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.

I am perplexed on the "reward thing" because you place it as an external only situation, people can do things because it pleases them and only for them.

As you put it everything must be done for external reason and only rewards come if an externalized source is pleased, I am not subscribing to such an idea.

As for group rights and individual rights? who chooses what is a group and what rights the group has, who chooses who belongs and who doesn't belong to such group, it is quite often in history that a "groups" rights is not determined by the majority of the group or even by the group itself, moreover in the oppression scenario you describe the relation is quite complicated.

An individual may not identify with the group so they do not belong to such a group, you may feel they do and thing you affect them, while they do not.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
As I understand it, you are making the point that group rights cannot trump individual rights.

I am making the point that our individual rights derive from being a member of a group, and that if you oppress the group you oppress the members individually.

I see... unfortunately, I think this is a good demonstration of what I mean: you conception is (from my point of view) simply flawed. Most noticeably the concept "group rights" shifts dramatically in definition from the first sentence (where you describe what I am talking about) to the second sentence (where you describe your own beliefs).

That's the first problem. The second problem is that your concept of where rights comes from is the reverse of my understanding. A Stop sign, a ripe red apple and a lipstick are all in the group 'red items', but they aren't red because they are members in that group; they are in the group because of their individual characteristics. Similarly, you don't derive your rights from being a member of the 'group' human, you are human because you have a series of characteristics that endow you with rights;



Our rights are derived from our characteristics as individuals, not as members in a group. The problem is that you're referring to a thing that is composed of substituent parts as if the parts existed as a consequence of the group.


Like the school of fish above, groups are an illusion: individual entitites interacting in such a way as to create the impression of a collective. But it only lasts as long as the fish swim together; when they disperse, they stop being a school of fish but don't stop being fish.

In the same way, it's tautological at best and sophistic at worst to imagine "our individual rights derive from being a member of a group", because the "group" is simply all entities that have individual rights... a category, not a club.

All of this, of course, is rather futile: we're arguing about belief, not empiricism. True, we can have a discussion, a debate about the nature of our views, we can even compare the logical consequences of these views... but if you truly believe that "our individual rights derive from being a member of a group", that's as near an axiom, a basic principle, as anything that springs to mind.

Put another way: what proof could I offer that would disabuse you of the idea that there is such a thing as a group right? I suppose I could explore the negative consequences of this belief system, but doesn't prove they don't exist, it merely is a negative externality.

It's not having shared characteristics that give us rights; it's that we've identified certain characteristics as indicators of who should be considered having these rights. It is not the capacity for sentient thought that gives one rights, but rather our collective acceptance of sentience as signifier of rights. If everyone decided tomorrow that anyone with a surname starting with the letter "F" no longer had the right to live, the right to live of such persons would no longer exist. If rights were inherent to human beings they would be empirically demonstrable, which they aren't.

We're essentially arguing representation theory's constructivism vs. reflectivism.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Stormcasts are actually fine in that regard as far as I can see. Their armour is all male because they are made to look like Sigmar, but the Eternals themselves can be women too.

Though, they don't all have male names/personalities, right? Because if they do, then Lockark would be right anyway, as it would be a distinction without a difference.

All the ones that appear in the stories seem to go by male names and male pronouns. I kind of assume at this point any woman who becomes a storm cast is sort of a trans-man situation and take on a male identity.

If I am incorrect and their is refrence to them keeping their female name and pronouns I would be interested to know. But in all honesty a fear something like that would become a joke fairly fast instead of considered with any seriousness.

 Lockark wrote:
All the ones that appear in the stories seem to go by male names and male pronouns. I kind of assume at this point any woman who becomes a storm cast is sort of a trans-man situation and take on a male identity.

If I am incorrect and their is refrence to them keeping their female name and pronouns I would be interested to know. But in all honesty a fear something like that would become a joke fairly fast instead of considered with any seriousness.

You just put more thought into this than all of the people writing the Stormcast stuff at GW combined. And that's not a dig at them.

 Lockark wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
Stormcasts are actually fine in that regard as far as I can see. Their armour is all male because they are made to look like Sigmar, but the Eternals themselves can be women too.

