor.
And boob plate can work. What doesn't work is high heels *glares at Greyfax*.
Try wearing protective gear ment for a female your own age. Or ask a female to wear yours and do sport. this has zero to do with pride, sexualization or other stuff, and has everything to do with biology, how wide your hips are, how big your shoulders are and with important bits the other sex may not have, or may not have them at the same size.
Argive wrote: *gets pocorn and sits down reading the thread*
The only thing i will say is that new inquisitor head reminds me way too much of the "coneheads" anyone remember coneheads? . I find it the ugliest face GW has ever done personally..
I really like the sculpt overall. I think I will replace her head with one of the enforcer or the new visorered spesh marines heads when/if I get around to doing his mini.
Just so long as I don't catch you using the sensor rings, or you'll be ground for an entire zurl and I mean it.
Morkphoiz wrote:Look, I certainly do not care what gender you are and as what gender you identify. The fact that you immediatly turned this thread into a political discussion made me drop the "sjw bomb".
I did nothing. Certain users' comments like "I can always identify what a man and woman look like" are simply incorrect, and needed correcting.
That's not political.
Why are you getting so upset about someone wanting plastic girls to look pretty?
For god's sake, I never said that! What I *said* was "not all women are 'pretty', but they're still women" - which is what OP failed to get across at all.
I get that everyone has a different taste and such but immediatly throwing around words like "hyper sexualization" and "misogyny" is quite over the top in my opinion.
And in my opinion, implying that ugly women aren't women is similarly over the top.
Swings both ways.
You're also making quite a fuss about trans life. I did not mention that with one word in my last post.
No, you just called me an SJW when I supported trans rights. Why would that be, I wonder?
You do you, I dont care. You can also report me for whatever if it makes you happy. I still think you are overreacting quite dramatically.
Well, i fyou don't want it to go further, I'd suggest stopping calling people SJWs, for a start.
I've reacted perfectly within reasonable parameters, given the things I'm responding to.
Again - read what I'm saying and responding to. I don't care what you *want* things to look like, I'm just setting things straight on "if it doesn't look like this, it's not a woman", and so on.
Tyran wrote:Sexualized armor is not necessarily bad if done properly. I mean, medieval armors with codpieces were a thing. If someone takes pride in their gender, they are likely to use some sort of sexualized armor.
And boob plate can work. What doesn't work is high heels *glares at Greyfax*.
Oof, yeah, Greyfax's heels are a bit of a bugbear for me!
Karol wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: A double standard, I'm afraid.
Has anyone ever in the history of w40k, thought that a space marine model represents a woman ?
There's no way to tell, under the armour and helmet. Many of my own Space Marines are female because of this.
There are no double standards for males. Marines look like men, guardsman look like man. No picks up a catachan and thinks, I think this one could be not a dude.
Space Marines, with helmets, don't look like men. Cadians don't look like "men", they look like blobby potato creatures. Catachans barely look human.
I only assume they're men because I'm told they are, and because it's "assumed" that if I can't tell what it is, it's a man - and that's the problem.
If there are any double standards, then those are for female models. GW is super hit and miss with how their sculpt faces. And this has nothing to do with being pretty or not. A SoB head should not look the par on space marine scout, and some of the SoB one ,like the Nic Fury one, very much do look like that.
You're missing my point on "double standard".
In this thread, I've been told that female models need to undergo modifications to make them look female, but male ones don't. That's the double standard here.
Why do female models need to be made curvy and slender, but male models don't need to be made hyper-buff and have massive codpieces?
Also, I can guarantee if I put an SoB head on one of my scouts, I'd be able to tell the difference.
Yeah Cyborg may be bigger then 15 year old me, or some man that never trained in their life. But put here in front someone who is considered big for males, like lets say Brock or Batista, and there is no way you can mix them up.
And similarly, put my girlfriend and I in a boilersuit, put a facemask over us, and tell who's who. You wouldn't be able to.
I would. I said it already. We have volunteer firefighters here, they are recruited from men and women. If I can tell who is who while wearing helmet, gas mask. long trenchcoat.
Not all men look the same, not all women look the same, and appearances mean nothing when it comes down to how someone identifies their gender.
Doesn't matter, just because , to use the MMA example. Cyborg is bigger then me or some random dude her age who never trained. There is zero chance to mix her up with a male fighter. So aside for some extrems like DDR sportswomen being pumped full of testosteron, the chance of a mix up are close to zero.
Because many people regard someone born as a man, but later identifies as female to still be male - even though they may look female to the rest of the world
From what I understand to achive that you need hormons and surgery to achive that. Again I have no idea what this has to do with w40k or models looking like males or females. There are no female or trans space marines, and all SoB have to female according to their charter, and recruited straight out of the schola.
Appearances are not universally indicative of gender. Sure, for the vast majority of people who are cisgender and look "typical" of their gender, you can tell - but it's not always true, and should never be assumed.
Again absolutly have no idea what this has to to do with w40k and representation of males and females in models produced by GW.
Nothing to do with sports. I mean how they relate on the whole "I can tell exactly what gender you are simply by looking" - you're 100% sure you'd never misgender someone?
the fact that models ment to be female or male should look like male or females.
Well, define for me what "males" and "females" look like then. With 100% accuracy.
I don't even now what mis gendering means. You are a male or a female. And you like one or the other. I have no idea how anyone could misgender anyone.
That's great, but Orks are fictional. It's pretty easy to determine what a fictional creature looks like, as there's little variety.
People are not fictional creatures, and people do not look the same. And there are people whose appearance does not "match" their gender - what have you say on that matter?
space marines, sisters of battle and IG are fictional too. And if someones appeerance doesn't match they gender I can only feel bad for them. But because I feel bad for them, it doesn't mean I think the laws of biology should be changed. I am diagnosed as autistic, I don't understand a lot of things, specialy the social things. I am also not an adult. But I do not expec that the rest of the world should think an act as if everyone was like me . And again this goes way over my understanding what this has to do with w40k models looking the way they do.
Karol wrote: Take any female sports woman and stand her up next to a man that does the same type of sports, and then tell that you can't see the clear difference.
Take a trans woman and a cis woman, and tell me which is which.
Yeah Cyborg may be bigger then 15 year old me, or some man that never trained in their life. But put here in front someone who is considered big for males, like lets say Brock or Batista, and there is no way you can mix them up.
