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 don't have any problem with or without boob plate.
Specifically in the context of GW miniatures, I think they're fitting. GW exaggerate everything, guns are huge, heads are huge, hands are huge, embossed or engraved details are huge, rivets are huge, panel lines are huge, often the random details hanging off the model are huge. The only thing that maybe squeezes by not being huge are skulls, simply so the model can be adorned with more of them
If I were trying to sum up GW's aesthetic in a few words it'd probably be big chunky details, exaggerated proportions and excessive detail.
So given that, boob plate is very fitting for GW models.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/10/15 20:48:57
It would actually be interesting to see a poll of what people think about boob armour. These threads are so often just the same people talking back and forth.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: It would actually be interesting to see a poll of what people think about boob armour. These threads are so often just the same people talking back and forth.
I'd like that, but I think an individual's definition of what is "Boob Armour" and what isn't could result in an unreliable data reference. Would still be interesting to see regardless.
Yeah definitely, I think any poll would have to be carefully worded and quite prone to bias of the writer. But still it would be interesting if approached properly.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/16 00:39:28
Asterios wrote: except when it becomes a rant of i'm better then you and you are sexist and so forth.
Criticizing you is not the same thing as taking away your liberties.
This x 1000.
Also, all this talk of differentiation and w/e reminded me, did this for someone a while back, just as a demonstration of what less-boobish armor might look like, for better or for worse:
Spoiler:
I'd say that's reasonably indistinct as a female model. Depends whether you want your females to be distinctively so.
I also agree with Peregrine here. While normally I do not have so much problems with female armour having boobs (apart from thinking it looks ugly), I do view it as a problem when boobs are used as the defining female characteristic. It means that women are essentially reduced to just being a pair of boobs.
This is the real issue that people need to address. But I'd like to address the "it's the only way to tell!" argument. First, why do we need to "tell"? Is a model male just because it doesn't have a pair of enormous hazard lights on its chest? If they released a Dreadnought-sized female Magos character, would she be less female for not having obvious indicators on her totally cybernetic body? Should Inar Satarael and Draykavac have big crotch bulges on their cybernetic bodies to make sure we know they're male? Of course not. This is part of why Shadowsun is good.
That doesn't mean that they shouldn't have any female shape, but there are better ways to do that than twin-linked traffic cones. So from here, there are two ways to proceed. Either they attempt a reasonably realistic female armoured chest, with intent to make them not obviously female (though anyone would know, due to them being Sisters of Battle). Or they can choose to show the chest in a number of less ridiculous ways than the usual.
EDIT: Formatting explosion?
The idea that female models are reduced to being a pair of boobs simply because they have boobs moulded is absolutely absurd.
It'd be like saying Space Marines are essentially reduced to shoulder pads because they have big shoulder pads. Or Orks are essentially reduced to green because they're green. Or Chaos are essentially reduced to spikes because they're spiky.
The dominant aesthetic features of a model aren't what the race it represents are being reduced to, it is simply what visually makes the race distinctive. For SoB's, the fact they're female is part of what makes them visually distinctive. Could you make it so them being female is not what makes them visually distinctive? Sure, if you wanted.... but you could just as equally leave them the way they are and keep the aesthetic they've had for the past 18+ years.
Is a model male just because it doesn't have a pair of enormous hazard lights on its chest?
Models are typically identified as men simply because warriors and soldiers usually are men. It's not incorrect to have the default assumption that a soldier is a man because that is the norm.
I don't see it as being part of the job of a miniature games company to try and alter social norms.
That doesn't mean that they shouldn't have any female shape, but there are better ways to do that than twin-linked traffic cones. So from here, there are two ways to proceed. Either they attempt a reasonably realistic female armoured chest, with intent to make them not obviously female (though anyone would know, due to them being Sisters of Battle). Or they can choose to show the chest in a number of less ridiculous ways than the usual.
We're talking about 28mm scale minis here/ 28mm scale minis made by Games Workshop to be precise, it's basically the GW signature move to exaggerate a model's proportions.
When you translate the two latter pictures in your links to 28mm scale and GW hero scale, you'll get.... well.... what SoB's already look like
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/16 04:00:48
Man... look at those clearly female models that do not need giant tits hanging off their armor to tell that they are female.
