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:
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.

Woah. Woah woah woah. Rob Liefeld does NOT draw women (I'd argue that he barely even draws humans, but that's another discussion altogether). I'm certain he's never seen a real woman in his life.

It's important in these discussions that we try not to be dismissive or derisive toward one another.

Disclaimer: I'm male and I find certain female forms pleasant to stare at. Though I make an effort never to stare or objectify a woman, it's not something that comes without conscious effort - like not staring at car accidents or a child throwing a tantrum.



The argument of there being sexism in this (modeling / miniatures) hobby, is a rhetorical one. There is sexism. We shouldn't focus on that part. Women and, arguably, men are objectified; this doesn't happen with equal frequency or degree, but it's there.

It's curious, though, that nobody has mentioned anything outside of the miniatures themselves. Coming into the thread I thought for sure the majority of discussion would be about the involvement (or lack thereof) of women in the various game systems. However, the focus seems to be on the tabletop T&A. Determining the causal relation between sexist miniatures and the participation of women is like the Chicken or the Egg argument: largely irrelevant.

Is the environment welcoming of female hobbyists? Certainly it's welcoming to male hobbyists if we go with the assumption or fact - I'm not sure which it is - that we're the large(?) majority. More importantly, should we collectively reach out to women or go out of our way to make the hobby / miniatures more welcoming to women? Would such efforts make it less welcoming to men? What constitutes Equality in this?

Personally, I don't believe that anything should be done with men or women in mind. People should do something because it's 'cool'. Some people will like it and some people will not. And please, please don't read that as me saying "Deal with it, ladies!" because that's not my intent at all.

Sisters of Battle are an army I've never played but love to think about collecting. Is it because I think they're representative of subjectively attractive women? In a sense. The idea of a force composed primarily of women that are competent, tough, and all around badasses is very attractive to me. It's not something found in abundance. Were the SoB designed to lure women to the game? To appeal to mens' sexual appetites? Was it simply a preemptive anti-discrimination thing?

The point either way is that it's an army that I'm interested in - miniatures that I'm interested in not because they have hawt bewbs but because I think they're cool conceptually. If they were in plastic, I'd be all over 'em.



There is a market and I think it's safe to say there will always be a market for cheese-cake no matter what medium we're talking about. The Kingdom Death pinups are perfect examples of this; their purpose is labeled explicitly: they exist to be objectified. (And yes, I think it's a bit odd that I'm talking about objectifying a thing though I do realize that the actual idea being called into question is objectification of what that thing represents: women.) This isn't suddenly going extinct and will be available for those of us that want it. Kingdom Death certainly got enough money to make me believe this.

So back on point, is it alright that most (according to Melissia and others) non-pinup models are cheese-cake? I don't think so. But at the same time I understand that we cannot expect businesses to operate at a loss or not to seek the greatest possible revenue streams. The article Buzzsaw linked exemplifies this.

Reaper Bryan wrote:When we release a figure such as Valloa, those who complained about this didn't come out of the woodwork to support it, and the supporters of the Cloud Giantess don't come out to complain about Valloa. Modest figures get no "pushback".

But we have done some tests. Conversions on the same figure, and released under different part numbers and names have shown that an immodest figure will outsell a more modest version of the same exact figure. A topless version will sell a LOT more, and full nudity will sell even more.

Nevertheless, we try to use sensuality and nudity only where it is appropriate to the figure, for the character, the story, or the imagery.

Holding the above as true, we are left with a few non-mutually exclusive options:

• Write to voice our elation / displeasure with their product(s) when it goes against our sensibilities.
• Purchase or boycott in support of our morals.
• Present alternative models or methods.
• Learn to sculpt.

Patrick came on DakkaDakka and asked for ideas when he first launched the Bombshell Babes kickstarter. Some of us suggested 'sensible' female models. We were told that exaggeration of certain features was sometimes inescapable to distinguish the model as female. We were also told, if I recall correctly, essentially the same thing that ReaperBryan said. I apologize in advance if I'm horribly paraphrasing or misremembering.


Those are my two cents for now.


Edit: When I started this post, the thread was on page 2. Just fyi.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

Ahhh, but while what's produced is a chicken and the egg problem, what is widely available for retail is always a reaction to market forces. If FLGS's could make money selling non-sexualized female minis, they would.

GW's reluctance to produce female guardsmen in bulk is one the great mysteries, but as an IG player, allow me to profess being baffled in general at GW's approach to selling IG infantry.

 Peregrine wrote:


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.

Why does this have to be about making models? Melissia is complaining about the culture. How about taking steps to influence the culture so it conforms to her wishes? Maybe hosting a panel at Adepticon or Gencon?