And similarly, put my girlfriend and I in a boilersuit, put a facemask over us, and tell who's who. You wouldn't be able to.
Not all men look the same, not all women look the same, and appearances mean nothing when it comes down to how someone identifies their gender.
I have absolutly no idea what trans has anything to do with being or looking like a male or female in your example by the way.
Because many people regard someone born as a man, but later identifies as female to still be male - even though they may look female to the rest of the world.
Appearances are not universally indicative of gender. Sure, for the vast majority of people who are cisgender and look "typical" of their gender, you can tell - but it's not always true, and should never be assumed.
And your stance on trans folk is...?
you mean like in sports?
Nothing to do with sports. I mean how they relate on the whole "I can tell exactly what gender you are simply by looking" - you're 100% sure you'd never misgender someone?
the fact that models ment to be female or male should look like male or females.
Well, define for me what "males" and "females" look like then. With 100% accuracy.
And don't forget to factor in trans folk, and non-binary people.
If GW made an ork model, I would expect it to look like an orc etc.
That's great, but Orks are fictional. It's pretty easy to determine what a fictional creature looks like, as there's little variety.
People are not fictional creatures, and people do not look the same. And there are people whose appearance does not "match" their gender - what have you say on that matter?
You seem to be denying that sexual dimorphism is a thing.
Sexualized armor is not necessarily bad if done properly. I mean, medieval armors with codpieces were a thing. If someone takes pride in their gender, they are likely to use some sort of sexualized armor.
And boob plate can work. What doesn't work is high heels *glares at Greyfax*.
Try wearing protective gear ment for a female your own age. Or ask a female to wear yours and do sport. this has zero to do with pride, sexualization or other stuff, and has everything to do with biology, how wide your hips are, how big your shoulders are and with important bits the other sex may not have, or may not have them at the same size.
Have you seen historical paintings of women in medieval armor? they are wearing non-sexualized armor just fine. The same applies to women in modern armor.
Moreover, rigid armor required to have some padding and space between the armor and the wearer, because the energy of impacts need space to dissipate. You don't wear skin tight armor regardless of what gender you are.
Just like with codpieces, boob plate is for pure aesthetics reasons. Which btw isn't wrong.
"and rational, intelligent conversation has already gone out of the window. Well done! You killed it in three letters! Are you proud?"
You weren't being rational since page 3 at least. You kept flipping out on people which is why i stopped responding to you for a time.
I've only responded in kind to what you've provided me - no apologies, no explanations, no NOTHING to explain your comments.
I asked you twice to explain to me what "female" means - and neither answer painted you in a good light. How am I *not* supposed to react accordingly?
Inquisitor lady is just hard to tell whether male or female. She looks odd.
Well, I've had no issue. Anecdotal, I know, but frankly, her gender isn't really important to her character.
Ynnead is also a bit of the aesthetic but mostly just the head (at least looks like a lady).
See, you were doing FINE until the bolded part! What is that supposed to mean?
Stern just has an awful face again. I mean did they have to make her look constipated and give her an unflattering pose.
Right, but she still looks female - which is my point! She can be "ugly", but she's still a woman.
For sisters of battle models some of the faces just look crappy. I honestly don't even think you could have somebody drill them and scream, "SHOW ME YOUR WAR FACE!" and these sisters would look like the average woman. Some are decent faces and others aren't. It's just i don't think the faces look like girls normal faces.
And yet I think they're some of the best faces GW have done, because I think they look more normal than most others!
Again - I haven't got an issue with you thinking they look bad, or wanting a different kind - but don't say that they don't look "female", or that "women have to look a certain way" - which are things you've said!
I really cannot understand how anyone could look at that inquisitor and see a male. It was obviously female for me. At minimun an extremely feminine male. That face physiology is 100% female. Even in Coteaz's body is clearly a female head.
I don't know if is because I have a background of photography and in drawing and I'm wired to identify males and females with ease but... yeah.
Right, but she still looks female - which is my point! She can be "ugly", but she's still a woman.
But no one here is talking about the pretty looking aspect of the models. Probably one of the best SoB models are the bald flamer sister and the old granny cannones. Neither can be considered pretty, but they are also not the problem. The problem is the Nick Fury cannones or the female commisar.
The female commisar looks like the boys from my old school who did reconstructions, with the only difference being no soviet era military caps, but XIX century 1807-1815 polish legion ones. Even the colours are similiar,
I kinda dislike GWs direction with female models recently.
I really like wyches, those are fantastic. I hate the "daughters of khaine" tho. Going to battle in underwear is not okay.
The aforementioned high heels on greyfax are certainly not okay.
I hate the exaggerated unfemale look of the new female
Inquisitor. I hate everything about this model. It just does not look right. I would also hate that model had they declared it male btw.
I absolutely hate the new daemonettes. Models which are all about being sexually attractive in the lore should not be this ugly.
I like the new sisters in general but i really dislike the repentia. These girls were known to go to battle wrapped in nothing but parchment. Loved the old models. The new ones are just so politically correct I could throw up.
Sexualized armor is not necessarily bad if done properly. I mean, medieval armors with codpieces were a thing. If someone takes pride in their gender, they are likely to use some sort of sexualized armor.
And boob plate can work. What doesn't work is high heels *glares at Greyfax*.
Try wearing protective gear ment for a female your own age. Or ask a female to wear yours and do sport. this has zero to do with pride, sexualization or other stuff, and has everything to do with biology, how wide your hips are, how big your shoulders are and with important bits the other sex may not have, or may not have them at the same size.
Have you seen historical paintings of women in medieval armor? they are wearing non-sexualized armor just fine. The same applies to women in modern armor.
Moreover, rigid armor required to have some padding and space between the armor and the wearer, because the energy of impacts need space to dissipate. You don't wear skin tight armor regardless of what gender you are.
Just like with codpieces, boob plate is for pure aesthetics reasons. Which btw isn't wrong.
I haven't. Only ever seen statutes and pictures of dudes. Care to share these historical pictures and paintings and who are the figures? I never knew women joined battle in knightly attire.
I think it would be a great history reading project.
Actually is quite studied that most types of armors are designed with and for men bodies (And not only that but to standard ones) so they are not only really unconfortable to any men body that deviates from the standard they are quite bad for female bodies.
