Sexism in the Modeling Hobby

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.

**Bride of Stompa**

mattyrm wrote:
Mrs. Stompa wrote:

I have to say, I'm pretty baffled by this idea that "Wargaming/gaming is a hobby for men." I'm just finding that to be odd and a little off putting.

Be aware that I agree with most of what you have said, and clearly I've got no time for the ridiculous social misfits that make rape jokes (although, I have took my missus into GW with me many times and nobody has evr gave her any gak at all or displayed such a crass level of social ineptitude) But this comment makes no sense.. it IS a hobby for men surely?

If 95% of the people that you see at tourneys, or in Games Workshop have cocks.. even really small ones, then by definition, that's what It is, and therefore thats the norm. Note that Im not saying it should be that way, indeed, Id love it if my missus was interested (she massively isn't and reads or watches No Reservations or something when I paint or play) but you cant argue with what is an obvious fact, most chicks don't like wargaming.

In fact, I've probably dated more women than most chaps due to my "never at home for more than a month" Bootneck career, and I didn't actually meet a single one that was remotely interested either, I think the cl;osest I got was a goth bird who was into David Gemmell.. but obviously my hobby always came up when they saw my minis.. and the fact of the matter is that its pretty fething weird for a chick to like war gaming.

Ergo, if you fall into a huge, huge minority, surely you are the odd one?

And if its so normal for women to ignore the hobby (it is!) why do you find it off putting? Isn't it entirely understandable? Aren't we all just following the social norms? People don't find it odd when they see old people knitting, but they find it odd when they see them skateboarding! Is it really that strange that people think something thats very uncommon is a bit odd in itself?

I think, there's a difference for me between something being "A hobby that appeals to men moreso than women" And "A hobby that is FOR men, not women." When framed as something that appeals to men, yes women are in a minority if interested, but we're not excluded as being "Not the people this hobby is for."

Though I'm not sure I'm explaining the difference very well.

**mattyrm**

Melissia wrote:

Her wearing a jumpsuit made sense for a pilot, after all, and it still has enough on it that you can envision her putting on some armor over that suit.

And if we turn the brightness down on our monitors and squint a little, we can pretend she is holding two big dildos!

YEEAAHHHH!

**Melissia**

mattyrm wrote:
Melissia wrote:

Her wearing a jumpsuit made sense for a pilot, after all, and it still has enough on it that you can envision her putting on some armor over that suit.

And if we turn the brightness down on our monitors and squint a little, we can pretend she is holding two big dildos!

YEEAAHHHH!

Nah, but we CAN imagine that she's wielding one-handed crossbows that SHOOT dildos.

**mattyrm**

Mrs. Stompa wrote:

I think, there's a difference for me between something being "A hobby that appeals to men moreso than women" And "A hobby that is FOR men, not women." When framed as something that appeals to men, yes women are in a minority if interested, but we're not excluded as being "Not the people this hobby is for."

Though I'm not sure I'm explaining the difference very well.

Oh right yeah well, of course the hobby isn't FOR men, I certainly think that over the last decade its become more common and accessible for women, and that's a good thing. I was just pointing out that if you think people are looking at you oddly.. its because.. well.. generally speaking, women playing wargames IS a little odd.

Most ladies haven't got that good taste.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:

YEEAAHHHH!

Nah, but we CAN imagine that she's wearing one-handed crossbows that SHOOT dildos.

**Buzzsaw**

Melissia wrote:
hammeyaneggs wrote:
If you want it to change, make sure those models you agree with sell really well
I'd love to... if they were actually being sculpted.

By and large, they are not in any notable amount. How the hell am I supposed to buy something that doesn't exist?

Rather then reiterate my "do something about it" post, let me ask you: what would you like to see that would make you happy?

Let's be quite clear here, people that do matter in the industry post on this board. Mack Martin, Mark Mondragon, Adam Poots, Tre Manor, Patrick Keith, Misty Smith and doubtless others that don't care to identify themselves.

So what do you want them to know, or, in the grand words of service people everywhere "how can they meet your needs better?" Specifically now: you've seen examples of DFG's "male" and female stormtroopers in this thread, what would change them from a "pass" to a "buy" for you? What would you have liked to see in KD:M that you didn't see, and would make KD:Heroes a buy for you? Is there an option for Wyrd's multipose female mini kit that you think simply must be there?

