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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

As I commented earlier, I agree with the logic, I just dont' see any evidence of interest.

Women have played video games for years, they just did so differently. They've trended heavily to different games than guys, but there have been female video gamers as a small but notable minority since forever. Ditto RPGs. When it comes to hobbies, people get involved because they either think it's super cool, or somebody close to them is involved. A lot of people pick up a spouse's or SO's hobby or interest. So a lot of guys dragged girls to D&D night, or played video games with their gf/sister/wife, or taught them magic. Why does that not happen in 40k? Is 40k culture so unrelentingly sexist that it prevents women from gaming at home with their partners? Or is 40k not something that horribly appeals to most women?

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

I can understand that - though my primary point is that it isn't what I would consider a "substantial amount". Sure, it is a bit more than what you might find in between the sofa cushions...but if you compare those costs to say something like putting together an IG army from FW resins or GW metals (or worse...GW resin) - it really becomes something more affordable, especially if you were to consider quantities in line with an IG army (as opposed to 30 figures each, it would be more like 70 or 80 figures which would get things down to around $5.50 each for a half dozen people, cheaper than a Vostroyan army.

Plus - there is always learning to sculpt. We have about a dozen people and 3 of us can sculpt now - so the largest costs have evaporated except for when we are looking for something special and want to hire a specific sculptor or have something done that none of us feel up to (or are too busy otherwise). Of course, you might be able to avoid having to learn to sculpt if you can find someone who can sculpt and feels the same way you do. They may be willing to do the putty work in exchange for some free castings (or at reduced rates). And then there are those who are looking to build a portfolio - they work for peanuts.

Long - short...will - way and all that.

It's substantial to me. But then again, I consider 60 USD for a video game to be a substantial investment-- I don't exactly have a very good paying job at the moment.

The money I do have saved up I'm really not wanting to spend on entertainment. Which means any plans I have for things which would cost me all (or more than all) of the money I currently have saved up just have to be pushed back a while. And why the RPG plan is the most valid kickstarter plan I have-- I can produce that on my lonesome, and playtest it with my current group of friends.

 Melissia wrote:

 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.

there's a difference between untapped and non-existent.

I've seen more women enjoy 40k gamer culture, but not the game, than I've ever seen enjoy the game. Show me women that are interested, or would be interested, in 40k, but can't stand the culture, and I'll gladly change my mind. What I have seen, are plenty of women see the game and simply not find it appealing.

It's not like 40k advertises in Maxim or something. Geek guys learn about it from geek friends. I'm sure a large number of women have been exposed to 40k through friends, relatives, and partners. Is there anything other than conjecture to think it was culture that repelled all of them?

 Melissia wrote:

 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.

GW has stated, though, they profit most from new players and their number one goal is turning profits. They would make a White Dwarf swimsuit issue if they knew it would sell (which sadly it probably would)

 Chi3f wrote:
GW has stated, though, they profit most from new players and their number one goal is turning profits. They would make a White Dwarf swimsuit issue if they knew it would sell (which sadly it probably would)

I don't exactly view GW as a very competently managed company, so that might be a bad example.

 Peregrine wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
To make an on topic comment I will say that wargaming is a rather gendered activity. One can argue about the appropriateness of gender roles, but this does not change the fact that, according to perceptions of gender roles prevalent within the dominant society, wargaming is a very masculine activity. Wargaming principally concerns themes of conflict and violence. In this way it is a very masculine activity. One can easily argue that a wargaming identity is often a subordinated form of masculinity, if one were keen on the concept of the multiplicity of masculinities and femininities.

But that's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Wargaming is perceived as a male activity, therefore the wargaming industry and community treat it as a male activity and do things that push women away, and therefore wargaming continues to be a male activity. There's nothing inherent about wargaming that makes it inappropriate for women. The same was said about RPGs and video games, and yet somehow both of these manage to have decent numbers of women participating. So why is wargaming somehow special? Even if the "natural" ratio would be, for example, 70/30 that's still a substantial female audience being driven away by the actions of the community and industry.

And of course none of this changes the fact that a problem exists.

Did I say a problem did not exist? I also believe that I said that the reality of male to female participation in the hobby was likely inconsistent with peoples' perceptions. Do you read the posts that you quote?

Identity is indeed performed, which absolutely makes it a self-fulfilling prophecy. If I wanted to wear lipstick, heels, and glittery dresses, I might not do so in order to avoid being stigmatized. Because people say it is not masculine to wear lipstick, heels, and glittery dresses, I do not wear lipstick, heels, and glittery dresses. I perform a certain masculine identity as a means to avoid subjugation, which in turn reinforces the perceived need for such performances.