But both sexualized and sensible armors are fine, they have their place. And GW does a bit of everything for everybody. And thats fine.
Karol wrote:I would. I said it already. We have volunteer firefighters here, they are recruited from men and women. If I can tell who is who while wearing helmet, gas mask. long trenchcoat.
Well, I'd be more than happy to invite you to test between my girlfriend and I, if I only had pictures. But I can assure you - you would not be able to.
Not all men look the same, not all women look the same, and appearances mean nothing when it comes down to how someone identifies their gender.
Doesn't matter, just because , to use the MMA example. Cyborg is bigger then me or some random dude her age who never trained. There is zero chance to mix her up with a male fighter. So aside for some extrems like DDR sportswomen being pumped full of testosteron, the chance of a mix up are close to zero.
I get the feeling you're not familiar with trans or non-cisgender people.
Because many people regard someone born as a man, but later identifies as female to still be male - even though they may look female to the rest of the world
From what I understand to achive that you need hormons and surgery to achive that.
Not really. Sex and gender are not the same thing.
Again I have no idea what this has to do with w40k or models looking like males or females.
Because you made the comment of "men should look like men, and women should look like women" - which is dismissive of men who do not look like men, women who do not look like women, and everyone in between.
There are no female or trans space marines
There are arguably no male Marines either - technically, they're all transhuman, and beyond "male".
and all SoB have to female according to their charter, and recruited straight out of the schola.
And Guardsmen? Inquisitors? Eldar? Tau? Admech?
Not so simple.
Appearances are not universally indicative of gender. Sure, for the vast majority of people who are cisgender and look "typical" of their gender, you can tell - but it's not always true, and should never be assumed.
Again absolutly have no idea what this has to to do with w40k and representation of males and females in models produced by GW.
Because, as I said above, you claimed "men should look like men, and women should look like women" - even though there are men who do not look like men, and women who do not look like women, and everywhere in between.
I'm challenging the statement of "men should look like men", because it has no basis.
I don't even now what mis gendering means.
It means assuming someone is the gender that they are not.
You are a male or a female.
Well, that's not true. There are more than two genders. FAR more. Non-binary, intersex, genderfluid, gender-neutral, etc etc.
And you like one or the other. I have no idea how anyone could misgender anyone.
You'd be surprised.
space marines, sisters of battle and IG are fictional too.
But they are (with the exception of Space Marines) human. Humans are not fictional.
And if someones appeerance doesn't match they gender I can only feel bad for them.
Why feel bad? That's how they choose to look, some of the time.
But because I feel bad for them, it doesn't mean I think the laws of biology should be changed.
The laws of biology do not link sex and gender.
I am diagnosed as autistic, I don't understand a lot of things, specialy the social things. I am also not an adult. But I do not expec that the rest of the world should think an act as if everyone was like me.
The world should be more open to that though - to a great many things.
All I'm saying is that the idea that "men look like men/women look like women" is not always correct, and that's okay. Gender is more than binary.
Insectum7 wrote: You seem to be denying that sexual dimorphism is a thing.
Sex and gender aren't the same thing though, which is the point I'm trying to make.
Galas wrote: I really cannot understand how anyone could look at that inquisitor and see a male. It was obviously female for me. At minimun an extremely feminine male. That face physiology is 100% female. Even in Coteaz's body is clearly a female head.
I don't know if is because I have a background of photography and in drawing and I'm wired to identify males and females with ease but... yeah.
Agreed.
I think the head swap photo makes it really obvious even her armour is fairly stylised feminine. Cortez’s hyper masculine head IMO looks really off somehow on her body in a way that her head on his body does not.
Aside from some aspects of the chest I think his armour is more unisex whereas hers is (to me at least) definitely feminine.
Galas wrote: I really cannot understand how anyone could look at that inquisitor and see a male. It was obviously female for me. At minimun an extremely feminine male. That face physiology is 100% female. Even in Coteaz's body is clearly a female head.
I don't know if is because I have a background of photography and in drawing and I'm wired to identify males and females with ease but... yeah.
Agreed.
I think the head swap photo makes it really obvious even her armour is fairly stylised feminine. Cortez’s hyper masculine head IMO looks really off somehow on her body in a way that her head on his body does not.
Aside from some aspects of the chest I think his armour is more unisex whereas hers is (to me at least) definitely feminine.
Is the thights. Those are female legs even in heavy armor, not male ones. Anyone with two eyes could or should see that. As you said, the female head in the body with the male armor with nipples looks actually better than the male one on the "unsexualized SJWapproved politically correct" armor. Because that armor is clearly female, just in subtle ways than boob plate.
And I don't want to be pedantic or anything. But is obvious that many, many people, has 0 idea about design. But too much ideas about being arm-chairs designers. Theres a ton of bad unsexuallized designs out there, I agree. But GW has done no one of those, at least not for now. They designs are actually quite good in the feminine respect (The new ones of course, not the 15 years ago ones). They have probably one of the biggest ranges of feminine forms, faces, etc... in all of the market. And thats something because 10 years ago they sculpted females like they only saw one on drawings from the colonial era.
Well there is the breastplate queen elisbeth wore durning the time of the spanish armada. And the armour of spanish queen isabela from 1490. But those weren't battle armours, as queens didn't generaly wack people on the heads in melee.
If there were any females fighting in medivel times , and we have no reasons to think there couldn't have been one or two, their armour would have been down scaled male armour , armour for youths that was reforged like the one st Joan. With chainmail the only difference would be the size of the belt and how high you would put it on, as chainmail has to be supported by the hips to be comfortable to wear.
Jesus Christ Sgt. Smudge. You care so much about the whole trans thing. For what it's worth the thought never entered my mind that the person was trans or not or anything like that. I honestly didn't care.
As far as the character went it wasn't sexualized at all. In fact it was quite the opposite to the point of taking away what sexuality the character might have had which makes the new inquisitor kinda boring and eerie actually. I find this so odd. I've known both trans and asexual people. None of them have wanted to identify as neither male nor female but sure enough that's what this model managed to do. The issue is i can't even identify wtf this model is supposed to be whether male or female. It takes like a whole 3 seconds to focus and think about it and realize it's female. From a distance people would mistake it.