Seriously, campaigns for kickstarter are being planned by at least two of the aforementioned, what would you want to see in there? What does Mantic have to have in it's Warpath ks to meet your unmet need?

There has never been a time when more could be accomplished simply by speaking up and telling people exactly what it is that you want.

**Melissia**

I explained the biggest two things I'm trying to find here:

Melissia wrote:
Mostly, I'm looking for miniatures to represent my characters in various RPGs I play, and models I can use to represent female Imperial Guardsmen without having them blatantly stick out. The former is much, much easier to find (Reaper is the biggest source of this, and they've really improved... but they're not perfect by any means), the latter... I haven't found any in the various years I've been looking.

Which is to say, since the launch of third edition C:IG.

The problem is not just finding "soldiers who are female" but also trying to get them to fit in with the rest of the models while not sticking out too much. A lot of sci-fi models have the girls wear jumpsuits, or have aesthetics that just clash with cadian models, and so on and so forth.

As for the RPG characters, that's really just a matter of me being too picky most of the time.

**AllSeeingSkink**

Mrs. Stompa wrote:
I think, there's a difference for me between something being "A hobby that appeals to men moreso than women" And "A hobby that is FOR men, not women." When framed as something that appeals to men, yes women are in a minority if interested, but we're not excluded as being "Not the people this hobby is for."

Though I'm not sure I'm explaining the difference very well.

But do you yourself actually feel that it is a "hobby FOR men" and if so, why?

**Melissia**

I'll be front with you-- I don't give a rat's ass about painting. The models I use, I only use as tools to make some other thing more enjoyable, like an RPG, or a tabletop game. I pointedly ignore the entire painting and modeling section of this forum, it's a tedious bore to me.

Which really makes the search all the more frustrating, because I view painting as at best a chore, and I don't want to paint a miniature I'm not really that happy with because feth painting-- so it makes my standards higher than if I actually wanted to paint the model (such as back when I was really trying to get in to the hobby). And again, with the kickstarter thing, I don't have the money for that. [/shrug]

**Bride of Stompa**

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Mrs. Stompa wrote:
I think, there's a difference for me between something being "A hobby that appeals to men moreso than women" And "A hobby that is FOR men, not women." When framed as something that appeals to men, yes women are in a minority if interested, but we're not excluded as being "Not the people this hobby is for."

Though I'm not sure I'm explaining the difference very well.
But do you yourself actually feel that it is a "hobby FOR men" and if so, why?

Do I feel that way? Screw that. It appeals to a lot more men, yes. But FOR men? No.

**Dentry**

The ground keeps shifting under me. I think I've found what everyone is arguing about and then the whole thing shifts focus.

The only thing I can say is the whole thread seems a Men-vs-Women ordeal in the antagonistic sense.

**Manchu**

Dentry wrote:
the whole thread seems a Men-vs-Women ordeal

Agreed but I think this is what a lot of talk about "sexism" (including OP's points and especially the link he posted) boils down to these days. What miniatures are available on the market hardly speaks to anything about equality between women and men in our society. What is left over? IMO, a presumptuous and antagonistic attitude that has nothing to do with sex as both sexes seem to regularly indulge in it.

**Bossk_Hogg**

Melissia wrote:
mattyrm wrote:
Melissia wrote:

Her wearing a jumpsuit made sense for a pilot, after all, and it still has enough on it that you can envision her putting on some armor over that suit.

And if we turn the brightness down on our monitors and squint a little, we can pretend she is holding two big dildos!

YEEAAHHHH!
Nah, but we CAN imagine that she's wielding one-handed crossbows that SHOOT dildos.

Its time to put an end to crossbow on sex toy violence. What did those dildos ever do to anyone?

On second thought, perhaps we shouldn't answer that question...

**Radiation**

Bitch Magazine is the best. I can read those magazines for hours. I hope they take wargaming apart. That article is nothing compared to what they are capable of. I have a feeling they will leave it alone as wargaming is full of creepy nerds and there is little empowerment in destroying nerd masculinity. But they are Bitches so you never know. I hope they do it and really go for the balls. It could be a good mirror for "the community."

**Debbin**

Until I read this thread I had no idea what cheesecake meant, other than it was a delicious type of desert, a desert made even better when covered in some sort of fruit topping.

That said, I still prefer a good apple pie over cheesecake.