Though, they don't all have male names/personalities, right? Because if they do, then Lockark would be right anyway, as it would be a distinction without a difference.

All the ones that appear in the stories seem to go by male names and male pronouns. I kind of assume at this point any woman who becomes a storm cast is sort of a trans-man situation and take on a male identity.

If I am incorrect and their is refrence to them keeping their female name and pronouns I would be interested to know. But in all honesty a fear something like that would become a joke fairly fast instead of considered with any seriousness.

Hmm, actually, it occurs to me that this situation has occurred earlier in 40k: Necrons. The transition to their metallic forms has stripped away almost all of the rank and file's individuality, including their gender.

Now I'm going off of older knowledge of Necrons, but my recollection is that the warriors (at least) were rather indiscriminately converted. I'm moderately sure that the old background indicated whole segments of the population (certainly including women) were converted.

Huh, I suppose I've had an all female army for years and didn't even know it...

The big issue, for me, on the sexist representation of females on the models is not so much the nudity as the poses.

The picture of the classic greco/roman spartan model is a pose a male or female can be placed in nude or clothed and would look respectable and awesome. The nudity is not sexist because the nudity is not what the entire piece is about.

However, most nude female models stand in ridiculous poses that shove their tits as far out as possible, their ass as far back as possible hold/swing/wield their weapons in ways that accentuate their female parts for everyone to ogle at without any practical reason for them to be standing that way.

Show me a bunch of nude male models that look like magic mike with their crotch thrust forward shoving their boner out for everyone to admire. It doesn't exist. Show me one doing that while swinging an axe like this chick is

 Ashiraya wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
(the excuse for male models that it is a power fantasy is weak in my opinion)

That's funny, male models seem to be able to wear armour that does not exaggerate their sexual characteristics just fine.

Consider yourself in the same situation. You are going to start wargaming, and you want to play a male army. People tell you 'the models must have gratuitous pecs or shoulders the width of a tank, often both, because if it isn't obviously male at a glance why not just make it a female'.

If you kept hearing this over and over, wouldn't it feel pretty dumb?

I have never once heard someone tell me that a male isn't a male because "PROPORTIONS". You really got some peculiar examples there.

 Lockark wrote:


All the ones that appear in the stories seem to go by male names and male pronouns. I kind of assume at this point any woman who becomes a storm cast is sort of a trans-man situation and take on a male identity.

My guess is it's more likely due to GW's inability to add female named characters, even when it would make sense to do so. (See: every mixed-gender 40k army having all-male characters except for one token female)

If you have an entire army all male looking and have a tiny part of the background most casual observers will never see saying some are female, does that make a female representation of the table?

Shouldn't this be more a disservice, it sure looks as if the only way a female can be on the table is if it looks like a male.

Sorry, if that is the stormcasts lore its a bit ridiculous.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
If you have an entire army all male looking and have a tiny part of the background most casual observers will never see saying some are female, does that make a female representation of the table?

Shouldn't this be more a disservice, it sure looks as if the only way a female can be on the table is if it looks like a male.

Sorry, if that is the stormcasts lore its a bit ridiculous.

I am not defending the golden boys, but last time this was discussed, it was ventured that the reason they are all in that image is the extremely narcissistic nature of their creator (Sigmar, not GW ).
That said, I haven't read their fluff.

And I question: If that fluff did not exist before AoS, why did they create it in such a manner? They could just as easily have kept the all welcoming soul party and not pulled a 2015 Astartes.
If it didn't exist. I don't know.

That Jimquisition video shared quite a few pages back may have some basic truth in it, publishers, GW in this case, may indeed really believe that their customers are only male and they cannot relate to a female character, but still try to widen to female customers for some reason, probably because of marketing saying so, or some other internal reason, but failing to do so because of the preconception of their customer base.

 Buttery Commissar wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
If you have an entire army all male looking and have a tiny part of the background most casual observers will never see saying some are female, does that make a female representation of the table?

Shouldn't this be more a disservice, it sure looks as if the only way a female can be on the table is if it looks like a male.

Sorry, if that is the stormcasts lore its a bit ridiculous.

