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.

 Melissia wrote:

 MajorTom11 wrote:
I don't find it overly sexual either... the pose conveys confidence and business... she is not bent over presenting her cho-cha like some soda-pop stuff. That being said obviously she is pretty bloody scantily clad, but again, it comes down to does nudity = sexual every time?

Actually, it'd be less sexual if she was nude....

To explain this:

The wind-blown loincloth-skirt-thing she wears is designed specifically to draw one's attention to her genitals-- at first glance I wasn't sure if she was actually wearing anything under it, actually-- while the bizarre little buckle-bra is designed to do everything it can to outline and fetishize her breasts like a cupless bra.

So yeah, it's definitely sexualized. It's a gorgeous model though, and the posing of it helps save it from being pure cheesecake.

 MajorTom11 wrote:
You are being a bit dramatic Melissia

Given the number of female models with erect nipples and other signs of arousal on them? No, I'm really not. There's a similar problem with some of the less competent comic book artists (*coughRobLiefeldcough*), with the excuse there being that they're basically tracing over softcore porn. And it shows. These artists suck and they suck hard.

 MajorTom11 wrote:
some concession to feminity and therefore female sexuality must be made in a female model to make it work.

Define "make it work"? Because a model does not have to have gigantoboobs or blatant ass-cleavage to understand that a model is female, nor do those features necessarily really help make a model look all that feminine.

 MajorTom11 wrote:
Studio Mcvey's Kara Black models are good examples of 'tasteful' non-overly feminized sculpts that are respectful and treat her as a warrior first and a woman second. But the concessions are still there, the overly pouty lips, high cheekbones, woman's haircut unblocked by a helmet, some pretty form fitting clothes... It's not some plain looking woman all covered up, it's still feminine and makes concessions to show it, but it works... do you agree?

It sort of works. I'd be better if she did not have her arm revealed in the first image (I don't particularly like single-pauldron or single-shoulderpad designs), but the second one is good. Could definitely be better, however.

 MajorTom11 wrote:
1. To your what makes a model male comment, you are missing the point and being unnecessarily combative there sir. The default assumption in wargaming is that the model is male, I am surprised you even raised it as a question. When you see combat armor and power armor, the assumption is the model is male. When you see a viking you assume the model is male. The onus is not equal in this venue, in fact, the level of automatic assumption of maleness both in the medium and subject matter in general of warriors means you have to go to extra effort to 'call out' a female.

Yeah, but that's just saying that wargaming has a sexism problem. It's obviously true that the default is a man, but the fact that this default assumption exists highlights the problem.

2. People are clamoring for female models, not female fluff with unidentifiably female models. That is what the discussion is about unless I am mistaken?

What I mean is that you're using too narrow a definition of "female model". For example, a tank ace character (like Pask) that is clearly identified as a woman in her fluff gives women someone to identify with and says "you can be part of this universe as more than just a sex object". And it does that even if the actual person isn't visible, and it's just another tank. On the other hand, the fact that you don't have characters like that (even the anonymous guardsman dying in the background is always referred to as "he") presents an image that everything is about men, and women are secondary characters at best.

IOW, there's a lot more to it than wanting to paint the female form more often.

3. Again, you are very black and white here. I don't think everyone wants to be every single male model out there. I haven't ever looked in the mirror and said damn, I wish Yarrick was looking back at me lol. You are very much in denial if you think that male models are not also there to be appreciated for their form alone too for a great many people. Sure, there are a few rock-stars... but it's like saying I wanted to be every storm trooper in star wars. I didn't. Sometimes, males are just dudes in cool armor. Not every single model is representative of some devastating and deep psychological envy.

I don't mean you literally want to be them, to have their body and everything. What I mean is that, say, Yarrick is a hero. He's awesome because he has awesome adventures, performs heroic feats, etc. If you consider his body at all you admire his powerful muscles because you idealize being strong and capable, not because he looks pretty. Compare this to far too many female models/characters where the primary reason that people like them is because they look pretty.

To borrow from a semi-related field, look at comic book and fantasy novel covers. Sure, you'll often see male characters with less than fully-covering clothing, but usually they're showing off their great strength, performing heroic feats, etc. The intent is that you look at them and admire what they're capable of, whether or not you wish that you were in their place (and of course many men do wish they were that character). The strategically ripped shirt is meant to show off "damn he's got huge muscles", not "ooh, pretty!". I'm sure that occasionally a woman will value it for sex appeal, but that's not the primary intent of the design.

