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.

hands_miranda wrote:


Here's a guy's art for redesigned sisters in a non-sexualized way :
http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k156/Terrible_Trygon/Sisters%20of%20Battle/BattleSisterDesign.jpg" border="0" />


Note how some level of femininity has been kept without actually sexualizing the figure. It's certainly possible to do so, it's just that due to how screwed up nerd and mini culture is, it isn't the more obvious choice.

If SoB actually looked like that I'd own an army.

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
No, there's no need to stop the airplane stories. Some of us like both airplanes and trains. But the airplane fans have to make room for train stories (not get rid of their airplane stories, mind you, or stop writing them) in the library.

So I have to ask, I think it is the most important question, what do you mean exactly by "making room"?

hands_miranda wrote:

And yeah, liking and collecting a bunch of sexualized female figs is treating women with disrespect. You shouldn't be objectifying people, especially those you have a relative power advantage over. It's the same reason why collecting a bunch of racially stereotyped means you aren't treating those racial groups with respect. For example, the infamous Curteys Han Chinese figures with their overblown racialized look.

How is having an object, or symbol, active disrespect to half the population?

What you may mean is that liking such things may show a tendency towards objectification, but models aren't people. It's always going to offend intelligent people when you tell them that what they like to look at means they a bad person.

You have two sides in this debate. One side is convinced that a cigar is nothing more than cigar. Another is convinced that every cigar everywhere is a representation of some horrible dark secret.

Guess what? You both are wrong.

Some guys like cheesecake models because they hate women. Some hate women in small part because they've seen too much cheesecake. Some guys and girls like cheesecake because they can separate how they treat people from what they like to look at.

If you remove sexy minis, does the world improve? Probably not. Maybe a tiny, tiny bit. Does it get less fun? Absolutely.

 lucasbuffalo wrote:
If SoB actually looked like that I'd own an army.

You must currently play Dark Angels.

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:

 Varrick wrote:

What hostilities? If we are talking about the feminist frequency nonsense, well most gaming communities rose up and called her a hero after the youtube and 4chan trolling. Personally i think shes a professional victim with the way she rode the youtube comments to massive backing, but the point stands that when pressed to confront sexism in gaming "communities"(youtube is not a gaming community nor is it one singular community) they didn't behave like the worst scum of the internet. Youtube did, 4chan did, but most gaming sites did not.

Yes, the Feminist Frequency "nonsense." Yes, online a lot of people did rise to her defense. And that was grand. But I'm not really sure what you're saying here. Are you implying that she had no reason to complain in the first place? Or that women in general are just making it up when we complain about harassment within game cultures?

No, im saying FF played victim to gaming press and made YouTube trolling into more than it actually was. The issue i took was that the feminist frequency controversy was grounded in the idea that gamers themselves are sexist, and gaming media ran with it. But what part do you think im saying the complaints are worthless in? Well i think her complaints about the YouTube comments are worthless & disingenuous. Mainly because they were used to slander gaming communities in press from the escapist to the Huntington post, all because someone on YouTube decided to take YouTube comments as a personal attack instead of trolling. Not to say its wrong to make such comments, but its just as bad to handle them the way she did.
Do i think it worthless to complain about threats? no, provided we are talking about legitimate threats on your life. Not YouTube trolls by some idiot with bad humor.
Do i think women cant complain about representation in media? no, but the way sarkeesian is doing it was just preaching to her audience, instead of trying to change anything.
The harassment exists, but not anywhere near to the extent some people think it is.

I would appreciate you not acting like im some woman-hating monster, i spend enough time browsing YouTube comments to know where "you think women are making it up" goes.

 Manchu wrote:

 lucasbuffalo wrote:
If SoB actually looked like that I'd own an army.

You must currently play Dark Angels.

I play everything BUT SoB actually, due to their absurd prices and ugly sculpts.

Obviously the model isn't perfect, but it does look pretty sweet to me! Mostly in the hair

Also, I am admittedly a sucker for home-made models. Anything amateur is just amplified in awesome to me as it's more artists getting out there and showing off their creative ability

 Manchu wrote:

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
I couldn't say other than that some (not all!) guys I've encountered seem threatened, almost.