Do the people who buy "cheese cake" miniatures buy them purely because they enjoy them, or is part of the purpose the performance of a masculine identity? To respond to a problem one must first recognize that there is a problem and seek to understand it. Bear in mind that I am not saying that all identify performances are conscious choices.

I consider them very poorly managed indeed, yet they are the focus of our discussion.

The point is that GW doesn't care if they offended a handful of people as long as their demographic, the young men with money, keep buying their stuff.

weeble1000 wrote:
Do the people who buy "cheese cake" miniatures buy them purely because they enjoy them, or is part of the purpose the performance of a masculine identity? To respond to a problem one must first recognize that there is a problem and seek to understand it. Bear in mind that I am not saying that all identify performances are conscious choices.

I buy them because I like the female form. I'm not going to deny it. I don't see how it makes me sexist to be a male that like the female form.

 -Loki- wrote:
I don't see how it makes me sexist to be a male that like the female form.

And I fail to see any one that is saying that it does.

I think the biggest obstacle would be that the gaming aspect is still a 'boys club', so to speak.

There are plenty of great models/sculpts out there that aren't 'cheese cake' or whatever.

Sex always has and always will sell. If some people are going to sculpt that to pay the bills, so be it. It really is as simple as voting with your wallet, and buying from companies/places that don't do that if you are ethically against it.

I personally like to paint space marines. Don't see the attraction of painting a 28mm naked woman, but to each their own.

Let's not pretend that there aren't gender differences in interests. Lawyers are roughly half women, while engineers are something like 20% women. Are engineers more sexist than lawyers? (If so, I'd be impressed). Or is engineering not an interesting career path to women?

Nurses are disproportionately female, even highly trained and paid nurses. Even in that field, males trended to managerial roles, while women enjoyed more patient care roles: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10659519

Why have some fields seen nearly complete parity in a generation, while others don't? Yes, some areas are due to bigotry (high level executives are overwhelmingly male), but I think that for whatever reason, men and women want different things.

I think you end up with sexism in any field that doesn't have a lot of women in it to begin with, and IMO it's more negative toward men than it is women. It's more degrading to think an unrealistically cartoon character with big boobs and a g-string is what it takes to attract a male audience than it is to the women, after all, the product isn't being marketed to them and it's so unrealistic I can't imagine how they could find it offensive any more than a characture of a man with arms the size of tree trunks and a chiseled jaw line.

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
yeah GW seems to have a fear of women, very few being there (and the ones that are, SOB for example, are forgotten and butchered over and over in the fluff)

I actually came up with a few idea's (one being the attempt in making a silly sounding idea, amazons in space, interesting and not suck, though cannot sculpt to save my life, so when I get the money will commission someone to do that for me)

I don't think GW fear women so much as women don't have a massive place in a game primarily about war. You have elf armies that are sexually mixed and then a SOB army, I would find it more absurd if we actually had a much larger female presence. A few female guard units wouldn't hurt, but other than that, meh.

I don't understand why people are saying this is sexist. Men like women, especially beautiful ones. Men are dominant in this hobby. Why is it a surprise that sexy models sell? I buy sexy models because they're sexy. It has no impact on how I feel about women, I don't get some power trip from it, or anything else. They're sexy. That's it. Why does it have to be such a huge issue?

You might as well shout that women why are sexist for liking sexy men. This is completely absurd. Gender equality in miniatures is not an issue. Period.

 Melissia wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:
I don't see how it makes me sexist to be a male that like the female form.

And I fail to see any one that is saying that it does.

Well, it still comes down to the model itself. As MT rightfully pointed out, a GW Cadian could very easily be a female. Simply putting a head on it with long hair would still look female, because with baggy fatigues and armour she's not going to look physically different to a male. I'd still far prefer to paint this than a Cadian with a female head on it, which is pretty much a cheesecake model. So that could classify me as 'part of the problem', because that's what I would prefer to buy and paint, which in turn reinforces to companies that this is the kind of female model the community wants.

I just don't see it as me being sexist.

 Polonius wrote:
Let's not pretend that there aren't gender differences in interests. Lawyers are roughly half women, while engineers are something like 20% women. Are engineers more sexist than lawyers? (If so, I'd be impressed). Or is engineering not an interesting career path to women?