Now compare that to similar female characters (sadly, often in the same picture), where they're wearing clothing that is designed to be as revealing as possible, and they're often twisted into impossible poses to show off as much of their body as possible. The very obvious intent is to get men to look at it, think "wow she's hot", and buy it so they can see more. Meanwhile you'll find a lot fewer women who want to be that character (especially that presentation of the character) compared to men and male characters. By overwhelmingly favoring that presentation of female characters the industry is consciously choosing to focus on using female characters to sell to men and ignore the women in their potential audience.

And this isn't really controversial. People in this thread have even admitted that they look at things this way, they just refuse to see it as a problem.

Similarly in your last called out point is the idea that all men are glorified as something to be and women are glorified to look at only. It is extremely male centric to not realize that as far as pretty people go, the same is also true in reverse when a female sees an attractive pretty-boy and attractive pretty-girls in a magazine. We all want to be idealized versions of ourselves, I doubt many women are wishing they looked like brad pitt or whatnot lol. Maybe some lol, lord love em lol!.

Of course there are situations in which women are presented as something to be, and men are presented as something to lust after. The point is that these situations don't occur in the context of wargaming. It's almost universally true in wargaming that women are glorified as something to look at, while men are glorified as someone to be.

 Melissia wrote:
And then there are the models that are just plain bad, but I'm sure I probably have a bit too high of a standard on that (I also think plenty of GW and Infinity models are just plain bad, as well, FWIW). So pardon me for not taking Reaper in to account, but they're... a mixed bag, at best.

Of course they are a mixed bag - that is one of the reasons why they are such a good source on the issue. They make a larger variety of figures than anyone else still in full production, from the fully clothed and modest to "Urban Legend" figures which are wearing nothing but chaps. When they openly discuss there sales figures (as Buzzsaw was so nice to track down one of their posts on the matter) it bares more credance than say KD (who effectively only sell cheesecake) or a company who sells no female figures at all (or nearly none).

Some of the models they sell are arguably awful from any viewpoint - others are excellent (sculpted by legends in the field). In any case with over 3600 figures in their DHL line alone - you should be able to find one or two to your liking.

 MajorTom11 wrote:
I am not sure if you agree here, but Studio Mcvey's Kara Black models are good examples of 'tasteful' non-overly feminized sculpts that are respectful and treat her as a warrior first and a woman second.

Wasn't addressed to me, but I'll say that yes, these are a good example. They might not be perfect, but they do a much better job of presenting the woman as a character to identify with and not just porn for the male customers to look at. If, say, GW's Cadian models were a 60/40 split, or even 70/30, between the current all-male models and a Cadian version of the McVey model then people would be a lot happier with them.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
Some of the models they sell are arguably awful from any viewpoint - others are excellent (sculpted by legends in the field). In any case with over 3600 figures in their DHL line alone - you should be able to find one or two to your liking.

I couldn't.

Not for sci-fi purposes anyway.

If we're solely talking about the over sexualisation of females depicted in minatures then the problem isn't the minatures themself. This issue in video games was the centre of a short youtube video in the HAWP series. The problem isn't the depiction of the women but the abundance of them. Ask people to find a non-sexualised female minature and you'll struggle once you start to get to double digits. Try and find a sexualised female minature and the list would be gigantic.

The problem isn't the oversexualisation, wether it be male or female the problem is balance and right now sexed up female depictions clearly outnumber everything else in the minatures industry and every other geek sub-culture.

If however we were to talk about the misogny and sexism present in all geek culture and the community's massive resistance to change or even admit that there is a problem in the first place. Well as this thread has already shown by crying out femnazi, man-hater, etc. I don't debate this topic much on the net anymore.

 Peregrine wrote:

 MajorTom11 wrote:
1. To your what makes a model male comment, you are missing the point and being unnecessarily combative there sir. The default assumption in wargaming is that the model is male, I am surprised you even raised it as a question. When you see combat armor and power armor, the assumption is the model is male. When you see a viking you assume the model is male. The onus is not equal in this venue, in fact, the level of automatic assumption of maleness both in the medium and subject matter in general of warriors means you have to go to extra effort to 'call out' a female.

Yeah, but that's just saying that wargaming has a sexism problem. It's obviously true that the default is a man, but the fact that this default assumption exists highlights the problem.

I would actually need to track it down - but I have seen it a few different places that the cheese cake figures are often as popular with the female customers as they are the male customers. About the only thing which is more popular with females in general are anthropomorphic dogs, mice and bunnies.

 MajorTom11 wrote:
some concession to feminity and therefore female sexuality must be made in a female model to make it work.

