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.
Wrexasaur wrote:
Wait... are you honestly telling me that women who dress in ways that show of practically every aspect of their bodies when donning culturally accepted "standard" attire are not trying to show their bodies off?
Hey, someone dressed in a 'sexy' way could simply be trying to feel sexier as an affirmation of self.
But what I'm saying specifically is twofold:
First, according to the Quran, that there is a distinct boundary between right and wrong based on gender rather than identity.
Second that we shouldn't be so small minded about it *only* being women.
If men and women are equal, then the 300 movie should be qualified as just as 'adult' as many episodes of 'The L Word' (I thought it an ok drama, equally crappy stereotypes though.) and treated fairly.
If the women are 'sexually available' so are the men.
I agree that some women do try and fit in when they really do not enjoy the "standard" clothing that they choose to wear. Honestly and truly, if a woman does that to herself she should be making new friends instead of forcing herself into a situation that put her in a position to receive looks that she does not want. There are very few guys that actually have the proverbial huevos to stand up and even talk to a woman. I enjoy complimenting women, it is a bit of a past time; do you know what I compliment? I compliment their clothes, and their shoes, and their hats, and even their jewelry.
So in a nutshell, you correct sir, but in due to the dynamic of the situation the standard rhetoric is not wrong nor is it all that generalized.
Kilkrazy wrote:Given the amount of real pr0n easily available on the Internets it's surprising that anyone would bother to be aroused by a lead model about 1 inch high.
I think the whole chainmail bikini thing is an old cliche and cultural icon left over from the days when pictures of bikini clad girls were still genuinely risque and arousing for teenage boys. Think of Raquel Welch in 1,000,000 Years BC, or Ursula Andress in Doctor No.
It's just like a tradition nowadays.
Hence why anyone would bother commenting on the chick in SoB cosplay that was floating around here not too long ago. I pulled that up and showed my brother some of the comments, and my first question was "have any of these people seen real porn?"
Darknight wrote:Is it so hard to you to conceive of a man who does not think it is appropriate to show an ideal of women which is sexually available?
But the question still remains; are we (as a group) happy about the implication which GeneralX agrees with - that we want women to be sluts and that we think women want to be sluts?
I wonder if some of the anger and dismissive "That's the the way it is!" statements on this thread are not directed at me because they hit a little too close to home; are people here realizing they are objectifying women, realizing it is wrong, but not wanting to admit it?
GeneralX admitted it. It is a brave action. Wrex kinda admitted it too.
Woah slow down missionary.
1) Yes its hard to believe that a man isn't interested in a woman sexually, and therefore isn't interested in (perhaps his wife) being readily available for sex. (maybe a homosexual )
2) I don't think you understand that women can be sexually active/available and EAGER, while only having 1 sexual partner. (therefore not slutty). The fact that you can't separate nakedness and a vigorous sexual apetite from women who "whore" themselves out to many men, speaks volumes about YOU. Not me.
3) It really is actually, the way it is.
4) You say its brave of me like I am fessing up to something, like I've done something wrong. This is extremely condescending.
Darknight wrote:Well, my question is; DOES the majority of the population find a sexually-available looking person attractive?
Yes, humanity has evolved to find individuals who appear 'ready to have sex' as attractive. That's evolution bub. Any argument against the above statement is naive, or who knows what.
Darknight wrote:And not merely sexually, but as a whole person?
No probably not as a whole person, but in terms of what they are visually perceiving it is attractive.
Kilkrazy wrote:I'm using her and the barbarian axe woman.
I am modding them for 40K so SF bits are getting added.
I hate to admit it, but as we are on the subject, I am modding a few of the other Hasslefree women into 'hoes'. Again, I have a totally legitimate reason.
That model needs a penis added to it. It would be awesome/lulzy to see people's reactions when they notice it...
DarkKnight wrote:
The role of men and women in fiction is unreal - women historically did not fight because they were too valuable to risk, NOT because they weren't that good at it. So, there is unreality to the roles already.
Sorry but this is blatantly false. I can't even imagine how you could say this with a straight face.
The average man is almost 2x as strong as the average woman in the weight room, can run faster, longer, etc.
But more importantly, the men have more testosterone, more height, reach, and weight.
The average man vs woman in combat isn't even a contest.
