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.

 Polonius wrote:
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?

I'm curious if it's as simple as women don't find war and conflict as interesting as men do.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
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.

This. There is a reason men go off to war to die. Men are expendable. Women are not. It isn't that women can't fight, it is that men cannot give birth. So war has primarily revolved around massive deaths based around the idea that a man can go off to war to die, but as long as his wife and kids survive, his way of life was protected.

Amazons are ok... Space amazons make no sense in many universes as the primary role of amazons was to pillage a settlement, and impregnate themselves. Why would that be viable in an alien space war? Battle nuns at least make sense as any female not making babies to feed the emperor psykers every day would then be trained and allowed to fight. Otherwise the dying imperium desperately needs females to get back to the back lines and make more humans.

Even in fantasy war games, there is almost zero reason for the female of the species to be on the front lines unless they are immortal or are In role where they are immune to harm. For every skaven dying in a battle, there is a pregnant rat woman birthing dozens of rat babies.

I think the reason women don't like wargaming is until very recent in modern times, women have no role in harms way in war due to them being the most precious resource. It isn't that they can't fight, but historically the whole point of war usually revolved around keeping them alive to give birth to the next generation.

RPGs are different because adventuring is not WAR, and if an adventurer dies on a treasure hunt or slaying monsters, the world keeps turnin. RPGs are pretty equal opportunity as you are an army of one, and women can be dynamic and skilled just like men. I think that is why you see women gamers drawn to those types of themes over wargaming.

I do not think shoehorning women into war will attract women either... I see no point in making a "female" I guard army because yeah,ok, it is unique, but unrealistic in a universe where humanity is shrinking to the tune of millions a day and the emperor devours humans to stay alive. I dislike unreasonable and unrealistic female wargaming figures. It is gross pandering to me on both sides of the spectrum. It adds nothing to the game usually and doesn't seem at all to add any appeal to women gamers.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
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.

I walked out of the movie theater feeling inadequate after watching 300.

I think people just like to admire the human body in a "perfect" state.

 Melissia wrote:

 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]

God don't get me started on the Bronies -____-

I think for my next terrain project I'm gonna make a Bronies glue factory.

There's sexism in my hobby?

To be fair this doesn't surprise me in the slightest - the real question lies in what we as a community will do about it.

nkelsch wrote:
I see no point in making a "female" I guard army because yeah,ok, it is unique, but unrealistic

40k is anything but realistic.

Also? All-female Guard regiments exist, as do mixed regiments. They're in the lore, no matter how much you would love to deny it. The overwhelming majority of the Imperium does not do forced breeding programs, either.

 Polonius wrote:
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?

I think at the end of the day, certain hobbies just don't appeal as much to women as they do to men. Whether it actually be gender based or cultural ingraining, I dunno. We still give our girls pink toys and our boys blue toys, we give our girls dolls and or boys action figures. Wargaming is still largely about simulating "war" with "toy soldiers". I would be mighty surprised if it had a lot of women in it.

Now that's not to say women can't enjoy the hobby, but I think it's unrealistic to assume there would ever be 1:1 ratio of genders.

The same thing goes with a lot of hobbies. I have 3 older sisters, all of them like cars, one of them knows more about cars than most men. However, in general, I think it's less likely that a woman is going to be have their base instinct tweaked at the rumble and roar of a big block V8 and wet their pants at the idea of several hundred horses fighting to leap out from under the hood. Despite the fact all 3 of my sisters like cars, I'm the only one who actually actively works on my own vehicles, even though my Dad spent more time trying to encourage them to pick up a wrench than me. I know that when the 4 of us were growing up, my sisters disliked being in the then 20 year beat up old beast my Dad had, while I loved it because it had a grunt of a V8, the late 60's styling hidden under the dust and dirt, and could drag off other cars from the lights.

I don't expect gender equality in all hobbies, and a result certain hobbies are targetted to a particular gender.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
pink toys and our boys blue toys

A century ago, this was flipped. Pink was manly because it was related to blood and blood was manly.

Giving girls pink items would have been considered bad parenting because pink was a manly color.

 Melissia wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
I see no point in making a "female" I guard army because yeah,ok, it is unique, but unrealistic

40k is anything but realistic.

Also? All-female Guard regiments exist, as do mixed regiments. They're in the lore, no matter how much you would love to deny it. The overwhelming majority of the Imperium does not do forced breeding programs, either.

Even that logic doesn't make sense, it'd be perfectly realistic/logical to have an all female guard regiment. Think of the Firstborn, but dedicated to the daughters of a planet instead.