Those conversions make for an excellent plastic sisters. Get smaller shoulders and give their armor a less bulky but more gothic plate armor aesthetic. Throw on some sisters iconography. BAM! You have a updated but still grim dark look to the sisters that doesn't need to slap tits the size of heroic scale heads onto their chest so you can "tell it's a woman".
They don't need to look like a dominatix. They need to look like battle nuns. The gothic layered plate evokes that grim dark inquisitiony feel that they should have.
Maybe I'm one of the few, but I don't really like those models and would rather GW didn't choose that aesthetic.
They made them look female by having an extremely narrow jaw and hairstyles that we associate with women (though to me they just look like weird dreadlocks because the strands of hair are absurdly thick). Instead of saying "it's female because it has boobs" it's saying "it's female because of a hair cut and glass jaw".
To me it looks no more like a female soldier than it would look a child soldier if you photoshopped a baby's head on a bodybuilder.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/10/16 05:13:43
Don't female Tau look the same as male Tau? I always just assumed a bunch of them were already female but they're not visually distinctive.
Male Tau have an oval shaped head hole. Females have a "Y" shaped one. Except Etherials. Theirs is diamond shaped with a crystal poking out (So sayeth Xenology).
I didn't think it was canon whether all female Tau had a Y slit or simply that Shadowsun does. I don't know much about Tau but I remember having a discussion a while back about it. The Tau wiki says...
Only two female Tau have ever been illustrated. The first, Commander Shadowsun, appeared to have a more human face than male Tau; being smoother and sleeker with larger eyes, a nose-like facial feature and a "Y" shaped facial slit. It is not known, however, whether Shadowsun is representative of all female Tau. The second known Tau female, the subject of an Imperial dissection by the Magi of the Adeptus Mechanicus, had the facial characteristics of a male Tau.
I've always just assumed there are a bunch of female Tau that are just never identified as such.
Either way there could be more named female Tau, but the one they do have is supreme commander so I don't think you can cry too much about it
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/16 08:48:04
Asterios wrote: what it comes down to is if someone wants it, they can have it (boob armor) or if they find it offensive they don't need it, its a matter of personal choice, so don't tell someone they can have it or not, its their choice, not yours, if you want them or not that is your choice, not someone elses if someone wants a fluff candy dressed up SoB with whips I go whatever, their choice then shoot the mini with a bolter round (lets see a whip stop that).
I agree people are allowed to want whatever they want. The reason I end up replying to these topics is because...
1. We're talking about changing an existing aesthetic. I know some people don't like the Tyranid aesthetic either, but it's what we have and what I've built an army around so feth them if they want it changed, they can buy their models elsewhere.
2. The arguments made are often silly. Some of them are decent arguments, a lot of them are just silly hyperbole or invented. Things like having boob plate reduces models to a pair of boobs doesn't pass basic logic checks and arguments like it's scaring a large number of women gamers away I think are spurious at best.
Davor wrote: Funny thing is, take the boobs away and they still would have looked like women. So did they really need it? No. So why put it in? Only reason I can think of to put it in, is titilalation. So question is why add boobs on minis? What purpose is it serving? Are you telling me you can't tell that the Sisters of Silence are not female? That boobs had to be added in to say "YES LOOK AT ME, I AM WOMAN!". No. you can clearly tell that the Sisters of Silence are women. No need to add breasts. So what is the point of adding breasts then?
Remember we are talking about 28mm scale models here.
The Sisters of Silence look like women when they stand 4 to 10" tall viewed on you 24+" monitor. Zoom out to the point they're only ~30mm tall and stand a couple of feet away and they're not all that identifiable anymore.
The goal is to make them look like females when you're standing a few feet away from them while they're on a table top.
To do that, you exaggerate things. As I've said elsewhere in this thread, GW's core aesthestic largely revolves around exaggerated details..... GW exaggerate everything, guns are huge, heads are huge, hands are huge, embossed or engraved details are huge, rivets are huge, panel lines are huge, often the random details hanging off the model are huge. The only thing that maybe squeezes by not being huge are skulls, simply so the model can be adorned with more of them
adamsouza wrote: Power Armor is not Medievil Armor. I wish people would stop trying to make direct comparisons.
Medievil armor, hopefully, stops penetration and relies on padding to absorb the trauma of impact.
Powered Armor is more sophisticated than that, with ceramite plate to stop penetration and servo motors to offset blunt trauma.
