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.

It's nice that people are talking about both sides, but overall, the industry/hobby is dominated with sexualized depictions.

Theoretically it's okay, as people have discussed. However, as the Prodos and many other miniature games have shown, in practice things are far from even.

Likewise, the reason why nudity and such influences sales numbers may be due to the fact that this is a very niche hobby dominated by males. Which is okay, except that just because a hobby is male dominated, does not mean that it was and always will be, or even should be. If anything, nudity and sexualization being such a sales booster indicates that our industry has done a poor job of appealing to and enticing other kinds of gamers that don't buy based on that criteria.

Likewise, it's not enough just to say that this sexy model was designed and sculpted by a woman, because the reality is that woman is likely being employed by a male dominated studio and not so subtly influenced to sculpt for a particular kind of male.

It's less that there is no market, but rather a failure of establishing a market in the first place. There really is a market out there, but with so much of the industry dominated by off putting depictions, well it's no wonder that this untapped market would rather go and play board or video games than bother with toy soldiers.

The difference is that video games and even board games have been moving to diversify, and they have reaped the benefits of a larger market.

Meanwhile, miniature games are becoming more and more niche.

You bring up "hardcore feminists" but no one is really asking for the removal of all sexuality removed from gaming. But, many are just tired of seeing it pointlessly everywhere, and poorly done at that. Prodos' stuff wasn't just a particularly good example, but it was also just one in a long line of really one sided depictions.

Likewise, those "hardcore feminists" are a niche type of people of a larger very legitimate issue. One shouldn't go disparaging niches in a forum dedicated to a hobby that is very niche itself. I bet you that at some point you have turned your nose up at someone in this hobby that you considered just plain weird and not all together, but that very same person is used by other people to disparage our entire hobby. So it's best not to start the finger pointing because it accomplishes nothing.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
What is all this about? Some female miniatures?
Really people, if you do not like them then do not use them. Simple.

I will keep this quote handy for every damn time you say IG are in a bad spot or something.

Because for myself at least, it's not that I dislike female models, I just consider them to be 'in a bad spot.'

Two different things:

Number 1 is a massive collection of models which the owner of has spent a small fortune on, collected and lovingly painted and themed their force only to have the developers and rules writers of the game said miniatures are for essentially invalidate them.

Number 2 is a single model. Or style of model. Anyone has the choice to buy it or not. Anyone has the choice to look at it or not.

See the difference? One is the screwing over of a massive collection that a person has spent years and vast amounts collecting, the other is a miniature that one can choose to own and/or look at or not.

They are not immune to criticism just because they are liked.

....maybe you quoted the wrong post, I'm not seeing how your statement follows in any way from what you quoted

The problem is that she actually likely doesn't have as much a choice to look at them, or rather in this hobby, to be constantly bombarded by imagery of oversexualized females.

Do a thought experiment for me and in your mind replace every instance where you see a sexualized female miniature, or overly buff male miniature, with an image of a sexy effeminate male, or some other form of very uncomfortable sexual imagery. You can probably handle imagining it a few times, but now imagine it being absolutely everywhere. Imagine not being able to walk down the street, or go to your favorite internet forum without being bombarded with it. Imagine GW replacing all IG males with males in panties posed not like they were going to fight, but were readying themselves to be ravaged by the enemy, and that imagery is everywhere you go.

At that point, you don't have as much choice as you think. Likewise, you might try to say that she can just choose not to buy instead, but what if you love the hobby in the same way that you love playing IG? You certainly complain about losing your army to anti-consumer practices, so why don't you quit IG and quit GW games entirely? Why don't you?

And there is the issue. It's because if you thought about it, you don't have as much choice as you'd think. Or rather, the other choice would be to abandon something you love. In your case it's your Imperial Guard--oh sorry, I mean Astra Millitarum. In her case, and for other women gamers, its a choice between putting up with these depictions or abandoning a hobby they love.

It's one of the reasons why I took the time and money to commission decent female soldiers, and am actually taking the time to sculpt those female soldiers in such a way where I don't need to make it obvious and cliched that they're female. It's because I like choice. While I enjoy T&A as much as any other male, I don't need it in my life 24/7, I've got a variety of interests so I find it annoying that my most beloved hobby is so fixated on it. I can barely imagine what it's like to be a woman in this hobby having to deal with it.

It's a big thread, misquoting happens. But it also doesn't help to reply quote again with even less to add to the discussion.

If you do the easy math and look up 1-2 quotes, my statements make more sense, and I stand by them.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
Does it have to? Usually we do not design models to look specifically male from a meter away. A Marine looks male because he has much wider shoulders than hips, for instance, but from a meter away it's difficult to compare the ratio, and aside from that his massive armour is quite androgynous. Shouldn't we get rid of most of the armour plating so that it's obvious that it's male? It must be obviously male, otherwise you may as well collect a female army.