Nurses are disproportionately female, even highly trained and paid nurses. Even in that field, males trended to managerial roles, while women enjoyed more patient care roles: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10659519

Why have some fields seen nearly complete parity in a generation, while others don't? Yes, some areas are due to bigotry (high level executives are overwhelmingly male), but I think that for whatever reason, men and women want different things.

Actually, there is a very nice article examining some of the elements underlying gender disparity at the highest levels of achievement at City Journal (by Kay S. Hymowitz) you might be interested to read.

With regards to your earlier point about the actual interests of female miniature enthusiasts, it's interesting to note that I've seen more (self-reporting) female fans in the comments of the KD:M ks then in most (any?) general discussion of GW products.

 Polonius wrote:
Let's not pretend that there aren't gender differences in interests.

Let's not pretend that the difference in interests is entirely biological.

 Polonius wrote:
Lawyers are roughly half women, while engineers are something like 20% women. Are engineers more sexist than lawyers? (If so, I'd be impressed). Or is engineering not an interesting career path to women?

I am a chemist. When I was in high school, I made my highest grades in biology and chemistry and lowest grades in English and the obnoxious mandatory arts classes (amusingly enough, the only art I enjoyed was sculpting and drawing, I absolutely fething HATED painting or color-based art). The sciences interested me the most out of the various courses and I put the most effort in to them because I ENJOY labwork.

The school's advisor tried to push me away from going in to a chemistry- or engineering-related field. Wouldn't say why, but it's fairly easy to figure out. We, as a society, still try to push women away from engineering or math-related roles, and we do not raise both genders equally.

Let's also not ignore the impact womens movement had on encouraging women to take on what was once male dominated industries. Back in the 70's women only made up 1-2% of engineering roles. Give it a few more decades and see what happens.

 -Loki- wrote:
Well, it still comes down to the model itself. As MT rightfully pointed out, a GW Cadian could very easily be a female. Simply putting a head on it with long hair would still look female, because with baggy fatigues and armour she's not going to look physically different to a male.

And yet, none of them are actually being produced by GW.

 -Loki- wrote:
I'd still far prefer to paint this than a Cadian with a female head on it, which is pretty much a cheesecake model.

Yeah, that's a terribad model, horrible posing and composition. The paint job certainly didn't help, what with the ugly vomit-esque colors.

 -Loki- wrote:
I just don't see it as me being sexist.

I never accused you of being sexist. For me, the discussion on sexism is more related to how women-- real, live women, not the models-- are treated in the hobby.

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

lol you talk like if developers made the women ugly that flocks of women would suddenly start playing video games, warhammer and dungeons and dragons. Sexism has little to nothing to do with why most women dont play these games.
Say whatever you want but playing with models most definitely doesnt win you any points with most well adjusted, attractive young women. Take your head out of the sand.

 Melissia wrote:
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.

Are we sure that there haven't been attempts to woo the female population? Maybe that market is just untapped or maybe it is not interested. I don't know which. There are too many variables, too many unknowns for us to effectively come up with a course of action that hasn't been tried. There are certainly possibilities, like the scenario I presented of focus group testing miniatures. That particular one seems a bit of a stretch to me, personally, but who am I to say it'd be ineffective?

In response: stagnation is an impossibility; things change, that's irrefutable, inevitable. If, however, we're trying to catalyze said change, then it might be expedient to create awareness if one considers it an important enough issue and push for more equality wherein miniature design is concerned (since that seems to be the focal point of this ongoing discussion).

hands_miranda wrote:

 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.

I wholeheartedly agree the antagonism needs to stop. I believe it stems from a feeling of being threatened more than any actual hostility towards women or homosexuals or whomever.

What would you suggest, though, for evening things up? Do they need to be even? Are enough people interested in male pinups? Less female pinups? Seems attitudes would be more important than models.

The hard thing about nailing equality / sexism / bigotry down is that it's all subjective so we can't have a unified, abstract definition. Sure there are laws but legal definitions don't mesh with individual ones.

 -Loki- wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
Do the people who buy "cheese cake" miniatures buy them purely because they enjoy them, or is part of the purpose the performance of a masculine identity? To respond to a problem one must first recognize that there is a problem and seek to understand it. Bear in mind that I am not saying that all identify performances are conscious choices.

I buy them because I like the female form. I'm not going to deny it. I don't see how it makes me sexist to be a male that like the female form.