Darknight wrote:, as such things apear to be taboo on Dakka, I apologize.
It goes in the Off Topic area. That's part of it.
NO, REALLY MODS. MOVE THIS TO OFF TOPIC!!
According to feminist theory your avatar is particularly sexual by juxtaposing an attractive human trait and the gun barrel. In general innocent, but context becomes king.
Also modern social theory suggests a degree of equality in gender roles. Sectarian views aside, current social expectation is gender equality.
Males sexualization is necessarily non-passive due to mechanical necessities.
As for human dignity, I would suggest that this is carried within the being, rather than their role in a fictionalized social event. This being a family friendly environment I'll have to make do with pointing you towards the BDSM subcultural literature rather than citing it. I will say it made my women's studies professor blush while I still got a 3.5 for the course. (Yes, men can actually take these courses.) The radical feminist theory also decries human dignity as a defining factor in line with more conservative religious factions...strange bedfellows as it were.
That said, there is a general trend toward finding curved lines more inherently attractive than relatively straight angles. This, combined with ease of sculpting and broader audience, tends to drive sales toward a (potentially odd) safe fictional perspective. The dark eldar scout models (why I can't think of them now is beyond me) are an example of why the 'fetish' look in minis doesn't always sell. Androgynous leading to masculine, fetishy...still no sales.
I disagree this is in any way filth, rather a sales and marketing ploy despite the popularity of some of the parts on the Adsurbael Vect kit.
And, in the interest of fairly promoting equal sexism:
Moar sweaty nekkid men soldier hotties!
Special unique snowflake of unique specialness (+1/+3versus werewolves)
Alternatively I'm a magical internet fairy.
Pho indignation *IS* the tastiest form of angry!
You could argue that given our current technology men vs. women on the battlefield is not as much of an issue.
The fact remains that GeneralX is 100% correct on this one, and there is nothing sexist about stating this fact.
Oldgrue wrote:And, in the interest of fairly promoting equal sexism:
Moar sweaty nekkid men soldier hotties!
They are coming... you can hear them. Teenage boys across the entire planet are cowering in terror... NOOOOOOO!!! you will hear them scream, and it would be a tremendous force that could possibly dismantle society as we know it... be afraid, be very afraid...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/08/13 21:00:15
Oldgrue wrote:From the Quran 24 (the Light):31 And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands...And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. Now, we can extrapolate the next few steps regarding 'having one's way with loose women' as their fault.
And I would disagree - no woman asks to be raped; if she asks for sex then it isn't rape. A woman who dresses provactively acts provocatively and who is raped or hurt as a result is a victim and the blame lies squarely with the man who did it. Under NO circumstances should blame be taken off him.
However, if I walk five miles south on a Friday night with a bunch of $100 bills in my hand (I live north of Detroit) I should not be surprised if I get them stolen. I am not asking for it, and it is still stealing, but I should have expected unwanted attention.
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Hell look at my Avatar, probably exactly what the OP is talking about, but I'd dare anyone to try and take it without her say so.
I can't see clearly what that picture is; it is clearly a skimpily dressed woman. If the sexuality is appropriate then, artistically, I have no problem with it.
In any case, your wife clearly has no problem with the art she makes. Great! That is another point of view - thank you for sharing it!
Delephont wrote:Hmm.... ok, you're making some serious assumptions here. Firstly you assume that someone buys a miniature of an Ork holding a severed human head because he simply needs it for his army....I get images here of some guy reluctantly purchasing said miniature, grumbling the whole time, because he, deep down inside, hates the images of violence....and in the same shopping basket, purchases a miniature that "objectifies women" with mischievous glee, already anticipating what he will do to himself in the bathroom based on his new "toy".....
No, no, no - not at all. People buy models because they like them or because they need them for the army. Usually both - few people buy models they really hate the look of just for in-game effect, I suspect. I was raising the point that many of the female warrior models are dressed and posed provocatively.
This whole point of objectification seems oddly misplaced in a hobby, that by its very nature objectifies things. That women are part of that objectification is neither surprising nor unwholesome.
I disagree - sexual objectification is NEVER wholesome. It reduces a human being to nothing more than a means to an end. And a human being reduced to a sexual end is a victim of sexual violence - be it physical or no. Even if this does not carry into our real lives, my question stands - are we happy with how it is? You obviously are. Thank you for your view.
