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.

Honestly, this slogan is keeping me away from WM/H, due to the implications of casual misogyny. Does Privateer ever address this? As a company, have they ever made a statement welcoming female players, or clarifying the fact that they're aware of the gender politics behind making this statement their system's core ethic?

I think you're reading a bit too much into that. Page five is over the top yes, but personally I don't really see it as something scaring away the ladies. If anything, my semi-regular opponent miss MacTavish takes page 5 to heart and tears me a new one every time we play.

If you read page 5, you would have your answers. Nice troll attempt though.

Genuinely not a troll attempt. Paraphrase page 5 for me?

Maybe it would be easier to believe casual trol isn't trolling if there wasn't a space marine model in your avatar?

PP has one random phrase and you bring in gender politics. GW has entire -legions- of troops oozing testosterone and you have no problem.

PP has female casters, female solos, female only troops, mixed gender troops. Some of the most iconic images of PP are females. I'm still looking for a poster size image of the original IK Lock and Loaded with Sam hugging her Nomad.

So pardon me if I don't think Page 5 constitues Privateer Press's official position on women.

My female friends always tell guys and each other to both man up and grow a pair, so I wouldn't worry to much.

Shotgun wrote:So pardon me if I don't think Page 5 constitues Privateer Press's official position on women.

Isn't PP currently run by a woman?

MKI versions of Page 5

http://shin14n.blogspot.com/2005/12/page-5.html

if someone can also trackdown MKII page 5 youll see that TFGs screaming "PAGE 5!" got the spirit wrong


specifically: OP should read Page 5 of Escalation and Apotheosis for better context

"Play like you've got a pair" is most certainly casual misogyny. But you've got to pick your battles, and on the scale of things worth fighting about, this doesn't even register. If it looks like you might have fun, swallow your misgivings about the game that are based on a single sentence in a single book, albeit a (perhaps) poor choice of words.

I think it's more important in this case to acknowledge the spirit of the words, rather than the literal words.

Page 5 takes the place of religion in my life...

Beer takes the place of religion in mine.

So you haven't read Page 5, but you assume the the misogyny of the entire game based on an excerpt removed from it?

That's a poor showing. Ever wonder how stereotypes started?

But in truth, the page is about playing hard. They're trying to encourage an offensive blitz, not a defensive standoff.

Please read your source materials before assuming anything.

chromedog wrote:Beer takes the place of religion in mine.

Single malt scotch and premium cigars, when I can afford it.

Mad4Minis wrote:

chromedog wrote:Beer takes the place of religion in mine.

Single malt scotch and premium cigars, when I can afford it.

I second both of these sentiments.

onTopic: Sorry, forgot to add all Page 5s have distinct differences. A lot more source material there than is assumed.

Feldenglas wrote:Genuinely not a troll attempt. Paraphrase page 5 for me?

It's hard to believe this isn't a troll attempt if you haven't bothered to find out exactly what the game/that phrase is about by picking up the rule book. And I am not even a Warmachine player.

Seeking more information about it was EXACTLY what I was doing. I am greeted with hostility and assumptions that I am trolling. I don't know anything about Privateer and their products, so I'm asking a reliable source. Those of you who responded respectfully and provided useful information, thank you. Those of you who responded with assumptions about who I am and what I am trying to do, I think you need to go and re-examine yourselves for the kinds of garbage you're projecting on me.

As for misogyny in the 40k source material, yes, absolutely. I challenge you to find a game that doesn't have it. However, I'm not sure I can find an instance where Games Workshop encourages that kind of attitude in their playerbase, as one can construe is being done here. If I'm wrong on any of these counts, correct me, but let's not have this devolve into a flamewar.

would be interested to know your thoughts after youve read Page 5 then

Some of the manliest people I know are women...

Also, who's to say that the phrase doesn't apply to women? They have several pairs, most of which are far better than any pair a man has.

Feldenglas wrote:Honestly, this slogan is keeping me away from WM/H, due to the implications of casual misogyny.

Half my group of WM/H players are female and none of them have ever taken offense to the phrase(it gets thrown around a lot by all of us, mostly at our Cygnar players).

My Circle playing female friend is here right now painting and she says this may reflect more on your perceptions than the company.

My wife doesn't find anything wrong with it, but she works in the military and has to deal with "casual misogyny" daily, so her opinion may be skewed(or she's the best judge we have in the matter).

Cool, next time I'm in my FLGS I'll check out page 5 in its entirety. Thanks for your encouragement, and Aerethan does make a good point about pairs!

Feldenglas wrote:Seeking more information about it was EXACTLY what I was doing. I am greeted with hostility and assumptions that I am trolling. I don't know anything about Privateer and their products, so I'm asking a reliable source.

When the first line of your post throws out 'casual misogyny', you're most likely going to illicit a negative reaction, regardless of context.

I can't speak for every member of the forums, but when you state that 'play like you've got a pair' is keeping you away from a game, you're tilting your hand a bit. Because as you stated you have no knowledge of the company/game. This means you are forming an opinion based on A. Something you heard secondhand or B. Trolling. Neither are considered good practices.