**kb305**

hands_miranda wrote:
Manchu wrote:
hands_miranda wrote:
Whine about it if you want, but if you want people to stop talking about the troglodyte label the best solution is to not act like one.
You claim to herald a pluralistic society but your language is full of derogatory comments and warnings to fit in. "Get with the program." Who's program? You have to realize that you're not talking about the end of privilege but its restructuring according to different parameters. This is different from what I mean. For example, you presume in the part of your post that I quoted that a person who doesn't want to be called a troglodyte should not act like one. It would be a wonderful world if people were only criticized for what they actually did and said -- but that's not the world we have. In this world, people call you a troglodyte for disagreeing with them. I reject that. Whether or not I share Blogger X's "concern" about a sexualized sculpt actually has nothing to do with whether I treat women with respect and dignity.

The point of plurality is that you have to throw out the old ideas that were set up to hinder the equality of people. It's no less pluralistic to call someone on the wrong side of the patriarchy divide a Troglodyte than it is to talk about persons on the wrong side of the racial inequality divide racist. Those divides are going to have to end, and the only way to do it in a equal society to redistribute power away from the advantaged groups and towards the disadvantaged. This is not a radical idea and has been happening in society for over a hundred years.

And yeah, liking and collecting a bunch of sexualized female figs is treating women with disrespect. You shouldn't be objectifying people, especially those you have a relative power advantage over. It's the same reason why collecting a bunch of racially stereotyped means you aren't treating those racial groups with respect. For example, the infamous Curteys Han Chinese figures with their overblown racialized look.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:
I have not advocated taking away the fan-service models, the cheesecake models, etc.. No matter how much you might try to claim otherwise, the claims are false, and I insist that you stop claiming that I have advocated that.
I'm not insisting that you claimed anything about fanservice. Fanservice is not the issue. The issue is sexualized miniature sculpts. Please stay on-topic.

Sexualized figures are fan service. Women, and men with some level of sensitivity about the issue, would prefer to be able to get some sculpts that aren't sexualized. Sorry, but with the bizarre breastplates and bondage gear, the old SOBs end up as pretty sexualized.

Here's a guy's art for redesigned sisters in a non-sexualized way :
http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k156/Terrible_Trygon/Sisters%20of%20Battle/BattleSisterDesign.jpg" border="0" />

Note how some level of femininity has been kept without actually sexualizing the figure. It's certainly possible to do so, it's just that due to how screwed up nerd and mini culture is, it isn't the more obvious choice.

what femininty? that looks like a man. if you didnt tell me i would assume that it's a man. yeesh
sisters should be more attractive/sexualized, not less, they look butch.

**CajunMan550**

The problem with this argument is models are everyone's fantasy land. And personally in my fantasy land I want chicks in sexy armor with huge asses and bigol booobies. I want my space marines built like brickshit houses and I want my nurgle dude rotted to the core. Everyone sees it different the problem with the word "sexism" is it implies something negative when there is nothing negative about it. No one think less of women because of a sexy model this is there fantasy world and they want that girl to be that way. This isn't real life if you want real life miniatures other people do too but not everyone does. In fantasy world it doesn't matter how effective you think their armor is in my head gak doesn't work like that and this is cooler.

kb305 wrote:

what femininty? that looks like a man. if you didnt tell me i would assume that it's a man. yeesh
sisters should be more attractive/sexualized, not less, they look butch.

Actually this is not true Sisters of Battle are not actually nuns they are still women and do "mingle" with there imperial guard counter parts. They are not Space Marines they are humans some are hot as gak and some not so much.

**Melissia**

The only source that tells us that sororitas have sex is the Cain series, and that is probably only slightly better a source than the Dawn of War series (no matter how amusing a read it is). So let's just drop that discussion.

**Ouze**

Manchu wrote:
I don't know if this is the sort of thing that Melissia means but I don't think more is necessarily good. For example, I'd say femarines have no place in the 40k setting. I don't mind them as homebrewed (you can have blue Blood Angels for all I care!) but I would be pretty disappointed if I saw GW make them.

Tell me, for I honestly wish to know.

What about female marines breaks the lore for you exactly? What about this universe - where the ideal way to deal with a tank is to punch it with a giant mitt, where one of the biggest problems are soccer hooligan-themed mushroom men, etc - would have the suspension of disbelief ruined by the presence of a female marine? I mean, we're not talking some intricate backstory that's set in stone - gee-dubs themselves are happy to retcon willy-nilly, and really, why not? The backstory for SM are essentially "a wizard did it", anyway.