I have to apologise if I offended you regarding your religion, I assumed you were Catholic or in some way Christian, if my guess was right then I disagree with you're appraisal of your religions acceptance of women and sexuality!
Then you are very ignorant of Christianity, and are relying on hearsay and minor beliefs without major currency.
Oldgrue wrote:If men and women are equal, then the 300 movie should be qualified as just as 'adult' as many episodes of 'The L Word' (I thought it an ok drama, equally crappy stereotypes though.) and treated fairly.
Very much agreed, Oldgrue. Sexual objectification DOES work both ways, but in miniatures games it appears to be primarially directed at women.
Don't go all wonky about citing the Quran. I'm just lazy about citing the KJ Bible. They're equally bad about this. And sexual harrassment is the same despite gender.
It is very fortunate indeed I am not part of a religion which i) uses the KJV or ii) relies on sola scriptura
Delephont wrote:I find it also quite funny that the OP keeps refering to women being sexually availible?
They represent a fictional character who is portrayed as being sexually available.
Taking the discussion beyond the confines of miniatures, perhaps where this discussion belongs! does the miniature trigger visions of sexual availibility in women? maybe, but no more than a model in glamour magazine, a make-up advert or a woman you see walking down the street!
I would agree wholeheartedly - but I wanted to keep this narrowly focused on something minatures based. You could, I daresay, swap out "miniature figure" for "comic book character" or "model in a perfume ad" and have the same discussion.
Lets face it, without a degree of sexual availiblity you'd better say good bye to the human race.....or maybe hello to the test tube!
Agreed again - which is the point I think you misunderstand about my religion. Sexual availibility is not a bad thing (in fact, it is one of the highest and best things and this has been the unfailing teaching of my Church for centuries!) BUT it has to be at the appropriate time and place, for the good of society and individuals. There is, for example, a reason sexual liasons are forbidden in the workplace.
LunaHound wrote:o_- not another of this debate , time for me to end this ...
Sorry, your point has been made better and earlier.
Its what the buyers *want . I dare GW to produce a human army where all the soldiers are either underweight , over weight , with pimples all over.
I never questioned this - what I questioned was WHY is this what people want?
GeneralX wrote:Woah slow down missionary.
You know what? I am done with your rudeness. I have been polite to you, and you continue to insult me. Enough.
GeneralX wrote:Sorry but this is blatantly false. I can't even imagine how you could say this with a straight face.
Because it is true.
The average man is almost 2x as strong as the average woman in the weight room, can run faster, longer, etc. But more importantly, the men have more testosterone, more height, reach, and weight. The average man vs woman in combat isn't even a contest.
And you will notice I did not challenge these. But the MAIN reason women do not fight is NOT because they are ineffective (which they are, in comparison to men, in most physical confrontations) but because they are too valuable to the survival of the group. A group without women cannot reproduce. Moral compunctions of monogamy aside, a group has to loose A LOT of men before the group is unable to continue to expand.
I responded to this question of yours because it raised a valid point - the rest of what you say is simply insult, and I see no reason to engage with you or it any longer.
Thank you all for your points of view - I asked a question, and I got a number of answers. Thank you very much, it has been most instructive. I think my conclusion is that, broadly speaking, I am in the minority with my views - both in the central opinion I hold, but more so in the question of does it matter.
Please feel free to continue the discussion without me!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/08/13 21:09:27
GeneralX wrote:
The average man vs woman in combat isn't even a contest.
In contrast the female nervous system is geared to better withstand pain and shock, while being socially trained not to engage in direct combat. Men have this inherently stupid concept of a fair fight. Predatory animals don't step up to a 'fair fight' - they fight when and how they can win.
Your positions are handled effectively in the FATAL rpg system, but I like you in general and suggest you avoid reading that feth.
Special unique snowflake of unique specialness (+1/+3versus werewolves)
Alternatively I'm a magical internet fairy.
Pho indignation *IS* the tastiest form of angry!
Sorry; as Oldgrue was so polite with his long post and we broadly agreed, I answer this;
Oldgrue wrote:According to feminist theory your avatar is particularly sexual
And I disagree with that theory. The notion the gun barrel is sexual is kinda foolish - sometimes a revolver is just a revolver, ya know? In any case, even if that were the case, I would argue the short, stubby barrel of a bolter is hardly a phallic symbol (which I presume is the justification for the sexualization argument).