Attack trumps defence. Power armour isn't magical material that cannot be penetrated. And when you can get penetrated you want the penetration NOT happen in vital spot. Ergo you don't design armour so that it directs attack INTO that vital spot as that increases chance of penetration happening in vital area. If you design armour that directs attack somewhere it's AWAY from those vital spots.
Improved armour material that is less likely to get penetrated is good yes. You still don't want to direct attacks straight to vital spots as sooner or later that directs attack that will then penetrate and kill you.
When it comes to human armour you're always going to have spots which are going to take hits squarely. If you have boobs and a buldge moulded in to your armour to account for it (even if it's just a bulge rather than "boob plate") you'll also have areas that direct glancing hits in to your face or in to your stomach.
Humans aren't tanks where you can just throw a piece of sloping armour on the front to redirect hits away safely.
But either way I don't care much either way for the "practicality" argument. I'll start caring about the practicality of boob armour when IG tanks have suspension, when 40k aircraft have aerofoils for wings, when Space Marines don't have absurd wide shin armour that would make them trip over, when a Leman Russ actually has space in the turret for the breach mechanism of its cannon, when Space Wolves start wearing helmets in to battle, when close combat weapons aren't equally as effective as missile weapons, when Orks can't make machinery work by simply willing it to work, etc and so on and etc.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/10/17 11:05:02
CT GAMER wrote: The whole Catachan "beefcake" bulging biceps things is rather offensive and objectifying too.
Let's lose our collective minds over it too...
It is a different kind of objectification. One is typically a sexual fantasy (sexy ass-kicking nuns who all have F cup breasts, tiny waists and a thigh gap you can drive a rhino through), the other a power fantasy (big manly rambonegger men kill all the bad guys in the jungle with our huge muscles rargh).
If the catachans all ran around with cod-pieces borrowed from Henry VIII then you may have a point. But they don't.
I dont really buy in to the idea of power fantasy vs sexual fantasy in the context of comparing catachans to sisters. They're caricatures more than anything, which just means they're exaggerated. When you exaggerate a woman, boobs get bigger. When you exaggerate a man, his junk doesn't get bigger because you normally don't see a dude's junk through clothing anyway.
You don't have to assign a power or sexual fantasy to it at all, just take them for the caricatures they are and be done with it.
If sisters were modeled in a remotely sexual way I might agree with the fantasy angle, but in this case I don't think so.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: When you exaggerate a man, his junk doesn't get bigger because you normally don't see a dude's junk through clothing anyway.
I can see that someone needs to go back and watch more eighties rock music videos
True
IacobusIgnavus wrote: Boob armor is inconvenient, you'd break you sternum if you fell forwards, and it would direct glancing blows into you.
I don't really think that would be the case because
1) It should be designed to distribute force the same as non-boob armour, just not on the boobs themselves. So force would be distributed across the lower ribs, upper ribs, around the shoulders and the sternum. The alternative of having a boob-bulge (not individual boobs) would distribute force across even less area while the alternative of no boob-bulge at all would distribute force more evenly but at the cost of squashing the lady's boobs and making it hard to breath.
2) You'd literally have to fall face first with your arms spread open and without any attempt to save yourself. If you fall more gradually so your legs take some impact, you'd be fine, if your arms were in front of you, you'd be fine. If you happened to be wielding a chainsword or powersword I'd be far more worried about slicing yourself open while falling over than anything else.
Regarding the deflection issue, I mentioned on the previous page....
When it comes to human armour you're always going to have spots which are going to take hits squarely. If you have boobs and a buldge moulded in to your armour to account for it (even if it's just a bulge rather than "boob plate") you'll also have areas that direct glancing hits in to your face or in to your stomach.
Humans aren't tanks where you can just throw a piece of sloping armour on the front to redirect hits away safely.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/18 11:39:49
IacobusIgnavus wrote: Boob armor is inconvenient, you'd break you sternum if you fell forwards, and it would direct glancing blows into you.
I don't really think that would be the case because
1) It should be designed to distribute force the same as non-boob armour, just not on the boobs themselves. So force would be distributed across the lower ribs, upper ribs, around the shoulders and the sternum. The alternative of having a boob-bulge (not individual boobs) would distribute force across even less area while the alternative of no boob-bulge at all would distribute force more evenly but at the cost of squashing the lady's boobs and making it hard to breath.