 ENOZONE wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
I see no point in making a "female" I guard army because yeah,ok, it is unique, but unrealistic

40k is anything but realistic.

Also? All-female Guard regiments exist, as do mixed regiments. They're in the lore, no matter how much you would love to deny it. The overwhelming majority of the Imperium does not do forced breeding programs, either.

Even that logic doesn't make sense, it'd be perfectly realistic/logical to have an all female guard regiment. Think of the Firstborn, but dedicated to the daughters of a planet instead.

Besides, having an all-female guard regiment that settles the planet that they conquered means more loyal breeders, if the Imperium is really all that concerned about it (there's really no evidence of it, the Imperium seems to take a mostly medieval approach on the topic, breeding camps really don't exist except in the most tyrannical of planets, and those are the exception, not the rule), on the planet.

 Melissia wrote:
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.

I'm confused now. In agreement with regards to your points, but I thought my earlier point about considering hobbyists as people first and men / women second was left by the wayside (or overlooked/lost).

• Yes. We should definitely see each other as persons. With that in mind we should extend the courtesy we would like shown.

How anyone interprets my above statement is up for grabs.

 Melissia wrote:
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.

My scope was over several generations. Really, I was thinking of the whole continuity that is Time.

During one (or a few) generation(s), then it certainly is, as you pointed out, a possibility. And to see change in our life time usually does require action on some parts. It still leaves the question open of what change exactly would benefit this situation.

 Melissia wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
pink toys and our boys blue toys

A century ago, this was flipped. Pink was manly because it was related to blood and blood was manly.

Giving girls pink items would have been considered bad parenting because pink was a manly color.

Interesting, however my point was is that we treat our kids differently from a young age based on their gender. I don't think there's any doubt that women, as a group, have less interest in certain hobbies than others, and my point was simply I don't know whether that's actually gender based or just culturally based.

 Polonius wrote:

 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.

Good link, Buzzsaw.

And I'd love to be a stay at home dad or house husband as some of my friends call it. Maybe I'll change my mind when I actually have kids. Hah!

 Dentry wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
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.

I'm confused now.

I was going with the logic that once it becomes more mainstream it will naturally attract more of every population within the greater whole, and thus become more representative while trying to avoid marketing specifically to individual populations.

Modern marketing, after all, has no fething clue how to market to individual populations without belittling them.

 Melissia wrote:

 Dentry wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
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.

I'm confused now.

I was going with the logic that once it becomes more mainstream it will naturally attract more of every population within the greater whole, and thus become more representative while trying to avoid marketing specifically to individual populations.

At the risk of pessimism, I find it... unlikely, that table top wargaming will ever achieve what we would recognize as going "mainstream".

Then again, who knows? It's to the credit of the new wave of companies (with PP and CB at the forefront) that they are amazingly inclusive in terms of providing characters/models of both genders.

kb305 wrote:
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.

Nice straw man. Nobody is demanding ugly women (or ugly men), what people want is realistic women that aren't just sex objects. There's a huge difference between "I'd like to see women in armor that actually functions as armor" and "make deliberately ugly models".

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.

How old are you?

 -Loki- wrote:
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.

Nobody is saying that you're sexist for liking the female form. The sexism is the fact that the dominant portrayal of women is sex objects first, characters second, and a community that reacts with "feminazi!" every time anyone dares to say something about it.

 Polonius wrote:
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.

The same is true with wargaming. The person running Warmachine events at my old FLGS was a woman, occasionally I'll see women playing games, even looking at gaming forums will show you a small but notable minority. It looks like the exact same kind of situation that other games have been in before, so why concede defeat for this one game? What's so special about wargaming?

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
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.

Because the man with arms the size of tree trunks is often ALSO aimed at men. It portrays what many men wish they could be, not what women want to see. Like I've said here before, the default is that female characters are what you want to look at, while male characters are who you want to be. And "you" defaults to being a straight man.

It won't become as mainstream as video gaming I reckon, due to the fact that it requires such effort (painting), but it certainly has come a long way, and has a long way to go.

 Melissia wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
I see no point in making a "female" I guard army because yeah,ok, it is unique, but unrealistic

40k is anything but realistic.

Also? All-female Guard regiments exist, as do mixed regiments. They're in the lore, no matter how much you would love to deny it. The overwhelming majority of the Imperium does not do forced breeding programs, either.

Yeah, it's hilarious to me that, in a universe in which 8' tall genetically engineered superhumans armed with chainsaw swords travel through hell to fight giant demon monsters from another reality and fungus beasts that just happen to resemble rioting British soccer fans, having women fighting in the infantry is just too unrealistic to accept.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Now that's not to say women can't enjoy the hobby, but I think it's unrealistic to assume there would ever be 1:1 ratio of genders.