Oldgrue wrote:That said, there is a general trend toward finding curved lines more inherently attractive than relatively straight angles. This, combined with ease of sculpting and broader audience, tends to drive sales toward a (potentially odd) safe fictional perspective. The dark eldar scout models (why I can't think of them now is beyond me) are an example of why the 'fetish' look in minis doesn't always sell. Androgynous leading to masculine, fetishy...still no sales.
This is very true, and it speaks of the inherent trial and error that is aesthetic design. There are many factors to making a miniature sell, and the greatest of these (of course) is the consumers attention span. I say this partially in jest, partially in truth, but the underlying honesty behind a lot of studies backs this claim up quite a bit. People buy what they want, and the market evolves in such a way to cut the excess fat, so to speak (pun intended?)
If we re-made this thread, we could focus on the history of sexuality in miniatures, and this speaks truly of both sexes, not just female. I have an inkling that the mods would not look upon it with great happiness and joy, but smitefulness and OMG!!! RUN AWAY!!!
Oldgrue wrote:
GeneralX wrote:
The average man vs woman in combat isn't even a contest.
In contrast the female nervous system is geared to better withstand pain and shock, while being socially trained not to engage in direct combat. Men have this inherently stupid concept of a fair fight. Predatory animals don't step up to a 'fair fight' - they fight when and how they can win.
Your positions are handled effectively in the FATAL rpg system, but I like you in general and suggest you avoid reading that feth.
A trained fighter does not represent the average "match-up" as it were. Speaking in terms that can only be applied generally does not affect the truth to his statement. I do agree that women are better at team-work in general, although some might consider this counter-intuitive. Maybe men are just less mature, I do not know the answer to this.
Darknight wrote:Sorry; as Oldgrue was so polite with his long post and we broadly agreed, I answer this;
Oldgrue wrote:According to feminist theory your avatar is particularly sexual
And I disagree with that theory. The notion the gun barrel is sexual is kinda foolish - sometimes a revolver is just a revolver, ya know? In any case, even if that were the case, I would argue the short, stubby barrel of a bolter is hardly a phallic symbol (which I presume is the justification for the sexualization argument).
I could argue that this isn't phallic...
But I would end up dying from laughter after such a statement. Phallic is phallic, not much more too it that that. Next you will be saying that Giger did not intend to be phallic in his design.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2009/08/13 21:14:14
Darknight wrote:
And I would disagree - no woman asks to be raped; if she asks for sex then it isn't rape. A woman who dresses provactively acts provocatively and who is raped or hurt as a result is a victim and the blame lies squarely with the man who did it. Under NO circumstances should blame be taken off him.
Apparently it depends on what church you go to,which addendum you read, and where you are. People are funny that way.
I disagree - sexual objectification is NEVER wholesome. It reduces a human being to nothing more than a means to an end. And a human being reduced to a sexual end is a victim of sexual violence - be it physical or no. Even if this does not carry into our real lives, my question stands - are we happy with how it is?
Fantasy is a safe outlet for humanity. There must never be thoughtcrime for freedom to exist (many argue speech, but I'll stick to thoughtcrime) and therefore if one never *acts* on said objectification it must be acceptable (if quite possibly icky! just because *i* don't like it doesn't mean you don't have the right to think it.)
The second part of your statement returns to the Dworkin end of the social spectrum. Even though we have a social structure, language, faiths, and laws there is no concrete evidence that Hassan-i Sabbah or even Aleister Crowley's theories that, in effect, there are no repercussions for what we do in living. We have no way to define a concrete right or wrong, only whether or not an action is acceptable.
I respect another person's right to think what they like, and society's right to tear them into painful shreds if they act on it.
Special unique snowflake of unique specialness (+1/+3versus werewolves)
Alternatively I'm a magical internet fairy.
Pho indignation *IS* the tastiest form of angry!
As to the direct inference of your avatar please refer to nearly half of the gum ads made over the past few decades. If you listen and then look into the background of these ads, you will hopefully understand why your avatar is indeed very sexual... like a sexy strawberry in my cereal ads .
Darknight wrote:And I disagree with that theory. The notion the gun barrel is sexual is kinda foolish - sometimes a revolver is just a revolver, ya know? In any case, even if that were the case, I would argue the short, stubby barrel of a bolter is hardly a phallic symbol (which I presume is the justification for the sexualization argument).