Why yes, of course it does, the whole point of making female models if to have a representation of female characters in a setting, if they do not look like it then why bother, they may all be male for what it is worth (the default assumption for a combat environment).

And this is a thing discussed on many of the pages that have passed, if you want to make a representation of something, it must look like the thing you intent to represent under the conditions it is indented to be used.

A "realistically depicted" female warrior in 28-32mm scale is almost identical to the male one some differentiation must happen for the sculpt to look what it is supposed to represent, even Victoria's female guards have elements that are not "realistic depictions" of female warriors to diferentiate them from the male counterparts and I am sure nobody has (or should have) anything bad to say about them.

We've been specifically talking about female models needing to be obvious from a meter away. So on this point I still stand by it, they don't need to be instantly (and hilariously) obvious and could still fulfill the purpose of being female. There's a lot of subtle to clear ways to portray females in miniature without resorting to the clichéd representations that saturate the industry.

Indeed, if a soldier is intended to fight, it must look ready to fight first, regardless of sex.

Victoria's miniatures are still designed for male oriented and dominated hobby. Of course they will still skew on the side of obvious. It's only notable that she doesn't go comically obvious in her miniatures. It's funny that the reason why those minis are notable for this conversation is that they are so reserved, yet you're trying to use them as an example for needing to be more obvious.

This quote is like a twisted and reaching version of how some men believe women must look a certain way for men.

migooo wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What is the problem?

I am not clear if you mean that the statement from the UN indicates that there is a problem in visual depictions of women, or if you mean that it is a problem that the UN has made that statement. If the latter, then why?

The problem is that while the UN is happy to go against Japan for cartoons or against perceived violence against nasty words on Twitter without more evidence than C:

When actual more violence against women is happening in cologne, Berlin, Calais, to name a few to problems ultimately they caused.

Let alone the problems in Isil or other states where you can hit women quite legally but those countries are on the security council (not isil )and would never ever Say a bad word against them.

The UN has been ignored by the US when it wants too yet. key influential people who champion a form of Feminism that quite honestly is Puritanical. While I now think they can be Correct that there are significant problems within Certain Sections of geek / gaming culture. Destroying it seems stupid.

A recent article from CBR said comics should be scrapped and follow a narrative similar to the recent tv shows ( more specifically Superfeminist... sorry Supergirl) because of a potential buyer base ( key word potential) and if the current buyer base who have distinctly said they would like them separate... can basically go to hell. when the same article mentions when The walking dead readership remained largely unchanged due to the tv show, where as the TV show is loosing viewers.

Look I would like both Cheesecake and More normal figures to exist even if those figures are still going to be exaggerated or there wont be any difference... But if i have to choose Id rather the hoby survives even if its Censored into oblivion.

I guess we're going there. I had hoped someone wouldn't bring in the mess that was gamergate and video game related feminism into this forum. But here it is. I'll preface by saying that a lot of what's behind that is pretty simplistic thinking with a whole lot of strange assumptions, but the other side also has its own share.

Do not, ever, presume to use violence against women elsewhere as an excuse to ignore misrepresentation and marginalizing of women closer to you. That's a very childish straw man, or rather a textbook not-as-bad-as fallacy, "dismissing an argument or complaint due to the existence of more important problems in the world, regardless of whether those problems bear relevance to the initial argument."

You are showing your own callousness by using worse suffering to justify another kind of suffering, which while it may seem small is still a part of a larger whole. That larger whole affects a lot of people everywhere and loops around to contribute to how terribly those people are treated in, "Cologne, Berlin, Calais..." as you say. What you need to realize is that why the worst happens to women there (and everywhere) is because of a global representation of women that starts small, but plants the seed that women are just pretty things to look at and use. Eventually, get exposed to that enough and while most people won't buy into that idea, there are going to be some people who find power in that horrible notion.

So, all this does have every relation to tabletop gaming if the depictions of the vast majority of women that they might face as opponents or happen to control on the tabletop presents them as sexualized play things. And as this topic now descends into the madness of gamergate and people throwing around stupid catch phrases like SJWs as if they knew what that actually meant, just remember that you started this.

On censorship, you frankly know nothing of censorship if you've lived anywhere remotely Westernized. But perhaps this idea might help you understand. You belittle the concept of improving representations of women in media like miniatures, then cite horrifying things as a justification to ignore it. Tell me then, how do you feel about this argument: Your cries of censorship are nothing when you don't even realize the horrific censorship that goes on in so many countries across the globe, where people are jailed or killed for uttering ideas that we take for granted today?

The hobby won't survive or thrive if it doesn't try to expand and be creative to find new markets. The endless stream of more and more naked or oversexualized miniatures isn't helping, because while it may improve sales on the short term, it digs the hobby's grave a A-D cup at a time.