I quite agree and I encourage you to very carefully consider why that might be. Hostility is often met with hostility. You are presenting these "feminist" critiques as (1) correct and (2) friendly. But they are actually hostile and rather presumptuous.

Who are 'these feminists?', isn't any woman with a passing interest in gaming or painting models involved here? Not just the vocal minority. Of course you'll encounter the angry and vitriolic among them and of course they'll be the loudest voices.. That's pretty much any viewpoint anywhere at any time.

 Manchu wrote:

They seek to change something only for the sake of accommodating something outside of it. This all sounds unseemly when we dress it up as gender wars. Let's take some of the charge out of it by using an example: Let's say I write stories about airplanes that some of my friends like to read. One of my other friends also wants to read them but says they need to be about trains because he doesn't like airplanes. Further, he notes that all of these airplane stories are part of a wider agenda to undermine rail travel. This is what I mean by hostile and presumptuous.

Your example is not an emotionally charged issue, the subject of the discussion is. Of course things come under pressure to change as society and it's expectations change around it. Women are becoming more and more involved in traditionally male fringe interests and as more become interested, of course they will apply their own wishes and desires on those interests. The hobby does not exist in a vacuum. I can assure you I get raised eyebrow and sigh from Mrs S when I open dakka and it's the Kingdom Death 'impregnation monster' or Brother Vinni's 'Ukrainian Slave Girl', but she's not some rabid hater at all and even bought me the CMON 'Army Brat' for a Valentine's present.

 Manchu wrote:

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
No, there's no need to stop the airplane stories. Some of us like both airplanes and trains. But the airplane fans have to make room for train stories (not get rid of their airplane stories, mind you, or stop writing them) in the library.

So I have to ask, I think it is the most important question, what do you mean exactly by "making room"?

Well I think "making room" would be not feeling so defensive when the train fans want some train stories. Realizing that these things are not mutually exclusive and that they can exist within the same realm happily. Maybe acknowledging that there is in fact, an issue with the exclusion of train stories to begin with.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Who are 'these feminists?'

They write for mags and blogs called things like "Bitch."

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Your example is not an emotionally charged issue, the subject of the discussion is.

Yes, and I think that charge tends to distract.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Brother Vinni's 'Ukrainian Slave Girl'

That model was all kinds of fethed up.

 Manchu wrote:

hands_miranda wrote:
The point of plurality is that you have to throw out the old ideas that were set up to hinder the equality of people.

No, that is not what plurality is about. Plurality is about disparate elements existing together without violent conflict.

Way to miss the point. You can't have a peaceful coexistent between groups without the realization by the oppressive group and restitution. This means men understanding how what we've done is hurtful to women and giving up that balance of the power to the wronged group. Yes, things do end up worse for us in the balance, because the whole thing is zero sum and we had too much control to begin with.

Men like wargaming. Men like boobs.

 lucasbuffalo wrote:
Just remember the important thing: Freedom of creative expression is unimportant in art when it hurts feelings.

Ugh, no one's saying people don't have a right to sexy nerd minis. What we're saying is that the hobby is skewed toward an over-representation of men. The implied school of though being that women aren't good enough to fight space daemons. Is it intentional? Probably not, but this is what resonates.

FFS I just want female guardsmen.

BTW, on the subject of the term "feminist." The level of ignorance over the word here is pretty strange. Many of you seem to think of feminists as "they" when in fact if you believe women deserve to vote and have equal rights as you under the law, you are in actuality *gasp* a feminist!

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
No, there's no need to stop the airplane stories. Some of us like both airplanes and trains. But the airplane fans have to make room for train stories (not get rid of their airplane stories, mind you, or stop writing them) in the library.

So I have to ask, I think it is the most important question, what do you mean exactly by "making room"?