Short and stubby means absolutely diddly in the world of... of sex really. Please review your argument then, explain to me how a beautiful woman blowing on the tip of a... gun is not telling me something about that situation.
After all this s*** is totally f*****
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/08/13 21:26:21
mmm. sexay strawberries. now I have intellectual munchies...bbiab
Special unique snowflake of unique specialness (+1/+3versus werewolves)
Alternatively I'm a magical internet fairy.
Pho indignation *IS* the tastiest form of angry!
Darknight wrote:However, if I walk five miles south on a Friday night with a bunch of $100 bills in my hand (I live north of Detroit) I should not be surprised if I get them stolen. I am not asking for it, and it is still stealing, but I should have expected unwanted attention.
Ridiculous. A woman should be able to walk the street naked and not be raped on principal. yes she should be forced to put on some clothing by the authorities, but being naked didn't mean she should have expected rape. With the same logic I could say attractive people should stay on their guard, because they should expect to be raped. In any case, citing criminals and fiends as a reason that something is a bad idea, is a poor arguement in my opinion. It doesn't imply to me that the woman should cover up, it implies that the man shouldn't rape her.
Darknight wrote:You know what? I am done with your rudeness. I have been polite to you, and you continue to insult me. Enough.
Meh, I find my comments hardly that severe, and most of them are jocular, but if you take serious offense, then maybe they are truer then I meant them to be.
Darknight wrote:Because it is true.
No, it isn't true.
Darknight wrote:And you will notice I did not challenge these. But the MAIN reason women do not fight is NOT because they are ineffective (which they are, in comparison to men, in most physical confrontations) but because they are too valuable to the survival of the group. A group without women cannot reproduce. Moral compunctions of monogamy aside, a group has to loose A LOT of men before the group is unable to continue to expand.
again, false. This may have been true in 9000 BC, but once you hit antiquity and beyond, where populations were often large, and there were even real cities, women didn't fight purely because they were second class citizens based on physical strength. This is about as debatable as gravity or evolution, but you may have problems with those as well, so maybe I shouldn't cite them
Darknight wrote:I responded to this question of yours because it raised a valid point - the rest of what you say is simply insult, and I need to reason to engage with you or it any longer.
And I raised several valid points in the post you chose to ignore, so I don't agree! Please feel free not to post this sort of topic on the board again, or I will return
Oldgrue wrote:In contrast the female nervous system is geared to better withstand pain and shock, while being socially trained not to engage in direct combat. Men have this inherently stupid concept of a fair fight. Predatory animals don't step up to a 'fair fight' - they fight when and how they can win.
Your positions are handled effectively in the FATAL rpg system, but I like you in general and suggest you avoid reading that feth.
I'm not sure what your point is, but I know you disagree with me, so can you clarify so I can counter your statement
I think I'd agree with the OP that there are many female models, for wargames, that emphasize her sensuality or sexuality through pose or outfit rather than fighting prowess.
Three huge factors to consider:
1) many female models aren't this way, or this is mitigated by adding context in which their prowess stems from their litheness.
2) With historical or even current female warriors as an extreme rarity (although this is changing), the pseudo historical basis for fantasy has nothing really to work with for female models. There is a demand for them, both from men and women, and with no real basis to work with, I think sculptors had fun. Is it demeaning? Maybe, but I think it's more a lack of creativity than anything else.
3) Not everything that is sexist is a big deal. One key thing that makes the more provacative models less a question of objectification is their inherent strength. They're not vicitims, nor merely sexpots, they're still powerful warriors in their own right. Yes, it would be nice if there were powerful female models that weren't skimpily dressed, and there are!
Finally, not every male model in the Citadel range is a perfect physical specimen built to crush all who oppose him. The Sanctioned psykers are frail, the old potbellied commissar and cadian lt. weren't exactly in shape, and the wizards of nearly every race are weedy.
GeneralX wrote:And I raised several valid points in the post you chose to ignore, so I don't agree! Please feel free not to post this sort of topic on the board again, or I will return
...with an army of angry people with erm... typing skills .
I wonder if we could recruit Gwar into this particular battle? YAY GWAR!!!