Please don't take me to mean that I think you are sexist. I am merely arguing that it is possible that the proliferation of such miniatures is related to masculine identity performance. And more broadly, my original point was that the reason for a perceived sexism in wargaming is likely related to the gendered nature of the hobby.

 Dentry wrote:
Are we sure that there haven't been attempts to woo the female population?

I don't think there have been many good attempts to woo any population really. I almost never hear about it outside of the internet's various cliques-- wargaming is virtually unknown.

The first, and most important thing, is to try harder to bring the hobby in to the mainstream, rather than to try to woo any specific group or subculture. That only comes later.

 Dentry wrote:
In response: stagnation is an impossibility

That's certainly untrue. Stagnation might only be temporary, but it's still a possible, and quite undesirable, outcome. See the stagnation in the Middle East, for the longest time it proliferated, and only recently began to slowly change again.

 Melissia wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Let's not pretend that there aren't gender differences in interests.

Let's not pretend that the difference in interests is entirely biological.

 Polonius wrote:
Lawyers are roughly half women, while engineers are something like 20% women. Are engineers more sexist than lawyers? (If so, I'd be impressed). Or is engineering not an interesting career path to women?

I am a chemist. When I was in high school, I made my highest grades in biology and chemistry and lowest grades in English and the obnoxious mandatory arts classes (amusingly enough, the only art I enjoyed was sculpting and drawing, I absolutely fething HATED painting or color-based art). The sciences interested me the most out of the various courses and I put the most effort in to them because I ENJOY labwork.

The school's advisor tried to push me away from going in to a chemistry- or engineering-related field. Wouldn't say why, but it's fairly easy to figure out. We, as a society, still try to push women away from engineering or math-related roles, and we do not raise both genders equally.

As Tanto said to the Lone Ranger "who's this 'we' kemosabe?"

My experiences in research science (biology) were of graduate and post-graduate laboratories being predominantly female. Medical school students have been parity/majority female for over ten years*.

*In fairness this is a difficult number to unpack, as there is always a tendency towards women beginning post-graduate education and then dropping out for obvious reasons.

 Melissia wrote:
The school's advisor tried to push me away from going in to a chemistry- or engineering-related field. Wouldn't say why, but it's fairly easy to figure out. We, as a society, still try to push women away from engineering or math-related roles, and we do not raise both genders equally.

I don't think that's true in general. Maybe it was in your specific case, but the couple of Universities I've worked at have tons of events and programs promoting women in science and engineering. The race car building team I worked on did everything they could to offer positions to women and encourage women to join, to the point there was a couple of female team members who joined who I think were significantly less qualified than some of the male applicants who were rejected. Still, not many women applied and for the most part the ones who did mostly quit because they didn't like the work environment associated with building race cars or didn't like building cars enough to put up with the work environment (now I will qualify that by saying we had a couple of good women on the team as well, though I don't think we had any good ones that actually went the full 3 years that most members put in, maybe 1 or 2).

 Fafnir wrote:
Well, there's a lot to talk about concerning sexism in... everything.

Hell, women weren't even considered a major audience for big-budget movies until TWILIGHT came along (and it hurts me to admit that the Twilight films actually managed to do something good, and do not misinterpret, they do not promote anything positive themselves).

Number of movies in the 1920s movies targeted women.

I did some research, and it appears that there is still a lingering bias that women are not as good at math as men. Or, more accurately, that girls aren't as good as boys. That could preclude engineering and the hardest of sciences, but leaves medicine, bio, etc.

Still, even in the most wretchedly male profession, computer engineering, there have been notable women since before there were computers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_computing#Timeline_of_women_in_computing

Despite everything, women work on computers for a living, and have since they helped invent them.

Why is that not true of wargaming? Why, in a society where interests can span every aspect of the gender spectrum, is it unthinkable that there is simply a hobby very, very few women find interesting? I mean, is anybody worried how few men enjoy scrapbooking? Do we think that scrapbooking is a den of male hate that is hostile to men? Or is it just not something that interests dudes?

Titanic certainly didn't target men.

 Buzzsaw wrote:

Actually, there is a very nice article examining some of the elements underlying gender disparity at the highest levels of achievement at City Journal (by Kay S. Hymowitz) you might be interested to read.

Thanks for the link. I've seem similar, but less fleshed out, versions of the same. The sad reality is that women face a career or kids divide that men don't.

 Polonius wrote:
Why, in a society where interests can span every aspect of the gender spectrum, is it unthinkable that there is simply a hobby very, very few women find interesting?

Because Bronies exist. [/sardonic]