Yeah and the issue is whenever we say we want more defining characteristics of a woman on female models you say why don't we have a 12 inch member on space marines (which would probably be small for a space marine honestly). That's basically what you say whenever we want some features. I'm not asking for huge F sized boobs. That's legit not what i want and i don't want them all showing nothing but skin. Notice how i point out morathi multiple times. She looks decent and her form is realistic.
Then you say "Oh it's not realistic." Yeah and point out to me where the several hundred pound basement dwelling neckbeards and lady land whales are in the setting as characters. Clearly i'm not being represented as an average looking skinny autistic dude with few muscles. Where in the setting am i represented? What's funny is that i'm fine with that. I like movies like 300 because buff dudes killing gak gets me pumped. After i watched that i played my first 40k game during '07 because that's what 40k seemed like. I'm not always into buff dudes killing stuff in an over the top fashion (why i went to WHFB) but it was fun in the moment for what it was.
So glad we're in the time of if you don't like a model and how it's represented prepare to have all the -isms thrown at you.
Honestly i think i'm done with this thread. I no longer wish to indulge your constant non-stop arguing sgt_smudge. Keep in mind you constantly warned others to not be transphobic which is funny because somebody earlier in the thread said i was an incel basically. You lot are all such a joy to be around. Truly this year is hell.
All I'm saying is that the idea that "men look like men/women look like women" is not always correct, and that's okay. Gender is more than binary.
It is true that the last semester, we had no school, and I was never the most bright to begin with, but unless somehow people turn to fungi, gender is very much binary.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Is the thights. Those are female legs even in heavy armor, not male ones. Anyone with two eyes could or should see that. As you said, the female head in the body with the male armor with nipples looks actually better than the male one on the "unsexualized SJWapproved politically correct" armor. Because that armor is clearly female, just in subtle ways than boob plate.
They ,look like the ones on the new primaris executioner or the AoS stormcasts, and those are, or at least I hope they are, male.
Is the thights. Those are female legs even in heavy armor, not male ones. Anyone with two eyes could or should see that. As you said, the female head in the body with the male armor with nipples looks actually better than the male one on the "unsexualized SJWapproved politically correct" armor. Because that armor is clearly female, just in subtle ways than boob plate.
They ,look like the ones on the new primaris executioner or the AoS stormcasts, and those are, or at least I hope they are, male.
If you refer to the Primaris Erradicators they are actually the opposite, the same for stormcasts. The thight is smaller than the lower part of the leg.
Spoiler:
If you refer to the Primaris Executioner thats a tank so I don't think it even has legs
Karol wrote:I would. I said it already. We have volunteer firefighters here, they are recruited from men and women. If I can tell who is who while wearing helmet, gas mask. long trenchcoat.
Well, I'd be more than happy to invite you to test between my girlfriend and I, if I only had pictures. But I can assure you - you would not be able to.
Not all men look the same, not all women look the same, and appearances mean nothing when it comes down to how someone identifies their gender.
Doesn't matter, just because , to use the MMA example. Cyborg is bigger then me or some random dude her age who never trained. There is zero chance to mix her up with a male fighter. So aside for some extrems like DDR sportswomen being pumped full of testosteron, the chance of a mix up are close to zero.
I get the feeling you're not familiar with trans or non-cisgender people.
Because many people regard someone born as a man, but later identifies as female to still be male - even though they may look female to the rest of the world
From what I understand to achive that you need hormons and surgery to achive that.
Not really. Sex and gender are not the same thing.
Again I have no idea what this has to do with w40k or models looking like males or females.
Because you made the comment of "men should look like men, and women should look like women" - which is dismissive of men who do not look like men, women who do not look like women, and everyone in between.
There are no female or trans space marines
There are arguably no male Marines either - technically, they're all transhuman, and beyond "male".
and all SoB have to female according to their charter, and recruited straight out of the schola.
And Guardsmen? Inquisitors? Eldar? Tau? Admech?
Not so simple.
Appearances are not universally indicative of gender. Sure, for the vast majority of people who are cisgender and look "typical" of their gender, you can tell - but it's not always true, and should never be assumed.
Again absolutly have no idea what this has to to do with w40k and representation of males and females in models produced by GW.
Because, as I said above, you claimed "men should look like men, and women should look like women" - even though there are men who do not look like men, and women who do not look like women, and everywhere in between.
I'm challenging the statement of "men should look like men", because it has no basis.
I don't even now what mis gendering means.
It means assuming someone is the gender that they are not.
You are a male or a female.
Well, that's not true. There are more than two genders. FAR more. Non-binary, intersex, genderfluid, gender-neutral, etc etc.
And you like one or the other. I have no idea how anyone could misgender anyone.
You'd be surprised.
space marines, sisters of battle and IG are fictional too.
But they are (with the exception of Space Marines) human. Humans are not fictional.
And if someones appeerance doesn't match they gender I can only feel bad for them.
Why feel bad? That's how they choose to look, some of the time.
But because I feel bad for them, it doesn't mean I think the laws of biology should be changed.
The laws of biology do not link sex and gender.
I am diagnosed as autistic, I don't understand a lot of things, specialy the social things. I am also not an adult. But I do not expec that the rest of the world should think an act as if everyone was like me.
The world should be more open to that though - to a great many things.
All I'm saying is that the idea that "men look like men/women look like women" is not always correct, and that's okay. Gender is more than binary.
Insectum7 wrote: You seem to be denying that sexual dimorphism is a thing.
Sex and gender aren't the same thing though, which is the point I'm trying to make.
That seems out of place to get hung up on. I don't think anyone is trying to make any point relating to sex-vs-gender in regards to 28mm models.
tI ment the one with the sword and the wierd bandit looking western helmet. the one who is missing one shoulder pad and carries a german XIIIth century executioners sword.
All I'm saying is that the idea that "men look like men/women look like women" is not always correct, and that's okay. Gender is more than binary.
It is true that the last semester, we had no school, and I was never the most bright to begin with, but unless somehow people turn to fungi, gender is very much binary.
Don't push the issue with this person man. You don't want to have to sit with another 5 page rant that could only be stopped with a thread lock.
Karol wrote: tI ment the one with the sword and the wierd bandit looking western helmet. the one who is missing one shoulder pad and carries a german XIIIth century executioners sword.
dhallnet wrote:I said "if your goal is to make them easily identifiable". So yeah, it would be pretty essential to be able to tell. Of course you don't have to make every miniature of a female be easily identifiable.