Define "make it work"? Because a model does not have to have gigantoboobs or blatant ass-cleavage to understand that a model is female, nor do those features necessarily really help make a model look all that feminine.

I say you are being a bit dramatic Melissia because you keep saying Gigantiboobs and butt-crack in context of my argument! I certainly am not and never did say that these elements must be in place to make a model female. So I would appreciate it if in the course of our discussion you didn't continue arguing from that bent in relation to my points out of respect please, that is certainly not a brush I wish to be painted with, especially when I am making trying to point out the opposite!

To clarify for the 3rd time, when I say concession to femininity, it could be as simple as the hint of hips, allusions to a female hairstyle, or just poutier lips than a man. It doesn't have to be nipples tearing through a shirt or jiggling boobahs, there are subtle concessions to femininity and that is what I am talking about, and as Buzzsaw excellently pointed out with his post at the bottom of page 2, that model very clearly illustrates my point when it comes to full combat fatigues or rigid armor.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 MajorTom11 wrote:
1. To your what makes a model male comment, you are missing the point and being unnecessarily combative there sir. The default assumption in wargaming is that the model is male, I am surprised you even raised it as a question. When you see combat armor and power armor, the assumption is the model is male. When you see a viking you assume the model is male. The onus is not equal in this venue, in fact, the level of automatic assumption of maleness both in the medium and subject matter in general of warriors means you have to go to extra effort to 'call out' a female.

Yeah, but that's just saying that wargaming has a sexism problem. It's obviously true that the default is a man, but the fact that this default assumption exists highlights the problem.

I would actually need to track it down - but I have seen it a few different places that the cheese cake figures are often as popular with the female customers as they are the male customers. About the only thing which is more popular with females in general are anthropomorphic dogs, mice and bunnies.

I can vouch for that.

 MajorTom11 wrote:
I say you are being a bit dramatic Melissia because you keep saying Gigantiboobs and butt-crack in context of my argument! I certainly am not and never did say that these elements must be in place to make a model female. So I would appreciate it if in the course of our discussion you didn't continue arguing from that bent in relation to my points out of respect please, that is certainly not a brush I wish to be painted with, especially when I am making trying to point out the opposite!

That's not the point. I was trying to figure out what you meant by "make it work".

 MajorTom11 wrote:
To clarify for the 3rd time, when I say concession to femininity, it could be as simple as the hint of hips, allusions to a female hairstyle, or just poutier lips than a man. It doesn't have to be nipples tearing through a shirt or jiggling boobahs, there are subtle concessions to femininity and that is what I am talking about, and as Buzzsaw excellently pointed out with his post at the bottom of page 2, that model very clearly illustrates my point when it comes to full combat fatigues or rigid armor.

I'm not certain that any one is necessarily arguing with you here. But earlier, you seemed to be arguing AGAINST more subtle features.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
I would actually need to track it down - but I have seen it a few different places that the cheese cake figures are often as popular with the female customers as they are the male customers. About the only thing which is more popular with females in general are anthropomorphic dogs, mice and bunnies.

Of course that's kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy in that once your choice of miniatures (and the sexism of the community in general) drives away the potential customers that want something else you're left with the ones that like what you're producing.

 Melissia wrote:

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
Some of the models they sell are arguably awful from any viewpoint - others are excellent (sculpted by legends in the field). In any case with over 3600 figures in their DHL line alone - you should be able to find one or two to your liking.

I couldn't.

Not for sci-fi purposes anyway.

This is not meant as an attack: Why don't you do something about it?

I'm not being facetious: you obviously have a very specific idea of what you would like, so why don't you do what Adam Poots did. Poots isn't an artist, he's a creator, he hires a concept artist (most famously Lokman Lam), and then hires talented sculptors like Jon Troy Nickel to translate the 2D work into 3D.

All Adam has is the vision and the will to bring these things together: his artists are on one side of the world, his casting houses on the other. If you are truly dissatisfied with what exists, and you believe there is a desire for these miniatures out there, why not follow his example? Get some ideas sketched out, take your proposal to the people, to kickstarter!

This isn't japery: I've often considered a similar scheme (with different focus), I just don't have such a coherent issue, as I'm satiated by the things that are coming to market right now. You don't appear to be.

What's the worst that can happen? You only end up like JunkRobot? A little company making the miniatures they really want to make?