2) You'd literally have to fall face first with your arms spread open and without any attempt to save yourself. If you fall more gradually so your legs take some impact, you'd be fine, if your arms were in front of you, you'd be fine. If you happened to be wielding a chainsword or powersword I'd be far more worried about slicing yourself open while falling over than anything else.
Regarding the deflection issue, I mentioned on the previous page....
When it comes to human armour you're always going to have spots which are going to take hits squarely. If you have boobs and a buldge moulded in to your armour to account for it (even if it's just a bulge rather than "boob plate") you'll also have areas that direct glancing hits in to your face or in to your stomach.
Humans aren't tanks where you can just throw a piece of sloping armour on the front to redirect hits away safely.
I just want to add something to this beautifully orchestrated point here - I used to participate in historical fencing (think collegiate/olympic fencing with swords except our swords were much heavier and less bendy), and it was recommended (but not required) that ladies wear a "chest primary" to protect their breasts from being stabbed too hard (never participated in collegiate, but I think the chest primary was required there).
A protective rubber tip the size of a quarter still really hurts when there's a 6+ pound sword behind it and the bodyweight of a noob/rube that has not learned proper calibration yet, and ask pretty much any woman, it's incredibly painful to be struck in the boob. Being repeatedly struck in our hobby was supposed to create internal scar tissue that looked like cancer lumps and could screw up the non-fat tissues in there (thank you overly candid old lady that had been fencing since she was a teen). And other women often needed a breather after they were struck too hard in the chest (few, if any, of the ladies in my group wore these protectors).
Anyway, the "chest primary" is pretty much a boob plate.
And a pic for those of you who cannot be bothered:
My point? It's a perfectly valid armor type. This example may be plain and worn under the clothes, but in the far future of 40k, who hasn't gone and added shineys and baubles to their armor?
And the area in the center is supposed to help with the force distribution. Your sternum is stronger than your ribs and collarbone, so adding its strength would greatly reduce the chance of suffering injury when being struck in the chest.
Interesting! Thanks for posting, I know nothing about fencing, my post was just based off thinking about load paths from a basic engineering stand point, it's good to know I wasn't wildly off in my guesses
agnosto wrote: In the grim darkness of the future, breast enhancement surgery in the IoM is mandatory for any woman going into battle.
GW is capable of portraying female soldiers with some taste, DE Wyches for example. But I guess they're elves in space so they're not supposed to have large breasts? I don't really hear people complaining about not being able to recognize if they're male or female though.
I'm not fussed either way though I tend towards a non-cheesecake preference to my toys. As long as the end result isn't over the top like some of the smaller mini makers on the market, I won't have a problem with the result.
From the pictures their boobs are about equivalently sized to Sister's boobs.
Honestly I think a lot of the problem comes from looking at oversized images When you shrink models down to the size they are in real life, features get lost and exaggeration is the norm (at least within the realm of GW, but many other manufacturers as well).
People need to shrink down the images so they appear 25-30mm tall on their computer screens, then come back to me and let me know if they still look over the top or not
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/19 14:19:57
A Town Called Malus wrote: You can't tell whether a Space Marine model is male or female if it has its helmet on. Same for Tau Fire caste, amongst others.
Why is it only "female" models which have to be immediately identifiable as such? Why not just have the models be more androgynous when they are wearing full armour and have the fluff be what tells you about their sex, just like with Space Marines.
Because people often like to have the gender of their models identifiable and when you have a model that is broad bodied and a warrior, we almost always associate it as being male.
There's no reason you couldn't call Cadians female other than the fact they're broad and bulky, broad and bulky are male features so we see them as male but in reality they're far bulkier than a normal man as well. The female conversions posted earlier in this thread use Cadian bodies and simply chuck an over exaggerated female head on it (remove the helmet so you can see long hair and an exaggerated narrow jaw line). In reality female and male facial structures are similar enough that at 28mm scale and wearing the same haircut you could barely tell the difference, if at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ashiraya wrote: We are capable of making out incredible detail on our models. Look at the FW Primarchs for an excellent example. Most of the model's detail will be lost from a distance, but that does not make it meaningless.
Not a good comparison to SoB's though.
1) Primarch models are physically much larger which is part of why they can have nuanced facial structures and you can actually pick it out even if you don't zoom in.
2) Primarch models are centre pieces, they are designed to draw the eye above and beyond the rest of your infantry.