When you on the first page start calling a community misogynistic then move on to racist and homophobic how do you expect them to react?

I made it quite clear from the very beginning that I think that it is just a small subset of the community, not the entire community. Or at least tried to.

Most wargamers tend to be rather nice. But the ones that DO do these things tend to stick out, sadly.

 Dentry wrote:
Personally, I don't believe that anything should be done with men or women in mind. People should do something because it's 'cool'. Some people will like it and some people will not.

The problem is that "do nothing" is effectively a vote in favor of sexism. The current situation has serious problems, and doing nothing allows the problems to continue. It takes an active effort to change things before you can get to a position where "do nothing" produces equality.

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

Not a business - wouldn't do that even if it paid a lot more than it actually does...have to deal with this sort of thing all the time (make this, make that, don't make this, don't make that...). I make what I want, when I want, as many as I want. Our local group throws in when we want a big project done.

 Peregrine wrote:
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.

Not so much...well, artistic skills yes, but not a substantial amount of spare money.

A green costs us about $350 for characters and about $200 for a line troop with swappable arms/weapons. I make my own molds and spin them now - though I used to have that done with a contract caster as well. Master cost us about $75 to go from green to a production mold (that was several years ago - so the price will likely have gone up some). Castings were less than a quarter each.

3 characters...a half dozen troops...mold made...200 figures spun...$2300. That ends up being $11.50 per figure. Split that up over a half dozen people who want to add some females to their IG army and you can pepper it with regular guardsmen, sergeants and officers (or however you want to break it down). Each person is in for about $400 and gets 30 or so figures, plus once the molds are made...you can add to your army for a song.

Sadly, that exceeds my budget for miniature-related expenses at the moment.

 R3con wrote:
Why does this have to be about making models? Melissia is complaining about the culture. How about taking steps to influence the culture so it conforms to her wishes? Maybe hosting a panel at Adepticon or Gencon?

First of all, at least one person did say it was about making models, that you could hire your own sculptors to make them and start a business selling them.

Second, you're assuming that everyone can host a panel at a major convention thousands of miles away. The simple fact is that "do something about it" is often easier said than done, and not everyone who cares about an issue has the ability to do the things they might like to do about it.

When you on the first page start calling a community misogynistic then move on to racist and homophobic how do you expect them to react?

If I did say that (which I didn't), I would expect people to realize that those things are true of the community as a whole and not necessarily about any particular person. Therefore I would expect them to say "yes, but I don't support that behavior", not to complain about "feminiazis" as soon as anyone criticizes the community.

 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.

I got jumped in a similar thread here recently, so it's not super surprising to see at least a few guys out there with these attitudes on this board. It's pretty disgusting, but expected. Honestly, it comes from a bunch of the community being very homogenous and not at all disadvantaged (trying to use words not bring down the usual anti-PC crowd). But getting the boys to act like semi-civilised people all the time (being a good person is what you do when folks aren't looking) isn't too much to ask.

On the topic of getting some decent and non-sexualized female sci-fi figures, I'd think 90% of it would be getting a decent female head and putting it on a figure without a huge amount of musculature. Body armour is going to hide all the secondary sex traits of a woman, so on the battlefield the only way to tell them apart would be an exposed head. I've thought about doing a "realistic" sisters army this way for a little while now. My problem has been that heads need to be comically large to look right in on a powered armour figure, and I haven't found any that are out of scale enough to work yet. But with a little work on the crazy hairstyles you could get something that works for a guardsmen out of the female heads from the DE wytch and warrior kits.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Dentry wrote:
Personally, I don't believe that anything should be done with men or women in mind. People should do something because it's 'cool'. Some people will like it and some people will not.

The problem is that "do nothing" is effectively a vote in favor of sexism. The current situation has serious problems, and doing nothing allows the problems to continue. It takes an active effort to change things before you can get to a position where "do nothing" produces equality.

Maybe. I'm not any kind of authority on how to effect change.

My point from what you quoted was to say that once we start thinking in terms of what men like and what women like we can't help but be inherently sexist. We start viewing everything as either pro-this or anti-that and lose focus on the idea being implemented.

But the thing is, if you just ignore it and all you end up is creating male characters/miniatures/etc because that's all you ever think about (which is often the case for people unless they actively seek to diverge from their comfort zones-- I tend to write female characters when writing my lore, and I have to actively think about it in order to add a male character, as they default to female in my mind))-- what exactly does that do to solve the problem?