Right - so long as for male more that *need* to be easily identifiable, the same should apply.
I never talked of NEEDS, I talked of goals. And I talked of it, twice.
But I'll help.
It's quite easier to represent a dude (lacks boobs basically) in miniature form than a woman. You can try IRL with clay. Model a woman without any feminine features and ask random people around you what gender the model represents. At best, people will say they don't know. Which isn't the goal with these miniatures that are trying, at least some of them, to tell a story.
Now, model a beard or boobs and ask the same question. Or ask a child to draw stick figures of his parents (notice I'm not talking about genders), he will draw the feature particular to each one of them.
The fact that we don't need tells to know we're looking at the representation of a dude, is because a dude has no specific feature that easily represents it in our society.
We could model every guy with a beard, it would kinda break immersion though, meanwhile some amount of boobs is expected when representing women as it is a definitive physical feature a man hasn't.
"WAAAAAH NOT ALL WOMAN HAVE BOOBS", yeah I'm aware, and if they also happen to have a beard/power armor/whatever is usually associated with a dude, they will be mistaken for one dude. Yeah, shockingly that's how associations works. Birds fly, all mammals get pregnant etc. It's not true, but it's close enough (and not all men are equally able to grow beards either but it probably won't be pointed by anyone else though).
What usually sets them appart is all we have to determine what gender a model represents. No surprise that when you remove these features, it becomes hard to tell and most go back to the default "featureless", "it's a dude".
Sgt_Smudge wrote:and I refuse to support an idea that we should go to extra effort to differentiate models of women from models of men via blatant exaggeration and hyper-femininity without the same being applied to male models.
It's about setting a standard.
dhallnet wrote:I said multiple times the tells don't need to be exaggerated, they just need to exist in the first place.
And the standard as already been set.
A double standard, I'm afraid.
It's unfair for a gender that we do more efforts to represent it ? Shouldn't it be the over way around ? Or are you still stuck at "if they can't identify the gender, they think it's a dude ! TOTALLY UNFAIR". Is simply having a feminine face definition being blatant exaggeration ?
I guess considering every dude under the helmet is a dudette actually is the solution then. Lots of dudettes all around and no effort to make. That's progress !
And that's not okay! What's hard to get about that?
What is hard to get in that we're talking about miniatures and it doesn't automatically translate to IRL ?
But to answer, what is hard to get is that we're talking about a miniature range in which most of the items represent a dude (and has been for decades), in which we are getting more and more items representing women, even some representing androgynous characters but you still have an issue with people mistaking androgynous models as dudes. Because that's what they are used to.
Karol wrote: tI ment the one with the sword and the wierd bandit looking western helmet. the one who is missing one shoulder pad and carries a german XIIIth century executioners sword.
How has this the same legs than the inquisitor?
Spoiler:
It is the same late XVth century parade style armour with it exagerated knee guards, you would never use in combat. The stormcasts have those almond looking ones or a ton of their models too.
When I talk about the legs of the inquisitor armor I'm referring to the clearly feminine siluete done from the thights and the relatively speaking "very" small feets in comparison. Look at the stormcast male vs female armor, the giant lower half of the male legs with giants feet vs the more realistic proportion of the female armor. Those clues are very obvious to anybody that has drawned a human figure or work with photography.
As I said, when people comes out and complaints about how they mistake clearly feminine miniatures for male I cannot understand if they are actually used to look at females? I mean. In the "study the human form" sense.
flamingkillamajig wrote:Jesus Christ Sgt. Smudge. You care so much about the whole trans thing.
Someone has to. What's wrong with caring about trans folk?
The issue is i can't even identify wtf this model is supposed to be whether male or female. It takes like a whole 3 seconds to focus and think about it and realize it's female. From a distance people would mistake it.
And yet I had no difficulty in identifying them. From a distance, I'd mistake a lot of things too - that's what happens with 28mm miniatures. But, quite frankly, do I need to be able to tell the gender of a model from a distance?
Yeah and the issue is whenever we say we want more defining characteristics of a woman on female models you say why don't we have a 12 inch member on space marines (which would probably be small for a space marine honestly). That's basically what you say whenever we want some features. I'm not asking for huge F sized boobs. That's legit not what i want and i don't want them all showing nothing but skin. Notice how i point out morathi multiple times. She looks decent and her form is realistic.
Yeah - because that's what it sounds like.
"This model needs identifiable breasts!" "Okay, this models needs an identifiable bulge then!" - Same thing.
As for me, I think Draxus is realistic in her femininity. As are the faces of the Sisters - at least, to the degree I call any of GW's current faces realistic.
Then you say "Oh it's not realistic." Yeah and point out to me where the several hundred pound basement dwelling neckbeards and lady land whales are in the setting as characters. Clearly i'm not being represented as an average looking skinny autistic dude with few muscles. Where in the setting am i represented? What's funny is that i'm fine with that. I like movies like 300 because buff dudes killing gak gets me pumped. After i watched that i played my first 40k game during '07 because that's what 40k seemed like. I'm not always into buff dudes killing stuff in an over the top fashion (why i went to WHFB) but it was fun in the moment for what it was.
Just because the setting isn't hyper-realistic isn't an excuse to oversexualise characters because people are too lazy to give them a second glance.
Plenty of people can see Draxus is female. It's not a universal issue.
So glad we're in the time of if you don't like a model and how it's represented prepare to have all the -isms thrown at you.
One last time - it had nothing to do with your opinion on the model. It was your opinion of what women *should* look like - one that you've still done nothing about.
You can apologise, you can retract it, you can address it - but until you do, I'm not forgetting it, and I won't hesitate to remind you that it's THAT comment that I'm holding you to, not your opinions on what you like the look of in models.
Honestly i think i'm done with this thread. I no longer wish to indulge your constant non-stop arguing sgt_smudge. Keep in mind you constantly warned others to not be transphobic which is funny because somebody earlier in the thread said i was an incel basically. You lot are all such a joy to be around. Truly this year is hell.
You will not be missed.
Again, just to make it clear - I don't care about your opinion on the models, I'm calling out your comments about "women should look like XYZ". I've given you plenty of chances to act on those statements, but you fail to. That is not my fault.