I don't know whether to close it or move it so moving to OT, were you all will experience a new type of pain...warning here be dragons!
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
I feel better about myself and GRRLL minis in general. I hope you do have as well.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
I have to apologise if I offended you regarding your religion, I assumed you were Catholic or in some way Christian, if my guess was right then I disagree with you're appraisal of your religions acceptance of women and sexuality!
Then you are very ignorant of Christianity, and are relying on hearsay and minor beliefs without major currency.
No, no I'm not.....but you go ahead and keep telling yourself that, most fanatics do.
Back on topic, I feel you need to drop this crusade. You're adding way too much negative baggage to something (the hobby) that doesn't need it, nor deserve it. You're making seperations where its not balanced and legitimate to do so.
Final point. Women dressed with all their noddies hanging out is not better or worse then a man dressed in power armour thats so big he couldn't see his weener if he had to go pee. Neither is tactically significant, nor is it practical in ranged or close combat!!!
Its all fantasy, its all fun, and none of it is serious.
My suggestion to you, with respect, stop confusing fantasy with reality! Its called fantasy for a reason, enjoy it, hate it....but stop the preaching.....please.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/08/13 21:55:18
GeneralX wrote:
I'm not sure what your point is, but I know you disagree with me...
Read FATAL and you'll agree its feth!
The presumption of gender being a pivotal factor in combat presumes that said combat is engaged in some manner where reach and muscle mass have significant impact. Any force multiplier begins to remove that advantage. Firearms for example shift to hand-eye coordination and practice rather than mass/reach - traits that are refined by training rather than gender.
Further: Mass/reach is only an impact in a symmetric engagement (or fair fight). There are exceedingly few natural examples of a preference for a fair fight. Animals that compete for resources or mates use whatever advantages they have. Therefore the female in your example is functionally stupid for engaging in a fight she was aware she'd likely lose.
But, we digress! This is about 'the sexay miniz' not 'who is better: boys or girls?'
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:I think this thread needs some appropriate pics
I feel better about myself and GRRLL minis in general. I hope you do have as well.
Yay Frazzled!
I'm at work, so hook me up with a Serous Cat too?
I'm not convinced that minis are in any way equal to pr0n (although many of us have spent waaay too much on both!) or equal to human degradation.A few more sweaty half naked celts might not hurt! But a pint and good conversation is fine too.
I'm more convinced that they're toys thus probably not the best thing to be worried about gender roles.
But then again, I *almost always* advocate a pint as part of a healthy bit of blowing off steam.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2009/08/13 22:06:31
Special unique snowflake of unique specialness (+1/+3versus werewolves)
Alternatively I'm a magical internet fairy.
Pho indignation *IS* the tastiest form of angry!
My girlfriend bought me the Army Brat limited edition model sculpted by Werner Klocke for a valentines present. It's effin awesome and she will be used in my bloodaxe army as a filthy umie traita-grrl in my unit of kommandos!
take a look at this mini, I think it's fecking grand.
As to women looking like sluts in this game? Yes, there are many female characters designed to be bought by adolescent and adult men. But there are plenty of nonslutty minis about as well. And lets be clear, this sort of thing is everywhere, why did transformers movie have megan fox running around in it? Cos she's bloody great to look at, not because she can act on par with Judi Dench. There should be megan fox minis and judi dench minis.
Some of them are OT. What I like is that we've had some mini lines come up that have added to the repertoire of fine minis to choose from and not just Dark Eldar slave girl #2.
I think we partially see the more risque ones more because they are literally more in your face. Having said that many of the armored ones do kind of suck in that regard. If you're going to give them armor, then give them armor. Comments about more religiously related ones are in similar. A nun is going to look like a nun, not like a Halloween party costume.
But of course who can forget
and one for oldgrue that I really like.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/08/13 22:10:37
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
MeanGreenStompa wrote:My girlfriend bought me the Army Brat limited edition model sculpted by Werner Klocke for a valentines present. It's effin awesome and she will be used in my bloodaxe army as a filthy umie traita-grrl in my unit of kommandos!
take a look at this mini, I think it's fecking grand.
As to women looking like sluts in this game? Yes, there are many female characters designed to be bought by adolescent and adult men. But there are plenty of nonslutty minis about as well. And lets be clear, this sort of thing is everywhere, why did transformers movie have megan fox running around in it? Cos she's bloody great to look at, not because she can act on par with Judi Dench. There should be megan fox minis and judi dench minis.