Of course it's unrealistic, but that's not what anybody is demanding. What we want to see is a removal of the attitudes that drive women away, not an artificial 1:1 gender ratio. If it turns out that wargaming is just more popular among men and the outcome is a 70:30 ratio then that's just how it is.

Yeaaaaah... 40k and realism are like the couple that had the worst break-up ever. They don't want anything to do with eachother. Realism moved to Canada. 40k moved to Mars and started its own colony, trying to recreate the Mechanicus. Realism hopes, one day, to launch a rocket at 40k and break its biodome but it keeps forgetting about it because it has more important things to do.

 Peregrine wrote:
Because the man with arms the size of tree trunks is often ALSO aimed at men. It portrays what many men wish they could be, not what women want to see. Like I've said here before, the default is that female characters are what you want to look at, while male characters are who you want to be. And "you" defaults to being a straight man.

Perhaps a good example of someone targeted to women would be Orlando Bloom? Robert Pattinson? Tom Hiddleston?

I'm told these guys are very attractive. At the same time, aside from the money and fame, I'm not envious of them and in fact am not rather fond of Mr. Bloom.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
Then again, who knows? It's to the credit of the new wave of companies (with PP and CB at the forefront) that they are amazingly inclusive in terms of providing characters/models of both genders.

It could happen. I've yet to run into anyone identifying themselves as a miniatures anything outside of hobby shops. I frequently run into video gamers, though.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
I see no point in making a "female" I guard army because yeah,ok, it is unique, but unrealistic

40k is anything but realistic.

Also? All-female Guard regiments exist, as do mixed regiments. They're in the lore, no matter how much you would love to deny it. The overwhelming majority of the Imperium does not do forced breeding programs, either.

Yeah, it's hilarious to me that, in a universe in which 8' tall genetically engineered superhumans armed with chainsaw swords travel through hell to fight giant demon monsters from another reality and fungus beasts that just happen to resemble rioting British soccer fans, having women fighting in the infantry is just too unrealistic to accept.

This brings up an interesting point: it's a given that GW views girls as having cooties. But PP clearly doesn't.

Out of the starter sets for WM/Hordes, 3/5 Warmachine starters have female warcasters (Khador, Cryx and Retribution), while 2/4 Hordes starters have female Warlocks (Circle and Legion). 5 out of 9 starter products for PP's flagship games come with a female character (and if you go by the 2-player boxes, 3/4 are female), and no single faction has an absence of female (or male, in fairness) "leaders".

It's fair to say that PP products are about as inclusive on the gender level as could possibly be expected. Is there any evidence that this has attracted more female players? Honestly not sure how one could even tell this. I notice female staffers are often prominently highlighted on the Privateer Insider web feature, but as for attendance at conventions, no clue.

 Dentry wrote:
Perhaps a good example of someone targeted to women would be Orlando Bloom? Robert Pattinson? Tom Hiddleston?

I'm told these guys are very attractive. At the same time, aside from the money and fame, I'm not envious of them and in fact am not rather fond of Mr. Bloom.

But that's not the point. The claim was that both men and women are objectified and idealized, that the "arms the size of tree trunks" male character is the equivalent of the porn-star-in-chainmail-bikini female character. In reality it doesn't work that way, especially in wargaming/fantasy novels/comic books/etc. The exaggerated and unrealistic ideal male characters are presented as a male fantasy about how awesome it would be to BE that character, while the exaggerated and unrealistic ideal female characters are presented as a male fantasy about how awesome it would be to have sex with that character. In both cases it's the male gaze that is most important, and any female interest is just a nice bonus.

The fact that attractive men exists is an entirely different subject, since Orlando Bloom is not an exaggerated stereotype walking around with tree-trunk arms.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
Yes - the "Venus de Milo" and the "Birth of Venus" (or any other classical sculpture or painting) are "porn".

But that is where you are mistaken. Art appeals to our intellect, it tells a story or engenders an emotion. Pornography, on the other hand, in designed to tittilate and entice - work up a desire, not usually in a beneficial way more about self gratification than anything else.

I would consider something found in a museum art, something drawn on the inside of a porta-john pornography.

 Peregrine wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
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.

Because the man with arms the size of tree trunks is often ALSO aimed at men. It portrays what many men wish they could be, not what women want to see. Like I've said here before, the default is that female characters are what you want to look at, while male characters are who you want to be. And "you" defaults to being a straight man.