 Melissia wrote:

 MajorTom11 wrote:
I say you are being a bit dramatic Melissia because you keep saying Gigantiboobs and butt-crack in context of my argument! I certainly am not and never did say that these elements must be in place to make a model female. So I would appreciate it if in the course of our discussion you didn't continue arguing from that bent in relation to my points out of respect please, that is certainly not a brush I wish to be painted with, especially when I am making trying to point out the opposite!

That's not the point. I was trying to figure out what you meant by "make it work".

 MajorTom11 wrote:
To clarify for the 3rd time, when I say concession to femininity, it could be as simple as the hint of hips, allusions to a female hairstyle, or just poutier lips than a man. It doesn't have to be nipples tearing through a shirt or jiggling boobahs, there are subtle concessions to femininity and that is what I am talking about, and as Buzzsaw excellently pointed out with his post at the bottom of page 2, that model very clearly illustrates my point when it comes to full combat fatigues or rigid armor.

I'm not certain that any one is necessarily arguing with you here. But earlier, you seemed to be arguing AGAINST more subtle features.

Ah ok, I see what you mean... No no no lol!

I was argueing that is very difficult to be completely realistic and respectful and still have a good looking, female model at the end. From my perspective I would want the female model to be recognizably female for my tastes, like the Kara Black models. But, some find even that too much, and I was saying that going further than Kara Black just makes for a skinny male model for all intents and purposes, which I find useless personally, but can now appreciate that people like you and Peregrine would still appreciate it, even if mostly just fluff based for femininity which I found quite interesting to be honest.

Separately, and I do mean seperately, I do not mind a nude or near nude female form as long as it is not posed porno style, as I find women beautiful artistically as well as sexually. As one-off or character models I am ok with them. I would find an entire sci-fi army of nude women a bit rude though lol. I.E, I am ok with the boobies and bums in context to what and where the model is. I do not advocate s.o.b going in the bra for nips only direction though.

I find, just like male models, there is a time and place for both cool highly armored or clothed models and for near nude or nude models too. The time and place are pretty important though, as is the tone with which the models are treated.

For example, with the linked KoD model, had I commented that I wanted to motorboat her or something like that then it makes the problem with the model me, not the model. Also, if I purchased that model for an 8 year old, but treated it respectfully enough myself, the problem would again be me, not the model. Context. Time and place.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
This is not meant as an attack: Why don't you do something about it?

[snip]

I don't have the money, and I'm not that in to wargaming (which of course is probably heavily influenced by this subject matter, but meh)-- I've been priced out of wargaming, essentially, by Games Workshop. And Infinity has failed to garner my attention reliably... feth I hate some of their more asinine female models. SO MUCH. And so on and so forth.

I guess it's hte same problem I have with most anime-- things like Naruto or DBZ are great settings, with elaborate concepts and well developed backgrounds... but then the authors don't really do much with them and so they end up being lame more often than not (especially for DBZ, which would really, honestly make for an awesome martial arts setting and the story for the original DB was great, but the author just kind of fethed around with a power fantasy instead).

Laziness and a lack of money are the biggest problem, however. I prefer writing over drawing, myself, and I spend a lot of time writing out new settings. Perhaps someday a miniature range might come from one or several if I get money.

 MajorTom11 wrote:
I was argueing that is very difficult to be completely realistic and respectful and still have a good looking, female model at the end. From my perspective I would want the female model to be recognizably female for my tastes, like the Kara Black models. But, some find even that too much, and I was saying that going further than Kara Black just makes for a skinny male model for all intents and purposes, which I find useless personally, but can now appreciate that people like you and Peregrine would still appreciate it, even if mostly just fluff based for femininity which I found quite interesting to be honest.

I respect that it's difficult, but doesn't that just make the artists lazy in not even bothering to try to get it right?

As for me, I'm okay with, for example, having a ponytail stick out the back of a guardsman model, with a more slender waist and a very slightly more pronounced chest (Slightly is the key word here), and a less chiseled face-- enough that one can notice that "hey, that's female" if one looks, but not enough to make one wonder "what the feth is that thing doing in this otherwise professional army?"

 MajorTom11 wrote:
Separately, and I do mean seperately, I do not mind a nude or near nude female form as long as it is not posed porno style, as I find women beautiful artistically as well as sexually. [...]

As I said, there's really nothing necessarily wrong with the fanservice models. I just wish there were more models that weren't fanservice.