3) Primarch models are made by FW and FW typically makes their models more realistic and less exaggerated than GW. I would fully expect female models from FW to be more subdued than GW's 40k figures. The same way LotR figures were more subdued than WHFB figures because they were sculpted to more realistic proportions.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/10/20 00:10:37
Exactly, if you don't mind your females to be a bit bulky in face and body there's absolutely no reason you can't call the existing Cadian models female, they're already too bulky to be men
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/20 00:17:17
Jayden63 wrote: Its been a crazy long time since any model line that was released was univerally praised as being great looking, or just what everyone wanted.
I think the last once that came close was when the DE were reimagined.
No, I think it was the Imperial Knights line. Great models *and* exactly what everyone wanted!
Except the stupid legs. Forge World Knights are fine though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asterios wrote: and yet I still would like a female perspective since god forbid we ask a female what she thinks about female armor.
Surprisingly, not all females think the same way. Some aren't going to like boob plate, some aren't going to care, some are going to like it. Some might feel objectified by it, some won't. What's the proportion? Feth knows.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/10/20 09:00:13
I would have a lot less beef with the boobplate models if there had been alternatives.
I too would like some more prominent alternatives, such as Guard females. However, I would personally say that Eldar Guardians, Howling Banshees and Harlequins have more reasonable armour for representing females who wear helmets/masks. The fact that they haven't been mentioned 11 pages in is a little weird really; I don't think those models constitute as having Boob Armour.
Those things all have similar boob armour to Sisters.
I actually think the whole thing is overblown because they're 28mm models and at that scale it's not really as noticeable as it is in the ginormous pictures people post on the interwebs.
EDIT: This thread has made me look at the Sisters range more and realise that, although I like them, they are a bit dated. They really look like models from the 90's. If Warhammer TV wasn't pulling our legs and Sisters are getting plastics it'll be interesting to see what they do with them, though Sisters are one of those models I personally think are better suited to metal anyway.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/20 12:26:34
You think so? Perhaps my eyes need testing, but the effect looks a lot more subtle on those models. This might be me disagreeing that any of the models really have "Boob Armour" though, since I have a different view on what Boob Armour really is.
To my eye, Guardians are probably a bit more subdued but they still have individual breasts moulded in to their chest plate, but to my eye the Harlies and Banshees look similar to Sisters. Maybe because some of the Sisters models actually have ornamentation on them (like the Canoness) they look worse.
You think so? Perhaps my eyes need testing, but the effect looks a lot more subtle on those models. This might be me disagreeing that any of the models really have "Boob Armour" though, since I have a different view on what Boob Armour really is.
To my eye, Guardians are probably a bit more subdued but they still have individual breasts moulded in to their chest plate, but to my eye the Harlies and Banshees look similar to Sisters. Maybe because some of the Sisters models actually have ornamentation on them (like the Canoness) they look worse.
Yeah, guardians are really glaring to me.
This is subdued. There is obviously some extra mass at the chest, but it is not as dominating.
Spoiler:
Something like that ^ but obviously sci-fi instead of fantasy would be ideal. You can tell the proportions are clearly feminine (look at hip-waist-shoulder ratio, leg-body ratio...) while still not being too exaggerated.
And yes, that is a favourite example picture of mine.
One concern of mine is that people are getting so used to the boobplate that they are taking its absence as evidence that the subject is male, which is problematic on more than one level.
But again that picture is huge compared to a 28mm model. The subtle hip-waist-bust-shoulder ratio gets lost on smaller models. Even GW's male models are crazy bulky compared to an actual man.
We look at a picture like this and think "huge obvious boobs"
But the actual model size is closer to this...
And from across a wargaming table they probably look more like this...
I think GW are gradually going to a style which stands up better to close scrutiny in photographs, but a lot of the 90's and early 2000's stuff is squarely aimed at looking good (whatever "good" may be) on the table top.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/20 14:47:34
You think so? Perhaps my eyes need testing, but the effect looks a lot more subtle on those models. This might be me disagreeing that any of the models really have "Boob Armour" though, since I have a different view on what Boob Armour really is.
To my eye, Guardians are probably a bit more subdued but they still have individual breasts moulded in to their chest plate, but to my eye the Harlies and Banshees look similar to Sisters. Maybe because some of the Sisters models actually have ornamentation on them (like the Canoness) they look worse.