I am not defending the golden boys, but last time this was discussed, it was ventured that the reason they are all in that image is the extremely narcissistic nature of their creator (Sigmar, not GW ).
That said, I haven't read their fluff.

And I question: If that fluff did not exist before AoS, why did they create it in such a manner? They could just as easily have kept the all welcoming soul party and not pulled a 2015 Astartes.
If it didn't exist. I don't know.

I thinks it´s quite obvious in this case that it´s simply GW trying to make the space marine thunder strike again. Sigmarines has been designed to be fantasy space marines, in a desperate attempt to lure in 40k players(or people who would consider playing 40k), so they are going to be masculine just like space marines. GW doesn´t care about representation or women in wargaming, all they care about is making money and they think the money is where the space marines are.

 ulgurstasta wrote:
<snip>

I thinks it´s quite obvious in this case that it´s simply GW trying to make the space marine thunder strike again. Sigmarines has been designed to be fantasy space marines, in a desperate attempt to lure in 40k players(or people who would consider playing 40k), so they are going to be masculine just like space marines. GW doesn´t care about representation or women in wargaming, all they care about is making money and they think the money is where the space marines are.

Let's be fair (a phrase I rarely use with regards to GW);

-As a publicly traded company, GW has a legal obligation to care about money, so let's not be too down on them for following the money*. Moreover,

-This seems like the Phasma issue that I brought up earlier in the thread: there are no small number of people arguing for 'realistic' armor, which in the case of dehumanizing forces like Sigmarites (or Storm Troopers) means erasing femininity.

It's one of the (many) ironies of the demand for 'realism' in fantastical settings.

*For what it's worth, I think they are wrong: the success of Raging Heroes in this space, with a spincast product (an, IMO, inferior material) shows that people do want to buy sexualized female models.

 Buzzsaw wrote:

*For what it's worth, I think they are wrong: the success of Raging Heroes in this space, with a spincast product (an, IMO, inferior material) shows that people do want to buy sexualized female models.

I think its quite obvious that sexy models do sell, and probably sell well due to just how many new ones get made each and every year. It also might be that non sexy female models dont sell well, or at least well enough to keep several companies churning out new ones each and every year. I wonder how many of us would actually buy female space marines or even guardsmen? Yeah, I can appreciate the idea behind it, I might even like how the model looks. I probably wouldn't buy any though as there is no reason for me too. And if I did, It wouldn't be more than a single unit box just for the novelty of it. Unlike the dozens of squad boxes from the other armies I own. This is all personal opinion though, There are probably some who would drop $300 bucks on female space marines. But are there enough other people out there to actually make it worth it for the model company?

 Jayden63 wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:

*For what it's worth, I think they are wrong: the success of Raging Heroes in this space, with a spincast product (an, IMO, inferior material) shows that people do want to buy sexualized female models.

I think its quite obvious that sexy models do sell, and probably sell well due to just how many new ones get made each and every year. It also might be that non sexy female models dont sell well, or at least well enough to keep several companies churning out new ones each and every year. I wonder how many of us would actually buy female space marines or even guardsmen? Yeah, I can appreciate the idea behind it, I might even like how the model looks. I probably wouldn't buy any though as there is no reason for me too. And if I did, It wouldn't be more than a single unit box just for the novelty of it. Unlike the dozens of squad boxes from the other armies I own. This is all personal opinion though, There are probably some who would drop $300 bucks on female space marines. But are there enough other people out there to actually make it worth it for the model company?

Forgive me, I was using 'sexualized' in the technical sense, not to mean "sexy", but to mean that a design concession has been made to make it unambiguous what gender the model is. While this sometimes takes the form of making the model 'sexy', it doesn't have to.

The Victoria Imperial Guard stand-ins that have been brought up are 'sexualized', as are Dreamforge's Black Widow Tank Hunters. They are sexualized without being sexy.

The Prodos Space Crusade models are both sexualized and 'sexy' (or gratuitous, frankly).

As I brought up, technically speaking, Necrons could be used as an example of a mixed gender force. Necrons have no sexual dimorphism anymore, therefore any given Necron model might be a female or a male. Same with Tyranids. In fact, given the insect qualities of Tyranids, one would suspect they might be all or almost all female (if GW gave a fig about the genetics of them, which they don't).