Buzzsaw- this is somewhat of a tangent, but while I wouldn't personally say that I think all of the Bombshell Babes models were tastefully done, some were fantastic. Vivian Gale (with the scuba gear and huge helmet) almost tempted me enough to back the project.

But yeah, again tangetally, but I found Kingdom Death's models to be just a blatant money grab. The quote from Reaper was pretty spot-on: sex sells, but imo sometimes it's a bit of a sell-out move to only rely on that.

Would it have made 2 million without all the "pin-ups"? Probably not. But, it could have done really well.

To me, it's a bit of a non-issue. I vote with my wallet and is I feel a model is "over-sexualized", then I don't buy it. And lions with penis tails are just as guilty of it in Kingdom Death as the scantily clad ladies although less common in other projects.

In the end, the human form has and always will be a source of inspiration for artists, and there are always going to be a range of views on what is tasteful and what is not. I have my views, others have theirs, and if anything I think the portrayal of extreme violence is a bigger "blindspot" in mini wargaming (and culture) than over-sexualization.

In some ways, this is all taking things too seriously, though. There are other avenues and ways that will yield a lot more results for the effort if you want to fight causes / debate issues like this, than the prevalence or non-prevalence of over-sexualization in miniature wargaming models.

When you on the first page start calling a community misogynistic then move on to racist and homophobic how do you expect them to react?

I dunno, maybe with a little bit of shame? The prevalence of bigotry in the nerd community is pretty obvious and widespread, and even if it brings up some not very nice feelings in people when it gets brought up, that's the only way you're going to eliminate it.

 RiTides wrote:
If anything I think the portrayal of extreme violence is a bigger "blindspot" in mini wargaming (and culture) than over-sexualization.

But there's one key difference between the two: nobody (well, nobody sane at least) thinks that extreme violence is acceptable behavior outside of their fantasy game, while people do think that the sexist attitudes found in the game and community are appropriate behavior in the real world. Just look at the comments on the article, you won't find anyone reacting to a new model of a space marine chopping someone's head off with "that's awesome, I'm going to go decapitate my parents because it will be SO COOL!!!", but how many posts did it take for the inevitable "feminazis! men are being persecuted!" response to appear?

re: Bombshell Babes models

Some of the bombshell babes models were good, but others... most certainly do not pass by my standards.

Which are probably too high, I admit. I was tempted to support them but then I was like "just shy of half their models are fan-servicey, and I don't like that". I kind of feel bad for it, but meh. I don't want that kind of model at the moment-- it's not for me, and so I really don't want to support it, either...

Also, let's not pretend that sexism exists in the hobby, or even geek culture, and nowhere else.

Bigotry is more openly expressed in gaming, due to the fairly homogeneous demographics, but it's a huge part of our culture.

We can't hope to eradicate it. That's not defeatism, that's psychological reality. It's like diabetes: you can't cure it, but you can minimize the complications.

As a rule, sexism has kept women out of fields and activities, but once they started entering in numbers, the overt stuff died down. When I made my "bestest behavior" comment, I was alluding to my theory that the reason women aren't into wargaming is because it's not their cup of tea. I don't think sexism helps, but I think we have open sexism in gaming because women aren't there in numbers, not the other way around.

 MajorTom11 wrote:

 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.

One of the reasons I think that KD:M succeeded so greatly is precisely because (IMO) Adam Poots viewed it first and foremost as an artistic, rather then a commercial endeavor. What we see in his models, whether it's the Bosch-esque monsters or the sumptuous pin-ups, is his vision, an artistic achievement that is uniquely his, despite being produced in collaborations.

It is uncompromising, and in so being, it is authentic.

This is to me the greatest and most unforgivable flaw of the original article's complaints: it appears incapable of appreciating the products of KD:M as art, only as crass appeals to commercialism. Look at Nickol's dA page, and you will find one of the best comments on this idea;

Yeah. I try to make beautiful 3D women.

Regarding all the stuff that has come up in the last year about women in games, and tropes in videogames etc etc unequality and all that. I wrote this over at polycount but sharing it here.

I'm not sorry at all that I am in the pursuit of beauty in my work.

I'm not going to stop for anyone. I do what I do, because I enjoy it.

For years all I built was big space marines and ww2 soldiers, no one ever once told me back then I should 'diversify' and 'do something else' no one ever hassled me either it's just pretty much accepted. Pretty girls though?
...
If you look at my work and all you see is a sex-doll, that's your business not mine.
...

If making pretty girls in my spare time, to you, lumps me into the same category as these kinds of discriminatory men, then so be it. Im very proud to be doing what im doing, and again. NOONE will stop me.