Given the breadth and depth of the miniatures out there, and the extreme ease of casting up pewter, if there's a market, there's a model. It's not like female sci-fi trooper minatures don't exist, as typing that exact string into google spit out the following examples:

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1470153821/effigy-miniatures-havoc-protocol-sci-fi-miniatures/posts/353582

http://www.rattleheadgames.com/catalog/HFMHFSF001.html

http://heresyminiatures.com/shop/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=2_61&products_id=155

http://www.waylandgames.co.uk/hasslefree-miniatures/grymn-sci-fi-dwarves-/light-infantry/kadlin-female-trooper-with-smg/prod_7155.html

This topic comes around from time to time. I'll freely admit, there are times I cringe at the locker room atmosphere of most gaming stores. At least, when I'm not the one making crude jokes. It's not something that bothers me. I can see why a woman interested in minis wargaming would quickly lose interest upon experiencing that scene. OTOH, I'm not going to ask everybody to be on bestest behavior on the off chance a girl shows up.

I think the same theory applies to the minis. Clearly T&A sell. The market skews heavily male, and even women seem split on the nastier models. I've had an ex-girlfriend recoil in distaste from reaper's milder stuff, while another ex girlfriend asked me to paint her the nude succubus on her knees. A third ex collected a slaanesh demon army with juan diaz demonettes, because she thought they looked sexy. My mom displays the holiday sophies that I paint her, while my current GF wants me to stick with painting her unicorns.

My point? The people love boobies.

 Melissia wrote:
I respect that it's difficult, but doesn't that just make the artists lazy in not even bothering to try to get it right?

This was the reason for my very first post in this thread. They aren't lazy. People try all the time. All the time. I promise you, as fact with my own eyes they try.

It just isn't all that easy, striking the correct balance is nearly impossible, and a big problem being that any female model, unlike a male model, will always be a problem to someone. Not enough boobahs. Too much Boobahs. Looks like a dude. Isn't realistic enough. It's a losing proposition right off the bat. That's why most of what actually makes it out there is the hyper sexual stuff, because they know 99% of their audience is male, and that of the female models, it is most likely to sell over 'portly woman in pantsuit'.

But that doesn't mean a lot of talented people aren't giving a lot of honest effort to striking the right balance of female and respectful... the problem is that succeeding is difficult, aesthetically or morally, for many reasons. That's why you don't see much, it either looks like crap, or it ends up emphasizing female bits too much to make it work for most.

 Polonius wrote:
OTOH, I'm not going to ask everybody to be on bestest behavior on the off chance a girl shows up.

Why would it need to be best behavior? When you have people who are actively going around calling any woman who dares ask if there's any female marines "feminazis", or who wants a female guard model a "feminist bitch", one would think that's far, FAR less than "best behavior"-- that's probably closer to worst.

And usually it's just a single douchebag who's doing their best to make it uncomfortable for the women, too. Like the guy who had a bad break-up and so he hates every woman out there. Apparently it's mean to call him out on it but his misogynistic rantings are to be tolerated without pointing out his own hypocrisy.

Discouraging this kind of behavior is not asking people to be on their "bestest behavior". It's just asking people to be decent fething human beings.

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
Some of the models they sell are arguably awful from any viewpoint - others are excellent (sculpted by legends in the field). In any case with over 3600 figures in their DHL line alone - you should be able to find one or two to your liking.

I couldn't.

Not for sci-fi purposes anyway.

This is not meant as an attack: Why don't you do something about it?

What's the worst that can happen? You only end up like JunkRobot? A little company making the miniatures they really want to make?

This a thousand times this. Why so many people feel the need to stand around crying about what's wrong instead of rolling up their sleeves, getting dirty and fixing it. If this was a guy crying about his local meta we'd be telling him fix it by example. This is no different, don't like it fix it by example.

 tomjoad wrote:
The level of sexism, racism and homophobia tolerated within not only tabletop wargaming, and not only gaming in general, and not only 'nerd culture,' and really the entire internet is so revolting that I sometimes think "Why do I even do this crap?"

Then I remember that at many jobs I've held or sporting events I've been to or parties I've attended all the idiots there think I'm as racist/sexist/homophobic as they are and I think "Well, at least gaming is something I enjoy..."

But guys, look at the long arc of history. Every time a group has managed to agitate for better treatment and more rights, they have not only got those rights eventually, but the people who denied them in the first place went down as either fools or monsters. It takes far to long to get this stuff right, but it happens eventually. I'd rather we not be remembered as the last society to get it wrong.