Yeah, guardians are really glaring to me.
This is subdued. There is obviously some extra mass at the chest, but it is not as dominating.
Spoiler:
Something like that ^ but obviously sci-fi instead of fantasy would be ideal. You can tell the proportions are clearly feminine (look at hip-waist-shoulder ratio, leg-body ratio...) while still not being too exaggerated.
And yes, that is a favourite example picture of mine.
One concern of mine is that people are getting so used to the boobplate that they are taking its absence as evidence that the subject is male, which is problematic on more than one level.
But again that picture is huge compared to a 28mm model. The subtle hip-waist-bust-shoulder ratio gets lost on smaller models. Even GW's male models are crazy bulky compared to an actual man.
We look at a picture like this and think "huge obvious boobs"
Spoiler:
But the actual model size is closer to this...
Spoiler:
And from across a wargaming table they probably look more like this...
Spoiler:
I think GW are gradually going to a style which stands up better to close scrutiny in photographs, but a lot of the 90's and early 2000's stuff is squarely aimed at looking good (whatever "good" may be) on the table top.
So why bother with so much detail on a model at all if most of it will be lost in tabletop view?
I usually play smaller games where I am looking closer and individual models are very relevant. A significant percentage of the time I spend looking at any particular model is also when I paint the model in question, or show it to someone else, at which point even the smallest details become clear. How a model looks up close is by far more relevant than how it looks at distances where you can barely make out what the model is at all.
Firstly a model devoid of detail will look devoid of detail even at a distance. But you can tweak the detail to look better at distance. I'm sure this is at least part of the reason GW makes such cartoonish proportions (though not the only part, the fact 40k started off as somewhat satirical probably plays in to it as well).
Secondly, it's obviously a balance... a subjective balance at that. As I said GW do seem to be gradually changing their aesthetic to one that looks better in extreme close ups. When the Sister's of Battle models were originally released in the 90's you'd rarely ever see a picture zoomed in that closely. White Dwarf images were typically scaled to approximately the size of the actual model, so if a model was ~1" tall in real life, the picture would also be ~1" tall. I fully expect a modern Sisters release to be better scaled, even if they still have boob armour I'm sure they'll be scaled better as the SoS are.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/21 01:02:02
except a woman will have a better clue about women then a man would, seriously do you see what you are typing? people are here saying the SoB models would offend women, so i'm saying why not ask them, instead of putting those suppositions into their mouth, or would you rather women stay in the kitchen where you think they should be? or that women should remain quiet and let the men talk since women obviously know nothing about women, congrats you just went back to the 50's.
Congratulations, you missed the point.
Firstly, I'm not speaking for anyone else here, unlike you are (ironically, considering you and others are claiming people other than yourself have the opinion you think they do).
Secondly, I'm not trying to silence anyone else.
Thirdly, you are the only one who has suggested anything about women "belonging in kitchens" or that I have somehow "returned to the 50's" for saying that it makes no difference whether you are a male or female commenting on this thread, just because the subject matter revolves around females. you don't speak for everyone of your sex, especially regarding how your sex is perceived in various mediums.
But yeah, I'm obviously a misogynistic, sexist little boy who doesn't care about women. Thanks for making me the villain of the thread - boy is this familiar!
n0t_u wrote: It'd help to form a poll to get a general idea of the opinion of each group and that's really the only time such a thing would be relevant. Even then the sample size here would probably be way too small to get a good idea of it.
At least one person gets it. Thank you
actually I asked for their opinion, you are the one who said their opinion does not matter, you made yourself the villain of this thread so congratulations belong to only you.
Nope, he said there are too few opinions to paint a proper picture. It's my opinion that I agree with that and also that SoB are alright. I feel that their look suits their background; I think of it as a feth you to the high lords.
The rest of the opinions you're looking for are probably through the rest of this thread already anyway.
I facepalmed so hard when I read Ast's post there
Even if you are a horrible sexist who thinks a woman's opinion is worth more than a man's, no one said female opinions don't matter.
[spoiler]Let me first say that what follows is not intended to mock Iron Captain, but to use his comment as an example of a common theme in these sorts of discussions.