I've redacted some bits because you should go read that whole thing. Seriously. READ IT. The article complaining about KD:M (and, you will note, specifically complaining about one of JTN's sculpts) does not, even for a moment, entertain the notion that this could be the work of passionate people passionate about their work. It drips with scorn, with judgement, with the snobbery that embodies the very worst elements of modern criticism.

KD:M succeeded ultimately because it showed us something we didn't know, and made us desire it. It is all the more tribute that wonderful artists like JTN and creators like Adam Poots have done what they have down and stayed true to themselves.

 Polonius wrote:
As a rule, sexism has kept women out of fields and activities, but once they started entering in numbers, the overt stuff died down. When I made my "bestest behavior" comment, I was alluding to my theory that the reason women aren't into wargaming is because it's not their cup of tea. I don't think sexism helps, but I think we have open sexism in gaming because women aren't there in numbers, not the other way around.

I don't really know if I agree. Even amongst men, wargaming is a rather small minority, so it's hardly a fair assumption that it would not also be popular amongst a bigger population of women than is currently playing were it marketed better towards us, and were the culture less hostile.

After all, it's really only recently that women get in to gaming in general. Think about it this way-- although we're usually buying "casual" games (due to them being the easiest for a non-gamer to pick up and play), more women now purchase and play video games than men do, despite the fact that gaming was viewed as a traditionally male thing.

The thing is, we're still trying to break down the gender barriers. Biology doesn't really make as big a difference as many people believe-- many facets of personality are due to societal influences rather than biological.

 Melissia wrote:
But the thing is, if you just ignore it and all you end up is creating male characters/miniatures/etc because that's all you ever think about (which is often the case for people unless they actively seek to diverge from their comfort zones-- I tend to write female characters when writing my lore, and I have to actively think about it in order to add a male character, as they default to female in my mind))-- what exactly does that do to solve the problem?

I'm not sure that it would.

Using your example of writing male or female characters, it would depend on the person writing them. This does bring up several questions that are beyond the scope of this thread, I feel. What is male? What is female?

In developing anything to appeal to both genders, I still think development should happen unhindered by notions of sexism. After the sculpt is complete, then it would be prudent to focus test the model. But if, as a male sculptor, I grab input from just one of my female co-workers or whathaveyou, then I'm only referencing my idea / product against the sensibilities of a single person, period. Her being a woman becomes irrelevant at that point. There's no guaranteeing this imagined woman would be a good representative of the women in my target demographic (women miniature enthusiasts), let alone of women in general. It would need to be a sizable representative group of men and women.

 Dentry wrote:
My point from what you quoted was to say that once we start thinking in terms of what men like and what women like we can't help but be inherently sexist. We start viewing everything as either pro-this or anti-that and lose focus on the idea being implemented.

The problem with the kind of faux-equality you're discussing is that it's doesn't do much to correct already existing inequalities, just to maybe correct for them in the future. You have to actually even things up before getting past it will work. I'd like to say "build it (i.e. some non sexualized women figures) and they will come" would work, but at the same time a lot of gamers need to stop being as openly antagonistic towards women in their hobby space.

 Dentry wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
But the thing is, if you just ignore it and all you end up is creating male characters/miniatures/etc because that's all you ever think about (which is often the case for people unless they actively seek to diverge from their comfort zones-- I tend to write female characters when writing my lore, and I have to actively think about it in order to add a male character, as they default to female in my mind))-- what exactly does that do to solve the problem?

I'm not sure that it would.

Using your example of writing male or female characters, it would depend on the person writing them.

And yet, what I stated is the end result of our current set-up. Continuing with our current set-up will only encourage stagnation, not progress. The stagnation might be good for someone who doesn't care, but it is NOT acceptable to those who do.

 Polonius wrote:
Also, let's not pretend that sexism exists in the hobby, or even geek culture, and nowhere else.

Of course not, I even said that very early in this thread: sexism in geek culture exists because sexism in society as a whole exists, so unless you make a conscious effort to avoid it there is going to be sexism in your community. But I'd like to think we have higher standards than "we're not the worst community".

 Polonius wrote:
When I made my "bestest behavior" comment, I was alluding to my theory that the reason women aren't into wargaming is because it's not their cup of tea. I don't think sexism helps, but I think we have open sexism in gaming because women aren't there in numbers, not the other way around.

I don't think that's really true. We've had similar stereotypes that video games and RPGs weren't their "cup of tea", but it turned out that there were a substantial number of women interested in those games and the biggest obstacle was the attitude of the community, not the game itself. It remains to be seen whether wargaming is somehow inherently a male-only activity, or if the reason so few women are interested is that the community is not exactly welcoming towards them.

