Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

We don't see many threads titled "IG need female sculpts." It's a completely non-controversial topic in that basically everyone agrees female IG sculpts would be great.

And pretty much everyone can agree that they don't exist for a number of reasons that have nothing meaningful to do with ill-will toward women, a.k.a., sexism/misogyny.

Nobody is interested in discussing something everyone substantially agrees about.

By contrast, the femarine controversy brews up perennially precisley becuase it admits controversy.

As a matter of background, GW could change that at will so TBH the fluff objection is a non-starter. If you can concede that, the whole issue collapses into the same issue as female Stormcast or IG - basically GW isn't likely to make a female sprue even if they are willing to make female characters.

So the only thing left to argue about is this supposed feminist angle. After seeing it again and again, I must conclude this really boils down into arguing that people SHOULD want something other than what they DO want if they want to be good (non-sexist) people.

And that's silly and insulting. And someone is bound to point out that it's silly and insulting. And from there we're off to the races.

Maybe femarine threads should just be locked on sight.

 Manchu wrote:
Maybe femarine threads should just be locked on sight.

Don't do that, I need good female head sculpts for my Inquisition troops. They might find a decent one.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

Well, there's a pretty common standard on what's acceptable to say in certain environments, so we'll have to decide Larry's that actual pig/perv/douchebag.

And the standards of acceptable behaviour change over time. For example in the 40's it was acceptable to treat women in a way it would not be today. It changed because of feminism.

Also, I'll concede that feminism is what you say. Maybe there are all different sorts. I would say I know feminists who are great, and they are focused on actual womens' rights and encouraging women to succeed, while bringing attention to women suffering in places with limited rights for women. Those are good feminists.

However, I think a clear view of what I want is "No identity politics in my community". A feminist like I mentioned above, and even you would be welcome. Someone whose entire purpose in the community is to rabble-rouse and invent problems like 'microaggressions' or twist peoples' words would not be. In other words, 'no extremists welcome'.

Then perhaps it would be best to not talk about feminism in general disparagingly and contest the behaviour you see problematic if such things actually happen.

Well, a thread titled "need female heads for my SM army" would certainly be fine and if someone barged in ranting about how femarines can never be a thing, that person could be warned. Again - so long as the OP was actually about modeling an army as opposed to an attempt to troll the boards (which sadly has actually happned here on this issue of femarines).

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

I want egalitarianism in my hobby.

I already said this. Feminism is a subset of egalitarianism. By definition you cannot be egalitarian without also being a feminist. Being feminist doesn't mean one couldn't care about the rights of men or various minorities too.

 Crimson wrote:
Then perhaps it would be best to not talk about feminism in general disparagingly and contest the behaviour you see problematic if such things actually happen.

That's pretty much what it boils down to- but sadly, a lot of disgusting behavior comes directly from feminism. If Feminism would like to be taken more seriously, then perhaps more people need to say, "Wait, there's a reason our ideology isn't very welcome, maybe we need to disavow and challenge the loud extremists in our ranks".

You know, kind of like how they expect us to do in our hobby.

 Crimson wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

I want egalitarianism in my hobby.

I already said this. Feminism is a subset of egalitarianism. By definition you cannot be egalitarian without also being a feminist. Being feminist doesn't mean one couldn't care about the rights of men or various minorities too.

Fair enough, I suppose most people would agree with the core idea of feminism. It's just that, in reality, it often manifests in a very different way.
If this weren't the case, people wouldn't be so defensive about their hobby.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 ScarletRose wrote:
So completely pretend there wasn't a quote calling a person an extremist and stick to the pseudo-intelctual "It's all ideas" argument?

That person was an actual extremist and I'll gladly stand by that accusation, regardless of what anyone thinks. And yes, ALL ideas. No idea is beyond question, criticism, or even mockery. If so, it is a weak idea and deserves every shred of ridicule thrown at it.

 ScarletRose wrote:
You first, I'm sure there's some men's rights group looking for it's wandering knight.

Well, throw in 'Alt-Right' and you've got the whole shebang.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

Deciding that what Larry says is somehow a problem would be based on ideology whether you want to call it such or not. And you're seriously confused about feminism. Also, different people can actually have different opinions, even if they'd all identify as feminists. I'm sure there were some feminists who didn't like the Eschers or the Warqueen and plenty of others who did. Individual's opinion does not define the core of the ideology.

Well, there's a pretty common standard on what's acceptable to say in certain environments, so we'll have to decide Larry's that actual pig/perv/douchebag.