Iron_Captain wrote: While normally I do not have so much problems with female armour having boobs (apart from thinking it looks ugly), I do view it as a problem when boobs are used as the defining female characteristic. It means that women are essentially reduced to just being a pair of boobs. GW could do a lot to improve the representation of women in 40k and to also show them in normal, non-sexualised roles rather than only in special all-female units with boob armour and other such overly feminine characteristics. It is not a big issue for me, but it'd be nice to see it. Maybe that would also help to make girls feel more welcome in 40k, altough I have no idea how girls actually think about this issue.
One of the recurring features of these discussions is (IMO), unexamined standards and questionable assumptions. Here, specifically, this line: "I do view it as a problem when boobs are used as the defining female characteristic."
Why?
I don't mean that as a rhetorical but rather a Socratic question: why do you think it is a "problem" that breasts are viewed as the defining (visual) characteristic of women?
Allow me to propose that, as a biological reality, development of breasts is extremely important both as a sign of sex/gender but as a signal of femininity. So let's take a look at two people in their skivvies, then ask two simple questions; [spoiler]
The two simple questions are; -Who is the more Feminine? And, -Who has the larger penis?
That last one is a trick question of course, only one of those people has a penis...
Which would be the white woman. Who happens to be Bailey Jay, noted M2F transsexual adult performer (don't google her at work!). It's a trick question because she is the only one with a penis; the black guy is Tommy J Murrell, F2M amateur bodybuilder (you can google him, there isn't much to find).
My point here isn't 'haha, it's a trap!', but that breasts are more then simply fleshy protuberances on the front of a woman's chest: they are intimately connected to gender identity and the perceptions of femininity. Deep in the recesses of the brain, far below the conscious, breasts have a significance that evolved over eons. A significance that can be clearly exemplified by examining the group of people perhaps most concerned with the reality of sex/gender on a personal level: the trans community.
That breasts are psychologically important to M2F transsexuals is fairly well established. Less well known is the importance of breasts to M2F individuals, albeit here 'importance' in the exact opposite way: because breasts signify the feminine, F2M individuals frequently engage in the practice of 'chest binding' before moving on to 'top surgery' (bilateral mastectomy). From an article on the subject of chest binding;
Chest binding is a fact of life for many people, including trans men, some gay women, intersex people, and gender non-conforming individuals like Naomhan. Flattening the appearance of one's breasts—whether that's through Ace bandages, compression undergarments, layered T-shirts, sports bras, or commercial binders—doesn't just make it easier to pass in public as the correct gender or wear masculine clothes. For many, it's a matter of psychological well-being. ... A qualitative report from the five-person strong research project goes into more detail about the benefits of binding for those they surveyed: "Based on our preliminary analysis, for most participants, binding was a positive experience and led to improvements in mood and self-esteem, minimized gender dysphoria, anxiety, and depression, and helped them to feel in control of their bodies," a report they published on the study reads. "In fact, some reported that a positive impact on emotional and behavioral health makes the physical discomfort of binding worth it."
Of course this isn't simply a phenomenon of transgender individuals: the relief that a F2M transman may feel when minimizing or removing their own breast tissue is the reverse of the disappointment many athletic women feel when their lean physique starts to become less... 'well rounded';
Ask any fitchick out there and they will quickly say that while they love everything about working out, they wish they could keep their boobs. It is a common upset amongst women who train hard, that their chest size quickly shrinks due to their body fat percentage getting lower and lower. For many women who choose to get breast implants, it is a mere way to either get back what they might have lost or to maintain their aesthetic femininity.
While there are doubtless many possible (if rather less plausible) explanations for the above, it seems straightforward that there is a simple possibility: breasts (along with waist-to-hip ratio) are not arbitrary, capricious or artificial constructs but deeply ingrained biologically significant markers of sexually mature human females.
Thus, considering it "a problem when boobs are used as the defining female characteristic" seems entirely misplaced, certainly in a primarily visual medium. That's not to say that every miniature with a pair of boobs is beyond reproach: far from it (I'm certainly not all that fond of many of the SoB line for exactly this reason). But an aesthetic critique, one based on taste, style or execution, is one that is very different from one that posits there is something wrong or invidious at play.[/spoiler]
I sort of alluded to this earlier in the thread but I didn't really articulate it well, I've find it odd how exaggerated breasts are a bad way to identify females, but exaggerated glass jaws and feminine hair styles are totally fine. It's not that I don't understand *why*, but rather I find it odd and amusing.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/21 04:57:42