So - you think that women don't want to be like the cheesecake?

There is probably more evidence that women buy products (not necessarily evidence regarding miniatures specifically - but products in general) that would indicate they want to be cheesecake than there is that men want to be Thrud. Again, I point to all the various marketing and media for women and by women which you can readily find.

Even within the confines of nerdom - you see more women dressing up as Poison Ivy at conventions than you do see women dressing up as some ambiguous acceptable character (there are certainly a few out there). While it might not be exactly a scientific data set - the evidence within it is substantial.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

xraytango wrote:

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
Yes - the "Venus de Milo" and the "Birth of Venus" (or any other classical sculpture or painting) are "porn".

But that is where you are mistaken. Art appeals to our intellect, it tells a story or engenders an emotion. Pornography, on the other hand, in designed to tittilate and entice - work up a desire, not usually in a beneficial way more about self gratification than anything else.

I would consider something found in a museum art, something drawn on the inside of a porta-john pornography.

Pretty sure you missed something along the way...there is a 'casm round these parts you need to be careful to avoid.

In any case, what would you make of this then?

http://www.weam.com/

 Peregrine wrote:
But that's not the point. The claim was that both men and women are objectified and idealized, that the "arms the size of tree trunks" male character is the equivalent of the porn-star-in-chainmail-bikini female character. In reality it doesn't work that way, especially in wargaming/fantasy novels/comic books/etc. The exaggerated and unrealistic ideal male characters are presented as a male fantasy about how awesome it would be to BE that character, while the exaggerated and unrealistic ideal female characters are presented as a male fantasy about how awesome it would be to have sex with that character. In both cases it's the male gaze that is most important, and any female interest is just a nice bonus.

The fact that attractive men exists is an entirely different subject, since Orlando Bloom is not an exaggerated stereotype walking around with tree-trunk arms.

Understood. My point with those examples was to demonstrate that true eye-candy for women could be something offensive or distasteful to men. As I mentioned, I'm not a fan of Bloom and could do without him in some of the motion pictures I enjoy; nothing against him as a person. It was under the assumption that others might feel the same about some of the examples I listed.

I was backing up your assertion that tree-trunk-armed guys are presumed part of the male fantasy (muy macho).

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

In any case, what would you make of this then?

http://www.weam.com/

Told myself to keep out of this but...
What is a giant mind screw to Fundy & prudish morality?

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
So - you think that women don't want to be like the cheesecake?

Not really, especially when "on display for everyone to look at" is an inherent part of it.

Even within the confines of nerdom - you see more women dressing up as Poison Ivy at conventions than you do see women dressing up as some ambiguous acceptable character (there are certainly a few out there). While it might not be exactly a scientific data set - the evidence within it is substantial.

Ignoring the issues of peer pressure to be sexy in public, the issue isn't that there are sexy female characters, it's that this is the dominant image in the hobby, and even things as simple female Cadian infantry are almost entirely nonexistent. While men get a diverse range of characters to identify with women are pretty much stuck with "sex object", or, at best, "token girl".

And of course if anyone complains about the situation a loud and obnoxious element immediately starts screaming about "FEMINAZIS!" and "STOP PERSECUTING MEN JUST FOR BEING MEN!!!!!".

 Peregrine wrote:
Because the man with arms the size of tree trunks is often ALSO aimed at men. It portrays what many men wish they could be, not what women want to see. Like I've said here before, the default is that female characters are what you want to look at, while male characters are who you want to be. And "you" defaults to being a straight man.

I feel you're taking what I said out of context a bit, as that's basically what I meant. Wargaming, by and large, appeals to "straight men", so that's what the advertising is targetted at. Women should feel no more degraded by it for it having unrealistically proportioned women than men should be for it having unrealistically proportioned men.

Personally I have no problem with marketing a product at it's target audience, I simply find it a bit degrading to men that companies feel having such amazingly unrealistically proportioned women is what it takes to appeal to them.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Personally I have no problem with marketing a product at it's target audience, I simply find it a bit degrading to men that companies feel having such amazingly unrealistically proportioned women is what it takes to appeal to them.

But WHY is "straight men" the only target audience? That's part of the sexism problem, the assumption that men are the target audience and women can just be ignored (or even driven away, if it means more men are interested).

 Peregrine wrote:

kb305 wrote:
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.

Nice straw man. Nobody is demanding ugly women (or ugly men), what people want is realistic women that aren't just sex objects. There's a huge difference between "I'd like to see women in armor that actually functions as armor" and "make deliberately ugly models".

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.

How old are you?

ehhh none of your business.