Also, I'll concede that feminism is what you say. Maybe there are all different sorts. I would say I know feminists who are great, and they are focused on actual womens' rights and encouraging women to succeed, while bringing attention to women suffering in places with limited rights for women. Those are good feminists.

However, I think a clear view of what I want is "No identity politics in my community". A feminist like I mentioned above, and even you would be welcome. Someone whose entire purpose in the community is to rabble-rouse and invent problems like 'microaggressions' or twist peoples' words would not be. In other words, 'no extremists welcome'.

Seems as if the debate between you two has gotten a bit off the rails of decency. Insulting someone's ideas isn't insulting them, but likewise, neither is insulting their hair, style, or religion. But it is insulting part of them and their identity, so common decency is to not to do it. At the same time, insulting someone's group is likewise insulting their identity and at least marginally attributing the negative qualities of that group to them. "Some gamers are sexist" isn't any more helpful of a statement than "Startrek is stupid". The first is a fact 2nd is opinion, but neither have a helpful intention. They're useless statements unless your intention is to insult.

Regardless of what feminism is, and please keep in mind -everyone - that this question is off topic ITT, the issue here is whether a discussion that begins with accusing other posters generally of hating women can form the basis for any discussion that won't go off the rails.

I tend to think that accusation won't support polite and useful discussion. So perhaps it is best left to some other venue.

 Manchu wrote:
the issue here is whether a discussion that begins with accusing other posters generally of hating women can form the basis for any discussion that won't go off the rails.

But that really hasn't happened.

So to be clear: talking about feminism is off limits, but talking about the actions of feminists and their perceived motivations is okay?

That’s the most backwards approach to any topic I’ve seen here in a while, and February has already been off to a strong start in the OT.

SirWeeble wrote:
Seems as if the debate between you two has gotten a bit off the rails of decency. Insulting someone's ideas isn't insulting them, but likewise, neither is insulting their hair, style, or religion. But it is insulting part of them and their identity, so common decency is to not to do it. At the same time, insulting someone's group is likewise insulting their identity and at least marginally attributing the negative qualities of that group to them. "Some gamers are sexist" isn't any more helpful of a statement than "Startrek is stupid". The first is a fact 2nd is opinion, but neither have a helpful intention. They're useless statements unless your intention is to insult.

Fair enough. But I don't see followers of an idea as 'bad people' or 'stupid' unless they, as individuals, give me a reason to think so. I honestly feel that most of them are genuinely misinformed, or haven't listened to their opposition. If your idea is so close to your identity that you can't let it be challenged, then I would say that there's a fault in your personal life and you should seek some other type of fulfillment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
So to be clear: talking about feminism is off limits, but talking about the actions of feminists and their perceived motivations is okay?

I don't think any of it is off-limits yet, dude.

 Crimson wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
the issue here is whether a discussion that begins with accusing other posters generally of hating women can form the basis for any discussion that won't go off the rails.

But that really hasn't happened.

After reading dozens of these threads over the last eight years, I can confidently say yes it does happen. People argue that femarines don't exist because this hobby is anti-woman and they argue that people who don't think there should be femarines are anti-woman.

So the orange text saying “don’t talk about feminism” from a MOD is not real?

I think this topic, as evidenced in this thread, is an example of one of the shortcomings of Dakka: the lack of dedicated full time MODs who ONLY do moderation duties and nothing else. I know why we don’t have full time MODs, and I’m not really arguing against the system we have in place now. But the reality is that for the most part our moderators wear two hats, they are participants in the forum and have their own opinions and feelings on any given topic, and then they also have to moderate the discussions that they are often involved in.

I think some MODs do a good job separating the two roles and are better at switching between white text and orange/red texts. Others sometimes appear to have more difficulty with that. So I do think that as a whole, we just need to make sure that we have a moderation staff that is able to self-police and be aware enough to step away from the MOD bag if they are becoming to involved in a discussion. Even if it is just looking at the thread in progress and asking yourself “will the optics be bad if I switch colors and MOD this thread after posting, would it be better to hand if off to another MOD”.

This thread is a good example, because it feels like Manchu had already declared that feminism is off limits, while making his own views on feminism known and assigning actions and motivations to “feminists”. He is white texting about feminists trolling the site out of whatever motivation, then orange texting that feminism is not the topic to be discussed here.

 d-usa wrote:
This thread is a good example, because it feels like Manchu had already declared that feminism is off limits, while making his own views on feminism known and assigning actions and motivations to “feminists”. He is white texting about feminists trolling the site out of whatever motivation, then orange texting that feminism is not the topic to be discussed here.