A good example of sexualized models that straddle the border between 'sexy' and not are the Mobile Brigada box from Infinity;


This is a good example of sexualized miniatures: there is a clear aesthetic differentiation between the male and female models. Whether they are 'sexy' or not is up to the individual owner; certainly they are not cheesecake.

Holy crap those Mobile Brigada models are beautiful. I'm getting a huge Bubble Gum Crisis crossed with Appleseed vibe from these guys and that pretty much is hitting all of my weak spots.

I think that those type of reactions are what drive people to buy one type of model over another. Its beyond obvious that cheesecake style of sculptures/painting/photos etc. resonate in some sort of happy place in the male brain. These depictions have been around since man first scrawled rock on rock and will continue long after we have made nice nice with the little green men from space and we will probably get an eyeful of what they consider cheesecake and sexy.

I've seen countless "reasonably" dressed female models and rarely have any of them invoked my "must buy now" button. At the most they would merely be background characters and not feature pieces. After all, how can anything be a focal point when it looks just like everything else?

I didn't read all the 15 pages, but it is a very interesting issue, especially with the "phasma ironie" brought up by Buzzsaw.
So, in order to bring females to the tabletop, but keeping the realism,should GW just do the same models as now, but giving them femal name ?
It would bring female characters without sexualizing them.
They would just look like men with all their wargear, as in the reality, and be females, by their name.

If you don't like the "sexy" sisters of battle, dreamforge Valkir with [Edit]Victoria[/Edit] Statuesque Miniatures female heads looks the part.

Lance845 wrote:



That pose is ridiculous. The only reason that model is positioned that way is to stick out her ass and spread her legs. Look at the feet. How is that any way to stand when swinging that axe? It's not. That model exists to be a sex object and THAT is what makes so many of these models tasteless and sexist.

It's exaggerated to be sure and probably horrible for axe combat but that's not too far off of a baseball swing. The pose isn't bad in that regards.

Edit: here's a baseball swing a fraction of a second further in the swing. The weight has furthered transferred to the front leg causing a less solid rear leg plant but notice the similar spread stance and butt position.

 godardc wrote:

So, in order to bring females to the tabletop, but keeping the realism,should GW just do the same models as now, but giving them femal name ?

Many of us commenting here do not really care about GW specifically (or at all) the discussion is about industry in general.

GW is just a part of it.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
If you don't like the "sexy" sisters of battle, dreamforge Valkir with Victoria female heads looks the part.

Spoiler:

And if you put the helmet on nobody knows what is under the armour.

And these would still score the "no head protection" on the female armour bingo....

Yeah, I don't know why I wrote GW, maybe because I just read about the sigmarites
Those "sisters" are exactly what I was speaking about: just say in their background they are females, but don't let the mini show it if they are wearing armour.
I think you are exaggerating when you speak about the "no head protection".
Some males mini do not wear helmet, too. And some females have helmets (some just have an helmet ! )
And those aren't sold like this, they are supposed to have an helmet, it is up to the converter to put some helmets.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
If you don't like the "sexy" sisters of battle, dreamforge Valkir with Victoria female heads looks the part.

Spoiler:

Aren't those heads from Andrew Rae's Statuesque Miniatures?

edit.

Ah I see, BoLS is the source, they always feth up.

That said, those 'SoB' are probably the best female miniatures I have seen so far, which is a bit depressing.

The sculptors of today can make insanely detailed miniatures (see FW Primarchs) but apparently making a female model without inexplicably thin armour, smacked-on T&A or big gaps is an insurmountable challenge.

 godardc wrote:
So, in order to bring females to the tabletop, but keeping the realism,should GW just do the same models as now, but giving them femal name ?

This assumes that the obstacle preventing females from playing miniatures game is sexualized miniatures.

Personally I don't think sexualization of miniatures is what keeps women from playing miniatures game compared to males. That would imply that these over sexualized miniatures are in game shops and I don't think that has been made clear or visible. Most of these are in niche markets that you see online, not purchased in a store, and rarely played on a table at a game store... at least I haven't seen it in all my years of gaming (unfortunately I realize that sample size is considered small).