Something I've pondered at length over the years is how powerful and appealing escapist entertainment can be for those who may lack/feel they lack power and agency within their lives in the society that they live in. Be it movies, books, music, gaming or any other number of fantasies (shared or otherwise), it's makes perfect sense to me as to why such things would hold appeal for minorities (literal (physical) or figurative (gender)). It originally occurred to me when I heard about some gay gamer groups in the area (I've lived in the gaybourhood for the last half decade), but it makes sense for any individual who feels marginalized for any particular reason. And when I hear people speak passionately at length about their nerdy/geeky pursuits and hobbies, these are often expressed as outlets or escapes from turmoil as they grew up; bullying, abuse, harassment, feelings of not fitting in or belonging, homelife uncertainty, and any number of other issues.

To then see the other side of many such hobby groups; often primarily made up of Caucasian (apparently) heterosexual males in their teens, twenties and thirties, and the simply unfortunate amount of homophobia, sexism, racism and other ... ahhh ... shenanigans that can be spouted therein (X-Box Live, I'm looking at you), it really seems like a shame. That the thing so many find solace in can often find those individuals acting out in a territorial fashion, lashing out in an insular fashion when embracing those who are different would broaden the base of interested individuals. What's more important; feeling like _____ is 'your thing' or having a wider audience interested in a similar hobby?

Which, brings me in a very roundabout way to the topic of the thread; sexism and outright misogyny in entertainment in general, and gaming as a whole. The 'audiences demand X' and 'X is produced by all these companies' has a very Chicken vs Egg feel to it, but in the end I feel it's kind of a red herring tangent. People in general (audiences/participants and creators alike) need to recognize that things aren't done in a vacuum. That not being put off or offended personally by something doesn't mean that nobody will find fault with it, and that finding fault with it doesn't mean that it should necessarily change to become as non-threatening as possible.

But companies are about making money, and when we look at a variety of gaming genres, female players are often seen as a vast and mostly untapped (... I'm going to regret that) potential source of income and participation. That many female players don't seem to mind questionable female character attire (the significant female player population in World of Warcraft, as an example, though I've felt that Blizzard walks the line well in terms of 'chain mail bikini' vs fairly functional (for fantasy) gear), or perhaps that's just damning with faint praise when somewhat less questionable characterization makes a mark. Hell, the characterization of the Asari in the Mass Effect series earned some eye rolling from my girlfriend, but she played through the whole series and in her eyes (and control) "FemShep" is a fairly hardline Renegade badass who is loyal to her crew to a fault, and will wipe out entire fleets if anyone threatens her people, particularly Wrex and Garrus. And yet even then, you have Miranda (so much pinup in one place it hurts) and EDI (homage to early era robot pinups or not, there's all kinds of ... stuff going on in that character design).

Anyway, dueling anecdotes back and forth aside, I think it's worth taking a moment and recognizing that it is possible to critique something you like and enjoy. Far too many people seem to feel it necessary to offset criticism of a product they like with unbridled enthusiasm, when it often does a disservice to them and the things they enjoy. Do I enjoy RPGs, movies, video games and some Malifaux? Hell yes! Are these all rife to one degree or another with variations on Male Gaze, appealing to stereotypical beliefs of beauty and some truly weaksauce attempts to portray femininity? Most certainly. There are exceptions (Ripley in Aliens!) and issues even with the exceptions (She still ends up in her panties in that series like every 2 hours or less).

As a very general rule, anytime you characterize any entire profession/trade/industry as "lazy" because they don't produce exactly what you want, you may want to at least consider that something is harder than it looks.

It's unrelated, but I have a college buddy that I saw for the first time in years this fall. He's got a PhD in Chemical Engineering from UC Berkley, and is the project manager for a fairly large team of engineers. Their sole job is trying to make the air conditioners on commercial aircraft lighter to help save fuel. He is, without hyperbole, the smartest and hardest working guy I know, and he's leading a team to accomplish something that I would have thought one engineer could knock out in a week. Some things are just a lot harder than they look.

 Polonius wrote:
As a very general rule, anytime you characterize any entire profession/trade/industry as "lazy" because they don't produce exactly what you want, you may want to at least consider that something is harder than it looks.

I'm not intending to do that. But there are a lot of people that seem to be saying "it's hard so I shouldn't even try it". Including some model sculptors that I have read comments from (nothing from GW sadly, but sometimes I wonder if they even care).

I thought it would be hard to write a 21k word short story in a month (I was right-- I got half-way through it before holiday stuff got in the way, and I'm just now continuing it again) but I still attempted it, and am trying to complete the challenge even if it's taken longer than I thought it would. :/ I respect those that try, but it just feels like a lot of people give up and just sculpt boobies instead.

 Melissia wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
OTOH, I'm not going to ask everybody to be on bestest behavior on the off chance a girl shows up.