That's a valid point, to be honest Manchu? Just do what you're gonna do to the thread and be done with it. Make a call and stick by your guns.

I wouldn't go with 'feminism is off-limits', but focus instead on baseless accusations. If you say 'feminism is off-limits', you're going to get some very interesting new members and some very interesting (and volatile) posts.

Edit: then there is always the fear of posting a “hey, I think this is an issue” and having it be seen as a “this is a personal attack” thread. I’m not saying Manchu is a dick for having an opinion on anything, but I’m concerned that sometimes MODs have opinions and that this creates a risk that any moderation may appear to be biased in favor of backing up their opinion.

d-usa, you don't quite have that right

Arguing back and forth on what "real" feminism is or isn't is not allowed ITT (and probably should not be allowed outside of the OT forum).

The discussion here boils down to whether a discussion that begins by accusing others of being anti-woman* can lead to polite and productive discussion.

* whether or not that accusation is authetically "feminist" is irrelevent

 d-usa wrote:
So the orange text saying “don’t talk about feminism” from a MOD is not real?

I think this topic, as evidenced in this thread, is an example of one of the shortcomings of Dakka: the lack of dedicated full time MODs who ONLY do moderation duties and nothing else. I know why we don’t have full time MODs, and I’m not really arguing against the system we have in place now. But the reality is that for the most part our moderators wear two hats, they are participants in the forum and have their own opinions and feelings on any given topic, and then they also have to moderate the discussions that they are often involved in.

I think some MODs do a good job separating the two roles and are better at switching between white text and orange/red texts. Others sometimes appear to have more difficulty with that. So I do think that as a whole, we just need to make sure that we have a moderation staff that is able to self-police and be aware enough to step away from the MOD bag if they are becoming to involved in a discussion. Even if it is just looking at the thread in progress and asking yourself “will the optics be bad if I switch colors and MOD this thread after posting, would it be better to hand if off to another MOD”.

This thread is a good example, because it feels like Manchu had already declared that feminism is off limits, while making his own views on feminism known and assigning actions and motivations to “feminists”. He is white texting about feminists trolling the site out of whatever motivation, then orange texting that feminism is not the topic to be discussed here.

Also, how it seems to work in most threads, that people are free to make all sorts of attacks and accusations about feminists or 'SJWs', and when someone tries to step in and defend feminism or explain things then the topic is deemed off topic and gets locked.

Edit 2 (rather than amending in case there are replies):

I can also see the “will moderation appear to be biased in favor of the MODs opinion” optics be a point in favor of deleting threads.

If people think “MOD X is only moderating this thread and banning people because he thinks Y about this issue” and the MODs then have to spend more time defending the actual legitimate moderation of that MOD because the rules really were broken and he didn’t delete posts and ban people because he is pro/anti-whatever, it makes it hard to moderate because people already made up their mind that the MOD is just using power to back up a point.

So in those scenarios is makes sense to just delete threads rather than dealing with biases, perceived or otherwise.

 Crimson wrote:
Also, how it seems to work in most threads, that people are free to make all sorts of attacks about feminists or 'SJWs', and when someone tries to step in and defend feminism or explain things then the topic is deemed off topic and gets locked.

That's not what I see. I see people who are sick of the accusations, asking folks to take the identity politics nonsense elsewhere.

Then someone takes umbrage, and comes in and lectures us about how we're all bad people for not wanting to hear it.

Then it just turns into a fight.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:


That's not what I see. I see people who are sick of the accusations, asking folks to take the identity politics nonsense elsewhere.

Then someone takes umbrage, and comes in and lectures us about how we're all bad people for not wanting to hear it.

Then it just turns into a fight.

Let's be real, in this very thread you compared feminists to ISIS.

Ha, well it's not just one side calling others SJWs, it's also the other/another side calling others bigots. Again, here is an actual demonstration of why this kind of argument is toxic: each side can apparently only see the mote in the others' eye and unless a given poster (including us mods!) lines up perfectly with your ideological expectations we get identified as 'the enemy." This form of argument is therefore inherently divisive.

Well, I won't mind having the last word here because it's clear at least that this topic would require constant mod attention to continue despite, I think, everything relevant having now been said several times over. The OP got an explanation for why the thread in question was deleted rather than locked. Moreover, I want to extend sincere thanks to everyone who participated in good will.