Also, Jim Sterling isn't the best personality to randomly link to anywhere. He's a gaming personality built on attitude and personality, he's not terrible, but he gives off an air about his media that most won't know is an act related to his time spent in the drudgery of game media work. If you don't understand that act, he comes off as really, really, really annoying.

Edit while relevant the above does not have much relation with the tabletop gaming especially wargaming because players in most cases are not controlling a single protagonist as an avatar but many individuals as a commander.

It's still relevant when the vast majority, if not nearly all representations of women miniatures or miniature related media they come across in a majority of games will be in some way sexualized. I've mentioned this one before, but in GW's Grey Knights book, for example they literally have Grey Knight killing Sisters of Battle just so they could coat their weapons and armor in the blood of the pious to defeat a demon. Now sure, there's in fiction reasons that this works, but it's also a good example of the kind of negative towards women mindset that would cause someone to write fiction of that in the first place.

As for miniatures themselves, I do think there could be more males in miniatures of differing body types to appeal to different people. I've had a girlfriend tell me that specifically when looking at my collection. There's a lot of women who aren't interested in the overly muscled male fantasy male miniatures. It's funny that Infinity, while it has its own problems with female miniatures at times, is actually pretty good at having a wider variety of male body types. So that at least is a good sign of progress.

I see a lot of pointing fingers at how some weird feminists have polluted everything and that it's a broken movement.

I'd have to point out that there are a lot of very, very disturbing individuals in our little hobby here. Do we, as a whole, consider those people to really represent the whole in its entirety? If we were to hold our hobby to a fraction of the same scrutiny that people are giving the very idea of feminism in this forum, we would all disband due to the obvious deluge of cheaters, anti-social maniacs. I mean, within a single link from my closest gaming group, there's been a murderer, many cheaters, real womanizers, corrupt officials, several unabashed cheaters to an extreme degree, and more. Am I to say that the entire hobby should be condemned for those people?

And accomplishing a few goals doesn't mean something is over. It's like hanging the Mission Accomplished on an aircraft carrier while everything is still going to gak in Iraq. Or in this case, just because say, the Women's Suffrage movement got the vote for women somehow meant that the job was done.

Also, Buzzsaw might have some points, but i was too busy ignoring a post too full of youtube videos from decades old personalities, whereas I could have been reading the thoughts of the actual person taking the time to write out his own opinion instead of using youtube to parrot stuff. That's like going into a high school debate and summoning a master Supreme Court lawyer to make their case for them, except they then fail to post the counter argument in the same case.

Likewise, I still think it all has connections to the current miniature game landscape, you may not want to admit it, but the issue is there. And, here's the most important thing that most forget, just because it's an issue doesn't mean it's a huge problem. But it is worth addressing. I'm super busy most of the week so I need to go back and address. This is a thread literally created to talk about it, and if it does dip into feminism it has a bit of a point.

Eventually I need to go back and review all the topics since I last posted, but I'm busy most of the week. But a lot of this thread just looked like bash fest.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
I would say it is called citing ones sources, want to counter argument them? find your own and post them.

I really do not know in what game-group you play in, but sounds tough.

Seriously though are you saying you don't have time to review the thread, but have enouph time to come and bash the user that has the most contrary opinion to yours?

The problem wasn't citing source, the problem was using the sources direct without have a thought of your own. That's key, having an argument of your own, writing it yourself, instead of posting a link to random articles and youtube videos from decades ago. Doesn't matter if you base opinions on those same sources, but there's reason why essays and thesis in schools involve actually making your own point and using those sources as just that, sources, not the actual opinion. Otherwise, people could just submit papers with nothing but link. And sure, this is an internet forum but we are kind talking about something a little serious. Regurgitating decades old opinions when the landscape for these arguments are constantly changing is silly.

On the second point: Oh please, I'm willing to bet money that you can name at least one, or multiple people within one connection of you that you would rather not have anyone know about, or that you mock somehow for some kind of weird behavior beyond the baseline level of weirdness. No one in existence has a perfect group, and if you did, it's likely because you have ejected that person from your group and stopped playing with them. Well, guess what, those are the same people you mock other groups for having, but they are just as much an outlier.

I have to make extra time to get on pointless internet arguments like this, and often times I don't want to bother. It's difficult because the arguments from the norm that are the problem are often seductively easy such as crying about censorship, saying how it's always been this way, or jumping on some internet bandwagon and pointing to extreme personalities from past and present like their some kind of indicative of the whole.

And unlike so many, I am actually putting real time, money, and effort into making some kind of change. Or rather, that's never been the primary goal with my miniature game, but I've recognized it's not an aspect I want to continue the way it has been going. I'd rather spend time making things than posting, and if that means I can't respond to everything that's put up, so be it, I'll show it with action when I can. But when I do, I certainly won't rely on youtube links.