Why would it need to be best behavior? When you have people who are actively going around calling any woman who dares ask if there's any female marines "feminazis", or who wants a female guard model a "feminist bitch", one would think that's far, FAR less than "best behavior"-- that's probably closer to worst.

And usually it's just a single douchebag who's doing their best to make it uncomfortable for the women, too. Like the guy who had a bad break-up and so he hates every woman out there. Apparently it's mean to call him out on it but his misogynistic rantings are to be tolerated without pointing out his own hypocrisy.

Discouraging this kind of behavior is not asking people to be on their "bestest behavior". It's just asking people to be decent fething human beings.

Well, I haven't witnessed a ton of that sort of behavior. Maybe I hang out with classier guys that run to the married/long term girlfriend side of things, but that's not the stuff I've seen. Oh, one guy did joke that after losing his first two games at the tournament on Saturday, and not scoring a point, he went home on his dinner break and scored with his wife.

Nearly all overt misogynists are pretty easy for me to live without. I guess I was talking more about just crass joking and whatnot. I guess for me, I'm used to my "mixed company" behavior being the sort appropriate for a legal workplace where I have a female superior, many female coworkers, and I'm training a woman. I don't exactly shift from that to raging tool.

I agree and disagree, lots of males in miniatures are also exagerated, look at GW, lots of beefcake there. But it is not only miniatures, read comics (superhero) most ladies they wear tight clothing with unrealistic bodies, but go to computer games, movies advertisement it is all directed at the male crotch.

It still annoys me people have a hissyfit when there is some male nudity in a movie but not when it is a female.

Most entertainment is still mostly directed at males.

 R3con wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
Some of the models they sell are arguably awful from any viewpoint - others are excellent (sculpted by legends in the field). In any case with over 3600 figures in their DHL line alone - you should be able to find one or two to your liking.

I couldn't.

Not for sci-fi purposes anyway.

This is not meant as an attack: Why don't you do something about it?

What's the worst that can happen? You only end up like JunkRobot? A little company making the miniatures they really want to make?

This a thousand times this. Why so many people feel the need to stand around crying about what's wrong instead of rolling up their sleeves, getting dirty and fixing it. If this was a guy crying about his local meta we'd be telling him fix it by example. This is no different, don't like it fix it by example.

I actually did (though not to deal with this particular problem). Got tired of incoherent scales, incomplete lines, exaggerated features (to include fun things like chibi proportions). Got enough interested parties together and we have been making miniatures for 5 years now to fit our needs. When you divide the costs up between a half dozen people - it actually doesn't cost much more per figure than buying off the shelf miniatures from companies like GW or PP.

Like I said above...if people think there is such a demand - they shouldn't have a problem making the arrangements and either making a go of things as a commercial venture or just private work like what we have been doing.

 Melissia wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
As a very general rule, anytime you characterize any entire profession/trade/industry as "lazy" because they don't produce exactly what you want, you may want to at least consider that something is harder than it looks.

I'm not intending to do that. But there are a lot of people that seem to be saying "it's hard so I shouldn't even try it". Including some model sculptors that I have read comments from (nothing from GW sadly, but sometimes I wonder if they even care).

I thought it would be hard to write a 21k word short story in a month (I was right-- I got half-way through it before holiday stuff got in the way, and I'm just now continuing it again) but I still attempted it, and am trying to complete the challenge even if it's taken longer than I thought it would. :/ I respect those that try, but it just feels like a lot of people give up and just sculpt boobies instead.

But... people do try. A half assed google search pulled up a half dozen examples of exactly what you wanted. The stuff is out there.

I respect people that do hard things as well. What I don't do is judge people for not doing what I think they should be doing. "Yes, I understand that sculpting cheesecake is fun and profitable and straightforward, but you really should be sculpting challenging, unsellable, miniatures that aren't very interesting."

I can't be bothered to reply to the topic beyond the following:

If one wants to see something bad enough it will be there, if only in their minds. Hunt for the boogyman hard enough and you will find him.

 MajorTom11 wrote:
It just isn't all that easy, striking the correct balance is nearly impossible, and a big problem being that any female model, unlike a male model, will always be a problem to someone. Not enough boobahs. Too much Boobahs. Looks like a dude. Isn't realistic enough. It's a losing proposition right off the bat.