Well I think "making room" would be not feeling so defensive when the train fans want some train stories. Realizing that these things are not mutually exclusive and that they can exist within the same realm happily. Maybe acknowledging that there is in fact, an issue with the exclusion of train stories to begin with.

I don't think anyone here has an issue with more "train stories" popping up. I for one, would be happy to throw money at a kickstarter with them (as I did for the last Train Story kickstarter). My problem is when those who enjoy "airplane stories" are told that they are morally corrupt bastards and should feel bad about it.

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
Well I think "making room" would be not feeling so defensive when the train fans want some train stories.

But remember the circumstances: I'm writing the airplane stories for my friends who like airplanes. Wouldn't you agree it's presumptuous for my friend who likes trains and not airplanes to insist that I abandon my supposed anti-rail agenda and start writing train stories? Perhaps neither I nor my firends who like the airplane stories are interested in trains stories. None of us are saying there's no room for trains. We're saying that we have no obligation to provide much less to in any degree stop enjoying our airplanes.

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
Realizing that these things are not mutually exclusive and that they can exist within the same realm happily.

Again, isn't it presumptuous to expect that I need to include trains in my airplane stories just because someone who doesn't care for airplanes likes trains?

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
Maybe acknowledging that there is in fact, an issue with the exclusion of train stories to begin with.

This "exclusion" is kind of a myth, though isn't it? I mean, couldn't the people who like trains maybe write about them themselves? Or, if they aren't great writers, couldn't they maybe do a Kickstarter to hire someone to write the stories they like? So this comes back to Buzzsaw's point about this being about grievance rather than substance. J.R.R. Tolkien once said that he wrote stories that he liked because no one else did. Can you imagine if he just wrote a blog critiquing the "anti-fantasy" tendancies of modern fiction. /yawn.

 Varrick wrote:

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:

 Varrick wrote:

What hostilities? If we are talking about the feminist frequency nonsense, well most gaming communities rose up and called her a hero after the youtube and 4chan trolling. Personally i think shes a professional victim with the way she rode the youtube comments to massive backing, but the point stands that when pressed to confront sexism in gaming "communities"(youtube is not a gaming community nor is it one singular community) they didn't behave like the worst scum of the internet. Youtube did, 4chan did, but most gaming sites did not.

Yes, the Feminist Frequency "nonsense." Yes, online a lot of people did rise to her defense. And that was grand. But I'm not really sure what you're saying here. Are you implying that she had no reason to complain in the first place? Or that women in general are just making it up when we complain about harassment within game cultures?

No, im saying FF played victim to gaming press and made YouTube trolling into more than it actually was. The issue i took was that the feminist frequency controversy was grounded in the idea that gamers themselves are sexist, and gaming media ran with it. But what part do you think im saying the complaints are worthless in? Well i think her complaints about the YouTube comments are worthless & disingenuous. Mainly because they were used to slander gaming communities in press from the escapist to the Huntington post, all because someone on YouTube decided to take YouTube comments as a personal attack instead of trolling. Not to say its wrong to make such comments, but its just as bad to handle them the way she did.
Do i think it worthless to complain about threats? no, provided we are talking about legitimate threats on your life. Not YouTube trolls by some idiot with bad humor.
Do i think women cant complain about representation in media? no, but the way sarkeesian is doing it was just preaching to her audience, instead of trying to change anything.
The harassment exists, but not anywhere near to the extent some people think it is.

I would appreciate you not acting like im some woman-hating monster, i spend enough time browsing YouTube comments to know where "you think women are making it up" goes.

You're talking about a game that made rape a joke. She and every women out there is the victim of that trivialization. Hell, men are hurt by it to, since it helps create the false narrative that they have to be a predator to get anywhere. Telling someone off for making that kind of game is no different than shaming a minstrel show out of existence for being racist.

 lucasbuffalo wrote:

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
No, there's no need to stop the airplane stories. Some of us like both airplanes and trains. But the airplane fans have to make room for train stories (not get rid of their airplane stories, mind you, or stop writing them) in the library.

So I have to ask, I think it is the most important question, what do you mean exactly by "making room"?