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
If you don't like the "sexy" sisters of battle, dreamforge Valkir with Victoria female heads looks the part.

Spoiler:

I actually have both the Dreamforge Valkir and Statuesque Miniatures female heads to create that. Unfortunately I haven't had time to get to that project yet.

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 Jayden63 wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:

*For what it's worth, I think they are wrong: the success of Raging Heroes in this space, with a spincast product (an, IMO, inferior material) shows that people do want to buy sexualized female models.

I think its quite obvious that sexy models do sell, and probably sell well due to just how many new ones get made each and every year. It also might be that non sexy female models dont sell well, or at least well enough to keep several companies churning out new ones each and every year. I wonder how many of us would actually buy female space marines or even guardsmen? Yeah, I can appreciate the idea behind it, I might even like how the model looks. I probably wouldn't buy any though as there is no reason for me too. And if I did, It wouldn't be more than a single unit box just for the novelty of it. Unlike the dozens of squad boxes from the other armies I own. This is all personal opinion though, There are probably some who would drop $300 bucks on female space marines. But are there enough other people out there to actually make it worth it for the model company?

Forgive me, I was using 'sexualized' in the technical sense, not to mean "sexy", but to mean that a design concession has been made to make it unambiguous what gender the model is. While this sometimes takes the form of making the model 'sexy', it doesn't have to.

The Victoria Imperial Guard stand-ins that have been brought up are 'sexualized', as are Dreamforge's Black Widow Tank Hunters. They are sexualized without being sexy.

The Prodos Space Crusade models are both sexualized and 'sexy' (or gratuitous, frankly).

As I brought up, technically speaking, Necrons could be used as an example of a mixed gender force. Necrons have no sexual dimorphism anymore, therefore any given Necron model might be a female or a male. Same with Tyranids. In fact, given the insect qualities of Tyranids, one would suspect they might be all or almost all female (if GW gave a fig about the genetics of them, which they don't).

A good example of sexualized models that straddle the border between 'sexy' and not are the Mobile Brigada box from Infinity;
[Corvus Belli Miniatures Snip for Size]

This is a good example of sexualized miniatures: there is a clear aesthetic differentiation between the male and female models. Whether they are 'sexy' or not is up to the individual owner; certainly they are not cheesecake.

Partially related:
It saddens me every time Corvus Belli gives the female varaiant of a great miniature blood highheels or a butt on presentation yet again.
Especially the heels. God damnit, CB, I want to like you. Stop doing that.

 BrookM wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
If you don't like the "sexy" sisters of battle, dreamforge Valkir with Victoria female heads looks the part.

Spoiler:

Aren't those heads from Andrew Rae's Statuesque Miniatures?

edit.

Ah I see, BoLS is the source, they always feth up.

They are indeed Statuesque heads, though BoLS (and Spikey Bits) got the source right and helped massively to increase awareness of my product.

 Andrew Rae wrote:

 BrookM wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
If you don't like the "sexy" sisters of battle, dreamforge Valkir with Victoria female heads looks the part.

Spoiler:

Aren't those heads from Andrew Rae's Statuesque Miniatures?

edit.

Ah I see, BoLS is the source, they always feth up.

They are indeed Statuesque heads, though BoLS (and Spikey Bits) got the source right and helped massively to increase awareness of my product.

Ah gotcha, posters being dumb again.

 Korraz wrote:
Partially related:
It saddens me every time Corvus Belli gives the female varaiant of a great miniature blood highheels or a butt on presentation yet again.
Especially the heels. God damnit, CB, I want to like you. Stop doing that.

It is a Bubblegum Crisis thing.

 Ashiraya wrote:
The sculptors of today can make insanely detailed miniatures (see FW Primarchs) but apparently making a female model without inexplicably thin armour, smacked-on T&A or big gaps is an insurmountable challenge.

Don't confuse a lack of ability to do something with the lack of desire. Why would a creator spend their time, energy and money doing something they don't want to?

The only circumstance I can see where a creator would be obligated to make the kind of content I want is if I am paying them.