Moving forward, no, I can't think of anywhere privateer addresses the nature of this statement in any way beyond play style. Their product speaks for itself. Roughly half of all the games starter boxes have female warcasters/warlocks in them. Females dominate several kingdoms and societal systems in the game. A unit could contain males or females, living or undead.

I assure you, 'Play like you've got a pair' casts no gender bias on the game. It just had a better, more evocative sentiment than 'Be aggressive'. And was certainly less of Pandora's box than saying anything as misogynistic as 'don't play like a pussycat'.

gunslingerpro wrote:

I assure you, 'Play like you've got a pair' casts no gender bias on the game. It just had a better, more evocative sentiment than 'Be aggressive'. And was certainly less of Pandora's box than saying anything as misogynistic as 'don't play like a pussycat'.

It also fits the 2d6(or a pair of dice) system as a nice little play on words.

Platuan4th wrote:

gunslingerpro wrote:

I assure you, 'Play like you've got a pair' casts no gender bias on the game. It just had a better, more evocative sentiment than 'Be aggressive'. And was certainly less of Pandora's box than saying anything as misogynistic as 'don't play like a pussycat'.

It also fits the 2d6(or a pair of dice) system as a nice little play on words.

Well stated. Double Entendres not withstanding

I see page 5 as a set of rules for aggressive/competitive chivalry. Play hard without being rude and all that...

Feldenglas wrote:Honestly, this slogan is keeping me away from WM/H, due to the implications of casual misogyny. Does Privateer ever address this? As a company, have they ever made a statement welcoming female players, or clarifying the fact that they're aware of the gender politics behind making this statement their system's core ethic?

On a side note, I know a lot lot lot more female players that are involved in WM/H than the Warhammer series.

I'm guessing it's the model style that appeals to them more.

Awesome, thanks Gunslingerpro, that clarifies things nicely.

As for my approach, well, all I know about the game is what I've encountered in an ancillary fashion. IE, the game is popular, the models look fun, and the slogan evoked a reaction in me that made me question the community. I still don't think it's inaccurate to call something like that "casual misogyny", as it would be easy to interpret that as a game that's not for girls.

That said, I don't believe it was PP's intention, I'm sure they want to be as inclusive with their game as possible. Also, I'm not accusing the playerbase of being misogynists.

There's a lot of gender bias in our hobby in general, and I'm familiar with how it presents itself in the GW community. I hear the 'R' word get tossed around casually in a lot of games to describe bad things that happen to squads and vehicles, and it offends me on a personal level, and frankly I wish people would stop using it that way. But it's never stopped me from enjoying a game with someone who felt differently.

So I'll take a look at page 5, and clear up my preconceived notions about "Play Like You've Got a Pair". If you're troubled by anything I've written, I'd challenge you to take a look at the ideas of gender bias and male privilege, and do some serious self reflection.

Page five was oft misunderstood on a number of levels.

The ass-hats who took it as a lisence to be TFGs being another example.

Feldenglas wrote:As for misogyny in the 40k source material, yes, absolutely. I challenge you to find a game that doesn't have it. However, I'm not sure I can find an instance where Games Workshop encourages that kind of attitude in their playerbase, as one can construe is being done here. If I'm wrong on any of these counts, correct me, but let's not have this devolve into a flamewar.

As far as mysogeny goes, I challenge you to look for it and not find it. If you already have it in your mind that the statement is against women, what's going to change your mind? A written statement from the creator saying it's not meant that way? Why would that matter?

I'm not trying to flame you, I am honestly curious. Do you get offended when people say "man up" or "you're the man"?

Hey Dok, thanks for the question, and I appreciate your tone of genuine interest.

I don't believe that PP's statement is against women, nor do I believe that they don't want women playing their games. What I suspect is that the statement was written with the best of intentions to create a specific attitude and culture around their game, but that they just didn't consider the possible gender implications. Lack of this kind of thought or consideration can be construed as casual misogyny (incidentally, here's a decent article if it helps: http://www.diamondbackonline.com/opinion/the-casual-stain-on-society-1.2709376 ))

It would be nice to know that Privateer was aware of it, and if they made a statement to that effect it would be fantastic. As a leading company in our hobby community, they have a tremendous amount of influence over the culture. Like I said, I do not believe that Privateer is anti-woman, nor do I think they should change their slogan.

I don't think terms like "man up" or "You're the man" are offensive necessarily, but look what they imply. They both portray manliness and masculinity as something positive and desirable, and both refer to assuming an attitude or expression of general maleness. "Play like you've got a pair", while also ascribing positive traits to males, does make that masculinity somewhat inaccessible by implication that it is inherently anatomical.

I don't think any of this is insurmountable. It just needs to be talked about.

Feldenglas wrote:
I don't believe that PP's statement is against women, nor do I believe that they don't want women playing their games.

Then why not just leave it at that? Unless you want to make a big deal out of it?
Starting a thread with the tone you have, seems to me like you are baiting for a war.

This is some serious projecting, and sounds more like a feminist rant than an attempt at serious discussion