Sex sells

Nuff said

meh, nothing wrong with it.

it's the same thing in video games. the girls are usually scantily clad or at the very least attractive looking.

heaven forbid games predominantly played by males have attractive women in them. i personally dont want to look at butch models, if the game is really good i would still play it. but do i like it better when the girls are hot? yes.

Most girls think a guy's a total wierdo for playing with space marines and debating about "astartes" anyway. So who cares about scantily clad models, if you like them, get them, youre screwed either way.

kb305 wrote:
Most girls think a guy's a total wierdo for playing with space marines and debating about "astartes" anyway. So who cares about scantily clad models, if you like them, get them, youre screwed either way.

What would you know? Did you take a poll amongst a statistically representative portion of the population, or are you just making this up?

I reckon most women don't even KNOW about the game, nevermind have passed judgement on it, same with men. It's a pretty obscure hobby all things said.

 Melissia wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
As a rule, sexism has kept women out of fields and activities, but once they started entering in numbers, the overt stuff died down. When I made my "bestest behavior" comment, I was alluding to my theory that the reason women aren't into wargaming is because it's not their cup of tea. I don't think sexism helps, but I think we have open sexism in gaming because women aren't there in numbers, not the other way around.

I don't really know if I agree. Even amongst men, wargaming is a rather small minority, so it's hardly a fair assumption that it would not also be popular amongst a bigger population of women than is currently playing were it marketed better towards us, and were the culture less hostile.

After all, it's really only recently that women get in to gaming in general. Think about it this way-- although we're usually buying "casual" games (due to them being the easiest for a non-gamer to pick up and play), more women now purchase and play video games than men do, despite the fact that gaming was viewed as a traditionally male thing.

The thing is, we're still trying to break down the gender barriers. Biology doesn't really make as big a difference as many people believe-- many facets of personality are due to societal influences rather than biological.

I've seen no evidence to suggest that there is a significant untapped female market for miniatures wargaming. I agree that logic seems to dictate that it would exist, but where are they? It's not like female 40k players are uncommon. They are strikingly rare. I've been to adepticon, where there are hundreds of gamers, and not seen a woman playing 40k. I've been to conventions working the booth for Armorcast, and while I'll see women look at the minis, they never cast an eye at the terrain. Women that wander by a 40k game rarely seem intrigued. Even wives of gamers rarely show an interest in the game itself. I've literally been to 40k tournaments were a group of wives and girlfriends sold concessions they cooked. They spent time with the gamers, but not gaming.

I'm not disputing your logic, only that I have pretty broad (no pun intended) and deep experience in gaming, and I've never seen anything to make me think women are interested in minis gaming but are put off solely by the culture.

And I agree with you that personality is based far more on nurture than on nature. That still doesn't lay the blame for the lack of female 40k players on the male gamers.

Let me be clear. I think that if there are women that feel uncomfortable joining the hobby due to the culture, that's a problem. I just don't see the lack of women, in and of itself, as a bad thing.

It took 8 thousand years to get where we are with women. It doesn't mean it'll take 8 thousand years to get to another place. Good thread, good handful of key posters. Gets me all self aware and it's good to know I'm not alone.

 Polonius wrote:
I've seen no evidence to suggest that there is a significant untapped female market for miniatures wargaming. I agree that logic seems to dictate that it would exist, but where are they?
[ snip ]

In your words, it's untapped.

Tell me, how many people have even HEARD of 40k, perhaps outside of the DoW franchise or Space Marine?

The thing is, much like with video gaming or any other source of entertainment, as the hobby becomes more mainstream it will attract a wider variety of people. But whether or not these newer, more diverse sets of fans are KEPT, whether or not their enthusiasm is MAINTAINED, depends entirely upon the culture of the more veteran fanbase, and the culture of the companies producing the source of entertainment itself.

kb305 wrote:
it's the same thing in video games. the girls are usually scantily clad or at the very least attractive looking.

The fact that other games have the same problem doesn't make it any less of a problem.

heaven forbid games predominantly played by males have attractive women in them. i personally dont want to look at butch models, if the game is really good i would still play it. but do i like it better when the girls are hot? yes.

Thank you for summing up very nicely why people say the community has a sexism problem. You do realize that there's an entire other half of the population besides men, right? And that by reducing women to being sex objects you're pretty much telling them "don't play this game, you have no place in it"?

Most girls think a guy's a total wierdo for playing with space marines and debating about "astartes" anyway.

Actually in my experience even if women don't like the game their reaction is either "cool models, not my thing though" or at least "that's your business, I don't care either way". But maybe things are different when you're still in high school or a fan of books by self-titled pick up artists.