Well I think "making room" would be not feeling so defensive when the train fans want some train stories. Realizing that these things are not mutually exclusive and that they can exist within the same realm happily. Maybe acknowledging that there is in fact, an issue with the exclusion of train stories to begin with.

I don't think anyone here has an issue with more "train stories" popping up. I for one, would be happy to throw money at a kickstarter with them (as I did for the last Train Story kickstarter). My problem is when those who enjoy "airplane stories" are told that they are morally corrupt bastards and should feel bad about it.

Well yeah. I'm not advocating being so hostile, but it would be a good thing for the airplane people to maybe acknowledge that some of them have been massive pricks.

 Las wrote:
FFS I just want female guardsmen.

If realistically proportioned female IG would be virtually identical to male ones then ... you already have them! At most, you could just get some conversion heads, right?

 Manchu wrote:

 Las wrote:
FFS I just want female guardsmen.

If realistically proportioned female IG would be virtually identical to male ones then ... you already have them! At most, you could just get some conversion heads, right?

Point being that there's no reason I should have to search for extra heads. What if I want to play in GW sanctioned tourneys? Why can't GW themselves provide this?

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
I'm not advocating being so hostile,

Thanks for that -- I really do appreciate it because that is the issue. When you come in swinging, you're going to catch some back. Unfortunately, there's also this:

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
but it would be a good thing for the airplane people to maybe acknowledge that some of them have been massive pricks.

I mean, even putting aside the issue of hostility here, what would that even solve? Some kind of vindication? Because it's not getting the train fan any closer to train stories. At that point, it's not at all about planes and trains anymore. And that's exactly why the hostility ramps up and up. It's really an offensive position.

hands_miranda wrote:

And yeah, liking and collecting a bunch of sexualized female figs is treating women with disrespect.

Please tell me which female models are sexualized and which ones are modestly dressed. Please tell me what I can purchase, paint, and use in an army so that I'm not treating women with disrespect.

Could you make a checklist or something? I don't want my hobby to infringe upon the delicate sensibilities of others.

Oh, right. never mind. That's complete bs. This is just another "If your hobby doesn't match my sensibilities/ideals/beliefs, then you're not only hobbying wrong, but you're a bad person." arguments.

No thanks.

Your argument holds exactly as much water as "If you play orks, then you're racist against eskimos."

 Las wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Las wrote:
FFS I just want female guardsmen.

If realistically proportioned female IG would be virtually identical to male ones then ... you already have them! At most, you could just get some conversion heads, right?

Point being that there's no reason I should have to search for extra heads. What if I want to play in GW sanctioned tourneys? Why can't GW themselves provide this?

You want to take it up with the High Lords of Terra. They're bang out of order.

 Las wrote:
Point being that there's no reason I should have to search for extra heads. What if I want to play in GW sanctioned tourneys? Why can't GW themselves provide this?

Well, first off, I think you could play in GW-sanctioned tournies if all you replaced was a model's head. As to why GW has no obligation to provide you with the models you personally would prefer -- well, because their obligation is to sell to as many folks as possible rather than to some subset of that population. It's not some massive anti-woman conspiracy. It's the same reason GW doesn't provide me with the Savlar Chem Dogs I so desperately want to collect.

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
No, there's no need to stop the airplane stories. Some of us like both airplanes and trains. But the airplane fans have to make room for train stories (not get rid of their airplane stories, mind you, or stop writing them) in the library.

So I have to ask, I think it is the most important question, what do you mean exactly by "making room"?

Well I think "making room" would be not feeling so defensive when the train fans want some train stories. Realizing that these things are not mutually exclusive and that they can exist within the same realm happily. Maybe acknowledging that there is in fact, an issue with the exclusion of train stories to begin with.

The problem is, we're simply not, at the level of an international community, where you seem to think we are. To quote something I posted earlier in the thread;

 Buzzsaw wrote:
...

This is not meant as an attack: Why don't you do something about it?