DUDE!!! That is a frakking AWESOME mini... wow. I may try and get some stuff from these cats, very nice work.
"Note"
You should start a AWESOME (echo!) mini thread MGS, I would like to see a few more of your recommendations .
Darknight wrote:No, not just the fact they don't mind if they get painted with oil or enamel or arcylic, but why can't I buy a female model who isn't impossibly busty and / or "dressed" like a whore?
I recently purchased some bits to create an avatar of Myrmidia (basically, a 54mm female knight with wings) for WFB. And I would like to have some attendants for her - I thought it would be cool to have some armored females; nuns in heavy armour kind of thing. GW doesn't do a lot of models in that style (there is the Sisters of Sigmar, but they are very Sigmarite - I want swords and spears, not hammers) so I looked elsewhere.
Oh sweet merciful Jesus, tell me why there is NO-ONE who sculpts models who didn't learn what women are like SOLELY from Jim Balent comics? And, if the Son of God is too busy dying for my sins to tell me, can a Dakkaite answer this?
Case in point - Werner Knocke's work. I bought a 54mm model of his, and it is a nice model and not too bad (although my wife did say "She has a very big chest" which, coming from my wife, is kinda like me saying "He's very Catholic") - but look at the rest of his stuff!
And it's not just him - Dark Elf Witch Elves I understand (they are part of a sadistic sex / death cult), same with Daemonettes. But, seriously guys - this is a fantasy game so I should be able to have female models doing traditionally male roles (like fighter etc.) Can I please have a model or two who is not dressed like a freaking whore? Some practical armor? Maybe if she actually covered her bumpers?
Does anyone have any comments - or perhaps somewhere where I can purchase heroic 28mm (or even 28mm or 25mm) female figures in armor which are NOT dressed like the hostesses at the local Spearmint Rhino?
It's just a reflection of the wider media. If you haven't already noticed, most films and video games aimed at men feature "slutty" women. Wargames are no different.
Oldgrue wrote:The presumption of gender being a pivotal factor in combat presumes that said combat is engaged in some manner where reach and muscle mass have significant impact. Any force multiplier begins to remove that advantage. Firearms for example shift to hand-eye coordination and practice rather than mass/reach - traits that are refined by training rather than gender.
In any period of time pretty much ever, even during the beginning of firearms, so about year 1600 and before (still lots of hand to hand combat, cav. charges etc.) Reach, mass, height, strength, stamina, ability to march great distances, carry loads, build camps, hunt etc. Were all critical to being a soldier. No just sticking a pointy thing in the other guy, but loads of other necessary tasks all requiring physical labor. The roman army built all those roads as they traveled! etc. Its not about GENDER (thought very important) an army of men who were well fed/rested and 6' 2" and muscular, with good morale, would destroy and army of 5' 4" men who had been suffering from malnutrition and lack of sleep.
Oldgrue wrote:Further: Mass/reach is only an impact in a symmetric engagement (or fair fight). There are exceedingly few natural examples of a preference for a fair fight. Animals that compete for resources or mates use whatever advantages they have. Therefore the female in your example is functionally stupid for engaging in a fight she was aware she'd likely lose.
Fair fight? you mean like most major combat engagements of historical significance? Well not all of them were fair obviously, or even close, but all involved soldiers who were in some ways prepared for war... And yes thats my point, women lose fights to men on the battle field, which is why they weren't soldiers, not because as darknight put it "they were needed for making babies" (paraphrased).
GeneralX wrote:
Fair fight? you mean like most major combat engagements of historical significance? Well not all of them were fair obviously, or even close, but all involved soldiers who were in some ways prepared for war... And yes thats my point, women lose fights to men on the battle field, which is why they weren't soldiers, not because as darknight put it "they were needed for making babies" (paraphrased).
Unless they are snipers. Or pilots.
Nobody is going to claim that physical strength/stamina isn't still major factor in modern combat, but there are a lot of places you can use women and not have a horrendous drop in performance.
there are many reason women aren't used in combat (well, at least officially not used), and it's a complex mixture of physical attributes, latent sexism, unit morale, fears of rape if captured, etc. To over simplify it so simply their strength is shortsighted.
)