Karol wrote:
All I'm saying is that the idea that "men look like men/women look like women" is not always correct, and that's okay. Gender is more than binary.
It is true that the last semester, we had no school, and I was never the most bright to begin with, but unless somehow people turn to fungi, gender is very much binary.
Sorry, but that's not correct. Gender is not binary, and is currently scientifically accepted that sex and gender are not related.
All I'm saying is that the idea that "men look like men/women look like women" is not always correct, and that's okay. Gender is more than binary.
It is true that the last semester, we had no school, and I was never the most bright to begin with, but unless somehow people turn to fungi, gender is very much binary.
Don't push the issue with this person man. You don't want to have to sit with another 5 page rant that could only be stopped with a thread lock.
I thought you were leaving the thread?
And as long as people keep spreading the misinformation that gender is binary, I will be more than happy to stand here and say that is wrong. It's as simple as that. Gender is not binary. You can leave it at that, and move on.
looks like a regular version of late medivel plate to me. nothing feminin or masculine about it. It is just armour.
The difference between male and female full plate harnesses, aside for those really wierd spanish ones that had plate dresses, were the hip joints and shape of the fauld. If a female tried to were a male plate breastplate, while ridding a horse she could cut herself open after a few killometers.
The inquisitor has the male style of fauld. Only difference between her armour and a ghotic plate is the crotch protection that never looked that way. But it is understandable, this is ment to be a sealed suit
Sorry, but that's not correct. Gender is not binary, and is currently scientifically accepted that sex and gender are not related.
Well you can talk about it with the person who wrote my biology book for school.
I thought you were leaving the thread?
I was asked a question about armour, which is both something I am interested in, thanks to my father, and it would also be rude to not anwser and leave.
Karol wrote:But you have weird stuff. My cousin snitched on kids that were stealing stuff from him at school, and her parents got called in, and somehow the whole thing ended up not about other kids stealing , but about my cousin being racist. She was 12 back then. Maybe not thought police, but sure strange in some parts.
The same can be said of anywhere. Strange is relative, after all.
dhallnet wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
dhallnet wrote:I said "if your goal is to make them easily identifiable". So yeah, it would be pretty essential to be able to tell. Of course you don't have to make every miniature of a female be easily identifiable.
Right - so long as for male more that *need* to be easily identifiable, the same should apply.
I never talked of NEEDS, I talked of goals. And I talked of it, twice.
But I'll help.
It's quite easier to represent a dude (lacks boobs basically) in miniature form than a woman. You can try IRL with clay. Model a woman without any feminine features and ask random people around you what gender the model represents. At best, people will say they don't know. Which isn't the goal with these miniatures that are trying, at least some of them, to tell a story.
Now, model a beard or boobs and ask the same question. Or ask a child to draw stick figures of his parents (notice I'm not talking about genders), he will draw the feature particular to each one of them.
Right. Yes. Although, when wearing armour, boobs won't exactly be prominent, plus helmet - so, a male model and female model will largely look the same. Again, a wooden doll with no features I still wouldn't call male. It would call it androgynous or ambiguous.
The fact that we don't need tells to know we're looking at the representation of a dude, is because a dude has no specific feature that easily represents it in our society.
We could model every guy with a beard, it would kinda break immersion though, meanwhile some amount of boobs is expected when representing women as it is a definitive physical feature a man hasn't.
But, as you say, not all women have easily identifiable breasts, and again, under armour, why would they be visible? More importantly, WHY are we going to such lengths to show it's a woman?
"WAAAAAH NOT ALL WOMAN HAVE BOOBS", yeah I'm aware, and if they also happen to have a beard/power armor/whatever is usually associated with a dude, they will be mistaken for one dude. Yeah, shockingly that's how associations works. Birds fly, all mammals get pregnant etc. It's not true, but it's close enough.
Still not dealing with the armour issue - how, when in armour, it's going to be exceptionally difficult to tell.
What usually sets them appart is all we have to determine what gender a model represents. No surprise that when you remove these features, it becomes hard to tell and most go back to the default "featureless", "it's a dude".
And that's the issue I have - the idea that "default = male". It won't fix itself overnight, but we shouldn't just accept it.
It's unfair for a gender that we do more efforts to represent it ? Shouldn't it be the over way around ? Or are you still stuck at "if they can't identify the gender, they think it's a dude ! TOTALLY UNFAIR". Is simply having a feminine face definition being blatant exaggeration ?
I guess considering every dude under the helmet is a dudette actually is the solution then. Lots of dudettes all around and no effort to make. That's progress !
Quite simply, yes, it would be. Get rid of the assumption that default = male.
Feminine face doesn't mean female. Masculine face doesn't mean male. Let GW provide, say, Guardsmen kits with a mix of masculine and feminine helmeted and unhelmeted heads. Simple as that.
What is hard to get in that we're talking about miniatures and it doesn't automatically translate to IRL ?
Miniatures of humans.
But to answer, what is hard to get is that we're talking about a miniature range in which most of the items represent a dude (and has been for decades), in which we are getting more and more items representing women, even some representing androgynous characters but you still have an issue with people mistaking androgynous models as dudes. Because that's what they are used to.
Yes. And I'm saying that there needs to be a push for "what people are used to" to change.
But, as you say, not all women have easily identifiable breasts, and again, under armour, why would they be visible? More importantly, WHY are we going to such lengths to show it's a woman?
Because it is a waste of model slot and story line to have a man looking woman. Instead of a wierd looking one, They could have redone the eagle guy to have a new model. Or maybe make model for another faction in the same time. Greyfax is a great model, because it fits the game esthetic and is a woman looking model that looks like a woman. I mean if we go this way next we may as well claim that the company of primaris space marines, that kind of a look like men, were all women all along.
The same can be said of anywhere. Strange is relative, after all.
No strange is not relative. You don't got to prison in Poland for throwing a ham sandwitch.
And that's the issue I have - the idea that "default = male". It won't fix itself overnight, but we shouldn't just accept it.
In military organisations, if we deal with humans as a race, male is always going to be the default.
Sorry, but that's not correct. Gender is not binary, and is currently scientifically accepted that sex and gender are not related.
Well you can talk about it with the person who wrote my biology book for school.
Is your book outdated? Because current scientific consensus is that gender is not binary, and sex and gender are not related.