This is part of why I mentioned things like the basic infantry, or a tank commander or aircraft pilot where it's just a head sticking out of a hatch. Sure, it would be nice to see impressive centerpiece hero models that are women and well done, but the secondary characters are also important. If you changed a third of the Cadian box to be women you aren't going to get much criticism because most people see them as just "filler" models and don't pay too much attention to exactly how they look, but it would be a statement to women that they're part of the universe as more than just sex objects and allow them to see themselves on the tabletop (a privilege male gamers seem to take for granted).

 R3con wrote:
This a thousand times this. Why so many people feel the need to stand around crying about what's wrong instead of rolling up their sleeves, getting dirty and fixing it. If this was a guy crying about his local meta we'd be telling him fix it by example. This is no different, don't like it fix it by example.

Sorry, but that's a terrible comparison. Fixing your list to compete better is easy, pretty much anyone is capable of doing it with a little google research into tactics and list building. Making new miniatures, on the other hand, demands either a very specific set of artistic talents or a substantial amount of spare money to pay someone to design your vision. And the simple fact is that there are plenty of people who have ideas but don't have either of the things that would allow them to do anything with their ideas.

 Melissia wrote:
Why would it need to be best behavior? When you have people who are actively going around calling any woman who dares ask if there's any female marines "feminazis", or who wants a female guard model a "feminist bitch", one would think that's far, FAR less than "best behavior"-- that's probably closer to worst.

This, x1000.

Even setting aside the issue of the models themselves, the community's reaction here is just depressing. Almost as soon as the discussion (both here and in the BOLS comments) began the response to criticism went straight to "feminazis" and "punishing men for being men" and similar stuff. Obviously not everyone is guilty of this, but there is certainly a very loud sexist element in the gaming community, and it's a major problem.

Shrug. I'm not pointing fingers at any particular sculptor here. They sculpt whatever they want to/have been hired to sculpt, and that's the nature of being an artist, or a writer, or etc.

But that really doesn't detract much from my complaints about the medium in general....

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
I actually did (though not to deal with this particular problem). Got tired of incoherent scales, incomplete lines, exaggerated features (to include fun things like chibi proportions). Got enough interested parties together and we have been making miniatures for 5 years now to fit our needs. When you divide the costs up between a half dozen people - it actually doesn't cost much more per figure than buying off the shelf miniatures from companies like GW or PP.

Like I said above...if people think there is such a demand - they shouldn't have a problem making the arrangements and either making a go of things as a commercial venture or just private work like what we have been doing.

I admit, I'm not much of an entrepreneur. Starting a business like that is daunting to me.

I do have plans for something to be released on kickstarter eventually, even if it's a bit low-priority thing for me right now. But miniatures? NOT easy to fund. Hiring someone to make them for me would cost several times more than I have saved up. What I have planned for Kickstarter is closer to an RPG series and fluff books, to be released as a PDF-- something I can create myself in my free time.

The broader question of bigotry in nerd culture is probably the biggest elephant in the room. By it's nature, geeks and nerds are frustrated people, disproportionately white, male, and of middle class means. People that feel rejected and powerless, and seek escapism in fantasies of powerful, competent heroes. Bigotry is the minds way of saying "no matter how bad I am, at least I'm not that!"

Right now, nerd culture is opening up, and the normals are pouring in. I think some of the worst stuff will die down in the daylight, but just grow in the corners.

What's interesting is that 40k armies run the gamut. Eldar are clearly evenly split between male and female, from heros down to guardians. Tau are androgynous, orks have no gender, and Nids and Necrons aren't really "people." The imperial armies include cartoonish, "super manly and in no way gay" male super soldiers, nuns with guns, and a whole bunch of models that fall into the trend of only "femme fatales" can fight. Sure, you can have a female assassin, or commissar, or inquisitor, but you won't find any women in the fighting line (the catachan grenade launcher model aside).

 Polonius wrote:
But... people do try. A half assed google search pulled up a half dozen examples of exactly what you wanted. The stuff is out there.

Well, keep in mind that you're saying this as someone with experience in the hobby. Instead, look at it from the perspective of someone who is thinking about whether they want to join the hobby. What they see is mostly going to be limited to what's on the store shelves, and that's an entirely different situation. Want a male model? Plenty of options covering a wide range of designs. Want a sexy female model? You can almost certainly find a few on the shelf. Want a female model that isn't designed for sex appeal? Go search on the internet for some random company that makes one that looks vaguely like the models you can buy in the store.

And of course there's the related problem that the google search results aren't part of complete games. I guess that's fine if you want to use proxy models, but it's still a problem that "non-sexist female models" means "third-party manufacturer" and having to settle for proxy models that often aren't as good as the real ones you could have if you just bought male models instead.