I'm not being facetious: you obviously have a very specific idea of what you would like, so why don't you do what Adam Poots did. Poots isn't an artist, he's a creator, he hires a concept artist (most famously Lokman Lam), and then hires talented sculptors like Jon Troy Nickel to translate the 2D work into 3D.

All Adam has is the vision and the will to bring these things together: his artists are on one side of the world, his casting houses on the other. If you are truly dissatisfied with what exists, and you believe there is a desire for these miniatures out there, why not follow his example? Get some ideas sketched out, take your proposal to the people, to kickstarter!

This isn't japery: I've often considered a similar scheme (with different focus), I just don't have such a coherent issue, as I'm satiated by the things that are coming to market right now. You don't appear to be.

What's the worst that can happen? You only end up like JunkRobot? A little company making the miniatures they really want to make?

We're not at the point of having to stop making one thing to get another: thanks to plunging prices of production, digital design and the ease of international manufacturing, if you have an idea, the costs to bring it to market are tiny compared to what they once were. The costs to set up a kickstarter and a fledgling business are probably less then most Dakka posters have spent on models.

We've seen the results: companies that are trying to produce respectful female minis make six-figures on kickstarter. The limitations now aren't "who can do it", it's "who has a vision".

 Davylove21 wrote:

 Las wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Las wrote:
FFS I just want female guardsmen.

If realistically proportioned female IG would be virtually identical to male ones then ... you already have them! At most, you could just get some conversion heads, right?

Point being that there's no reason I should have to search for extra heads. What if I want to play in GW sanctioned tourneys? Why can't GW themselves provide this?

You want to take it up with the High Lords of Terra. They're bang out of order.

http://gauntsghostspedia.wikia.com/wiki/Tona_Criid

 Manchu wrote:

 Las wrote:
Point being that there's no reason I should have to search for extra heads. What if I want to play in GW sanctioned tourneys? Why can't GW themselves provide this?

Well, first off, I think you could play in GW-sanctioned tournies if all you replaced was a model's head. As to why GW has no obligation to provide you with the models you personally would prefer -- well, because they're obligation is to sell to as many folks as possible rather than to some subset of that population. It's not some massive anti-woman conspiracy. It's the same reason GW doesn't provide me with the Savlar Chem Dogs I so desperately want to collect.

I'm not saying its a conspiracy, man. I just want their line to more coincide with the lore, whats so hard to understand about that? There's no reason to be so defensive and take things to massive extremes.

 Manchu wrote:

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
But I think it's not a bad idea to discuss the issues of hostility towards 'feminism' within gaming culture in a more broad sense.

So what do you think causes this hostility?

The self entitlement some of these feminists have even though men and women are pretty equal in today's western society; they think they can go into a male dominated hobby and expect sensorship just because they find things that men like offensive. Sure it would be nice to have games for women and a female gaming community, but instead of building a female gaming community and showing the games companies that they would like more inclusion in the industry, many 'feminists' decide to bash on the games intended for men, which results in them getting no sympathy or support and hostility from the gaming community.

[Note] I put feminism in quotation marks because modern day feminism is not about equality between women and men, it's about self entitlement and greed.

 Manchu wrote:

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
Well I think "making room" would be not feeling so defensive when the train fans want some train stories.

But remember the circumstances: I'm writing the airplane stories for my friends who like airplanes. Wouldn't you agree it's presumptuous for my friend who likes trains and not airplanes to insist that I abandon my supposed anti-rail agenda and start writing train stories? Perhaps neither I nor my firends who like the airplane stories are interested in trains stories. None of us are saying there's no room for trains. We're saying that we have no obligation to provide much less to in any degree stop enjoying our airplanes.

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
Realizing that these things are not mutually exclusive and that they can exist within the same realm happily.

Again, isn't it presumptuous to expect that I need to include trains in my airplane stories just because someone who doesn't care for airplanes likes trains?

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
Maybe acknowledging that there is in fact, an issue with the exclusion of train stories to begin with.