I thought you were leaving the thread?
I was asked a question about armour, which is both something I am interested in, thanks to my father, and it would also be rude to not anwser and leave.
I was talking to flamingkillamajig, not you on that one. My apologies for the confusion.
with you thinking they look bad, or wanting a different kind - but don't say that they don't look "female", or that "women have to look a certain way" - which are things you've said!
Hes not i n the UK where the thought police can turn up on his doorstep.
Hes allowed to say what he wants...
You're clearly not from the UK if you think there's a thought police here.
If he believes there is a certain aesthetic to the womanly form hes allowed that opinion surely?
No idea what you mean by "believing there's a certain aesthetic to the womanly form" - all I'm saying is that someone is still a woman, even if they don't look "womanly", and that not all women need to look "womanly".
There's not a problem with that, surely?
No, you are welcome to your belief. But its not fact.
Right, so a woman who does not look "womanly" is... what?
Sorry bud. It's a fact.
But telling someone "dont say the contrary thing to my view" seems wierd...
Just say "ok we don't agree here" and move on with your life...
Well, that's fair enough for things like "well, I like mushy peas on your chips, but you like gravy". But when it comes down to "I question your right to self-identify" and "you're wrong about what gender you are, and here's me, a total stranger, telling you what you can and cannot be", that's a very different story.
That's like someone coming up to you and constantly, deliberately getting your name wrong. Or, quite literally, calling you the opposite gender, out of sheer spite and ignorance. There's no "agree to disagree" involved: it's wilful spite and refusal to have compassion.
The easiest thing to do is to accept it as someone else's choice on what they are. Why should you question that?
But, as you say, not all women have easily identifiable breasts, and again, under armour, why would they be visible? More importantly, WHY are we going to such lengths to show it's a woman?
Because it is a waste of model slot and story line to have a man looking woman. Instead of a wierd looking one, They could have redone the eagle guy to have a new model. Or maybe make model for another faction in the same time. Greyfax is a great model, because it fits the game esthetic and is a woman looking model that looks like a woman. I mean if we go this way next we may as well claim that the company of primaris space marines, that kind of a look like men, were all women all along.
The same can be said of anywhere. Strange is relative, after all.
No strange is not relative. You don't got to prison in Poland for throwing a ham sandwitch.
And that's the issue I have - the idea that "default = male". It won't fix itself overnight, but we shouldn't just accept it.
In military organisations, if we deal with humans as a race, male is always going to be the default.
You've opened my eyes, I've been assuming the genders of my krieg this whole time.
But, as you say, not all women have easily identifiable breasts, and again, under armour, why would they be visible? More importantly, WHY are we going to such lengths to show it's a woman?
Because it is a waste of model slot and story line to have a man looking woman.
Why?
Instead of a wierd looking one, They could have redone the eagle guy to have a new model.
But why? Why is the gender of this one so important? Are you saying the only reason Traxus exists is because she's a woman?
Or maybe make model for another faction in the same time. Greyfax is a great model, because it fits the game esthetic and is a woman looking model that looks like a woman.
And? Why does her "looking like a woman" affect her worth as a model?
I mean if we go this way next we may as well claim that the company of primaris space marines, that kind of a look like men, were all women all along.
And I'd have no issue with that.
The same can be said of anywhere. Strange is relative, after all.
No strange is not relative. You don't got to prison in Poland for throwing a ham sandwitch.
And you don't go to prison for throwing a ham sandwich here. I feel you're being awfully selective about the UK legal system.
And yes, strange is absolutely relative. What is strange in one country or even city can be completely normal in another. In the UK, our drinking age is far younger than that in the US. Who is the strange one? To a UK resident, the Americans are strange for not having a lower drinking age. For Americans, the UK is strange for allowing us to drink so young.
Relative.
And that's the issue I have - the idea that "default = male". It won't fix itself overnight, but we shouldn't just accept it.
In military organisations, if we deal with humans as a race, male is always going to be the default.
We're not talking about modern earth. We're talking the 41st Millennium, where all-female regiments are frequent.
I hate the "daughters of khaine" tho. Going to battle in underwear is not okay.
Morkphoiz wrote: I like the new sisters in general but i really dislike the repentia. These girls were known to go to battle wrapped in nothing but parchment. Loved the old models. The new ones are just so politically correct I could throw up.
Well that's an odd double standard.
If it's alright for the Repentia to go into battle scantily clad in nothing but parchment - because that's how they've always been depicted, why isn't it OK for the DoK to enter battle in their underwear/scantily clad? Afterall, that's how they've been depicted since looong before the Repentia were dreamed up.
Are GW bad at making females? Some of the SoB heads are atrocious, but that's nothing new. If anything, their more recent releases (especially in AoS) have shown no deficit when creating female models.
I mean I think is one of the best minis GW has done in ages:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: You're clearly not from the UK if you think there's a thought police here.
Your police force goes after people for mean tweets.
Sorry, but that's not correct. Gender is not binary, and is currently scientifically accepted that sex and gender are not related.
Well you can talk about it with the person who wrote my biology book for school.
Is your book outdated? Because current scientific consensus is that gender is not binary, and sex and gender are not related.
I thought you were leaving the thread?
I was asked a question about armour, which is both something I am interested in, thanks to my father, and it would also be rude to not anwser and leave.
I was talking to flamingkillamajig, not you on that one. My apologies for the confusion.
with you thinking they look bad, or wanting a different kind - but don't say that they don't look "female", or that "women have to look a certain way" - which are things you've said!
Hes not i n the UK where the thought police can turn up on his doorstep. Hes allowed to say what he wants...
You're clearly not from the UK if you think there's a thought police here.
If he believes there is a certain aesthetic to the womanly form hes allowed that opinion surely?
No idea what you mean by "believing there's a certain aesthetic to the womanly form" - all I'm saying is that someone is still a woman, even if they don't look "womanly", and that not all women need to look "womanly".
There's not a problem with that, surely?
No, you are welcome to your belief. But its not fact.
Right, so a woman who does not look "womanly" is... what?
Sorry bud. It's a fact.
But telling someone "dont say the contrary thing to my view" seems wierd... Just say "ok we don't agree here" and move on with your life...
Well, that's fair enough for things like "well, I like mushy peas on your chips, but you like gravy". But when it comes down to "I question your right to self-identify" and "you're wrong about what gender you are, and here's me, a total stranger, telling you what you can and cannot be", that's a very different story.