This "exclusion" is kind of a myth, though isn't it? I mean, couldn't the people who like trains maybe write about them themselves? Or, if they aren't great writers, couldn't they maybe do a Kickstarter to hire someone to write the stories they like? So this comes back to Buzzsaw's point about this being about grievance rather than substance. J.R.R. Tolkien once said that he wrote stories that he liked because no one else did. Can you imagine if he just wrote a blog critiquing the "anti-fantasy" tendancies of modern fiction. /yawn.

I think our airplanes and trains thing is starting to break down a little for me. Here's what it comes down to for a lot of women. They want to get involved in a gaming/nerdy hobby. But they have a look and see it dominated by tropes, images, and participants that make a lot of us cringe. This includes big-boob panty ninjas, rape jokes, and entirely one dimensional representations of female characters. I don't think the solution is to say to those women "Well, go make your own game/comic/mini, these are ours." I think a better approach would be "This is an awesome hobby and we want you to feel welcome in it too, so we'll make it less weird for you by adding things that appeal to you, but we're still going to keep our big-boob panty ninjas."

I, and a lot of other women would say "Cool. Just drop the rape jokes and ask some of your guys to stop telling us to show our tits."

This is just my opinion. Your milage may vary.

 lucasbuffalo wrote:

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
No, there's no need to stop the airplane stories. Some of us like both airplanes and trains. But the airplane fans have to make room for train stories (not get rid of their airplane stories, mind you, or stop writing them) in the library.

So I have to ask, I think it is the most important question, what do you mean exactly by "making room"?

Well I think "making room" would be not feeling so defensive when the train fans want some train stories. Realizing that these things are not mutually exclusive and that they can exist within the same realm happily. Maybe acknowledging that there is in fact, an issue with the exclusion of train stories to begin with.

I don't think anyone here has an issue with more "train stories" popping up. I for one, would be happy to throw money at a kickstarter with them (as I did for the last Train Story kickstarter). My problem is when those who enjoy "airplane stories" are told that they are morally corrupt bastards and should feel bad about it.

Considering that the "airplane stories" don't exist in a vacuum but instead actively help make "airplane victimization" more common and less punished? Yeah, I'd suggest that it creates a problem.

Also, the train vs. airplane analogy doesn't work because those are actual objects and thus you don't need to worry about a power differential between them. Men and women have a power differential between them that is seen in the way women are treated economically, socially, and legally. This is the same story as every other disadvantaged group, the difference being that there are enough women out there to actually create a meaningful and effective opposition. Which is why to some level feminism has had a bunch more success than say racial or sexual identity civil rights.

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:


I think our airplanes and trains thing is starting to break down a little for me. Here's what it comes down to for a lot of women. They want to get involved in a gaming/nerdy hobby. But they have a look and see it dominated by tropes, images, and participants that make a lot of us cringe. This includes big-boob panty ninjas, rape jokes, and entirely one dimensional representations of female characters. I don't think the solution is to say to those women "Well, go make your own game/comic/mini, these are ours." I think a better approach would be "This is an awesome hobby and we want you to feel welcome in it too, so we'll make it less weird for you by adding things that appeal to you, but we're still going to keep our big-boob panty ninjas."

I, and a lot of other women would say "Cool. Just drop the rape jokes and ask some of your guys to stop telling us to show our tits."

This is just my opinion. Your milage may vary.

This is an excellent post.

 MetalOxide wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
But I think it's not a bad idea to discuss the issues of hostility towards feminism within gaming culture in a more broad sense.

So what do you think causes this hostility?

The self entitlement some of these feminists have even though men and women are pretty equal in today's western society; they think they can go into a male dominated hobby and expect sensorship just because they find things that men like offensive. Sure it would be nice to have games for women and a female gaming community, but instead of building a female gaming community and showing the games companies that they would like more inclusion in the industry, many feminists decide to bash on the games intended for men, which results in them getting no sympathy or support and hostility from the gaming community.

But let me ask you - why is it male dominated? Is it ok that it's male dominated? Why shouldn't women feel welcome in exploring a new hobby? I don't think I'm alone in saying that I don't want a separate "women's gaming community" or "women's games."