That's like someone coming up to you and constantly, deliberately getting your name wrong. Or, quite literally, calling you the opposite gender, out of sheer spite and ignorance. There's no "agree to disagree" involved: it's wilful spite and refusal to have compassion.
The easiest thing to do is to accept it as someone else's choice on what they are. Why should you question that?
If you think thought police doesn't turn up at your door for mean words on the internet I got a bridge to sell you... The malicious digital communication acts has been abused and utilised to curtail speech especially on the issue you are very passionate about.
That's strange - the only people I've seen have their speech curtailed are people using it for hate speech - which is illegal, and rightfully so, no?
And if you don't think thats been happening...what exactly do you think the act is used for?
Preventing hate speech, like I said. Which I have no issue with.
If someone gets offended by someones mean words on internet/facebook you can be reported and likely might end up with a caution or worse potentially.
Facebook is a private company. They can police what they like, because it's a private service. The terms of that service are laid out clearly, and include 'no hate speech'. Much like Dakka.
Its called a "volountary" interview. But you will get an order if you don't go so the voluntary part is as disingenuous as the people who forced this on the books... Because what constitutes offence is very subjective and can be used to mean anything potentially.
And yet, I've not seen anyone who's been called up on it who didn't deserve it. Funny how that works.
Alas, its not a lot to do with miniatures.
You're right. It isn't.
I disagree on all counts.
But I'm glad there is such a n esteemed champion of humanity so ready to take on this heavy burden and designate what is hateful and deserved and what isint. Must be hard...
Its funny how when something is not running congruent to your view point can be brushed off as hate speak.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: Are GW bad at making females? Some of the SoB heads are atrocious, but that's nothing new. If anything, their more recent releases (especially in AoS) have shown no deficit when creating female models.
I mean I think is one of the best minis GW has done in ages:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: You're clearly not from the UK if you think there's a thought police here.
Your police force goes after people for mean tweets.
No no.. they deserve it apparently. So long as its hateful at the right thing its not a problem lol.
I hate the "daughters of khaine" tho. Going to battle in underwear is not okay.
Morkphoiz wrote: I like the new sisters in general but i really dislike the repentia. These girls were known to go to battle wrapped in nothing but parchment. Loved the old models. The new ones are just so politically correct I could throw up.
Well that's an odd double standard. If it's alright for the Repentia to go into battle scantily clad in nothing but parchment - because that's how they've always been depicted, why isn't it OK for the DoK to enter battle in their underwear/scantily clad? Afterall, that's how they've been depicted since looong before the Repentia were dreamed up.
I would hate to speak for the poster.
Could imagine he means model "canon". Those early repentias have always seemed very spicy to me So the change seems odd given this perhaps. It woudl be if all of a sudden banshees had thongs and before they didint.
Mierce does some truly spicy models as a comparison... I think they are very comparable to GW in terms of quality of sculpts.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:Right. Yes. Although, when wearing armour, boobs won't exactly be prominent, plus helmet - so, a male model and female model will largely look the same. Again, a wooden doll with no features I still wouldn't call male. It would call it androgynous or ambiguous.
Good on you I guess ?
Sgt_Smudge wrote:But, as you say, not all women have easily identifiable breasts, and again, under armour, why would they be visible? More importantly, WHY are we going to such lengths to show it's a woman?
Not all men grow facial hair as easily either. We still associate beards to men and boobs to women. It's just some distinct features they usually have.
Why wouldn't we show it's a woman ? What reason is there to hide the sex of the character you are representing ?
Sgt_Smudge wrote:Still not dealing with the armour issue - how, when in armour, it's going to be exceptionally difficult to tell.
Yeah, that's the whole point of the thread and I feel like it has been adressed quite a few time. If you can't identify, you either stop at "I don't know" or go a bit further and default to what you think it is. In the context of 40K, featureless helmeted models usually are guys. There is nothing more. If it was usually women, the default would be women, and if the default was usually tyranid, it would be tyranid.
We all deal with identifying something by identifying features. If it lacks features, in our case all we can tell is it is a humanoid under the armour.
If you're wondering why we need to know the sex of a person or miniature, it's because it actually has a prominent place in our societies. It's kind of a very useful and required feature of the human body. At least until we collectively settle with test tubes.
And that's the issue I have - the idea that "default = male". It won't fix itself overnight, but we shouldn't just accept it.
It's the issue you have but it isn't one at large though. Nobody is going to treat someone looking like a dude as something else with any prior knowledge. In a context where it makes sense to assume (oops) it's a man or a woman, people will. Just like how people sometimes assume your job or hobbies depending how you behave.
And I think it's unfair to expect anything else as long as it's also kinda rude IRL to ask the gender of someone that is visibly a woman or man.
If we shouldn't guess and shouldn't ask, we're in a dead end.
Quite simply, yes, it would be.
No it wouldn't. Quite simply (that's the only argumentation required apparently).
Get rid of the assumption that default = male.
Feminine face doesn't mean female. Masculine face doesn't mean male. Let GW provide, say, Guardsmen kits with a mix of masculine and feminine helmeted and unhelmeted heads. Simple as that.
Yeah it doesn't, never said it did. It's just easy to assume that "feminine" = woman when you have no other clue. We put labels on stuff all the time.
And yeah let them provide both sex heads, nobody has an issue with that and you can say that the women are men. Nobody cares.
People won't stop thinking someone with no visible feature at all in a sea of men look like a men. And someone with no other visible feature than feminine in a sea of women look like a woman. When I still had long hair, I sometime was mistaken for a woman from behind (eventhough I'm not feminine at all, I just had one feature usually associated with women) and it was, as far as I remember, always contextual. I should have told them they aren't allowed to be mistaken instead of laughing it off I guess.
Yes. And I'm saying that there needs to be a push for "what people are used to" to change.
..and here we are again.
30+ alerts over 8 pages or so -- not too bad at all folks, progress is being made.
So we've laughed. we've eyerolled, we've been told that female miniatures are *checks log * something to do with Karl Marx -- hahah ! Take that GW stock holders ! --
So we'll leave it here, gladdened as we all are by the knowledge that on this day in 1928 sliced bread was commercially produced for sale on this very day.