I go the other way with it. When the Imperial Guard - the first line of defense for an embattled humanity - can, going by the model line, afford to pass on half the populace because they have the wrong junk; something most modern militaries already don't do - that breaks it for me.

Mostly, it breaks it by reminding me that instead of playing a fascinating tactical game with a rich universe, it's actually some poorly written spreadsheets shoehorned in after the fact to sell army men to small boys who still find girls to be yucky. This is how I feel GW sees me.

**silent25**

Just want to point out that GW has already shown what female IG look like. One of the characters in the Space Marine video game was a female IG officer.

With armor on, can't tell the difference. More people outside gaming will be familiar with this portrayal of women by GW than any model they put out.

**CajunMan550**

Melissia wrote:
The only source that tells us that sororitas have sex is the Cain series, and that is probably only slightly better a source than the Dawn of War series (no matter how amusing a read it is). So let's just drop that discussion.

Why would they not? Humans are humans they aren't space marines

**Ouze**

silent25 wrote:
Just want to point out that GW has already shown what female IG look like. One of the characters in the Space Marine video game was a female IG officer.

With armor on, can't tell the difference. More people outside gaming will be familiar with this portrayal of women by GW than any model they put out.

And I'd reply, Fantasy Flight Games has shown me what a female guardsmen looks like. Relic has shown me what a female guardsman looks like.

Show me which one of those whole box of Rambo is a woman I can use in my game. I even underlined my point just to avoid this response.

**Melissia**

CajunMan550 wrote:
Why would they not? Humans are humans they aren't space marines

Sisters live a life of self-denial and discipline, for which giving in to one's vices is considered a sin that must be punished. There's really no reason to assume they WOULD, because their life is one that does not have time or allowance for such things. That they never actually in contact long enough for it to happen only adds to this. What's so strange about people not having sex for their entire lives by choice? Sisters have far more important things to do.

If anything, Sisters are LESS inclined to have sex than Space Marines are, and that's saying something.

**CajunMan550**

Melissia wrote:
CajunMan550 wrote:
Why would they not? Humans are humans they aren't space marines
Sisters live a life of self-denial and discipline, for which giving in to one's vices is considered a sin that must be punished. There's really no reason to assume they WOULD, because their life is one that does not have time or allowance for such things. That they never actually in contact long enough for it to happen only adds to this. What's so strange about people not having sex for their entire lives by choice? Sisters have far more important things to do.

If anything, Sisters are LESS inclined to have sex than Space Marines are, and that's saying something.

Your also assuming every Sister of Battle is 100% pure just like every Nun and Priest now is right? They are still young women the majority of them and I've never read a piece of material saying it wasn't allow. Last I don't you can be any Less than a space marine in that regard they have been totally genetically reprogrammed to be nothing but fighting machines.

**Melissia**

CajunMan550 wrote:
Your also assuming every Sister of Battle is 100% pure

Because that is how they are described in the lore, outside of a SINGLE source whose information is not reproduced anywhere else and whose validity is questioned in-universe.

They are not, however, merely "young women". They are the best of the best, trained from childhood to become Sororitas, indoctrinated and trained to the point where they are capable of meeting or even exceeding Astartes in feats of combat-- despite not having any genetic implants. Even "acts of faith" are hinted at being things that they accomplish because of their TRAINING.

There are many things wrong with Sisters, but they are also still in many ways an example of female characters done right-- not as sex objects, but as competent human beings.

**Peregrine**

Manchu wrote:
What miniatures are available on the market hardly speaks to anything about equality between women and men in our society.

Of course it does. It's just one more example of how women aren't considered a market of equal value compared to men.

silent25 wrote:
Just want to point out that GW has already shown what female IG look like. One of the characters in the Space Marine video game was a female IG officer.

Thank you for the perfect example of the kind of models that should exist in a sexism-free game. That's a realistic character, and one that is a hero to identify with without being used for sex appeal at all. And since she has a role in the video game, why not also create a 40k model and appropriate rules and release it as a WD update for IG?

(I think you can guess the answer to that one.)

CajunMan550 wrote:
The problem with this argument is models are everyone's fantasy land. And personally in my fantasy land I want chicks in sexy armor with huge asses and bigol booobies. I want my space marines built like brickshit houses and I want my nurgle dude rotted to the core.

In other words, you want a fantasy land based around your desires that leaves no place for anyone who wants anything different, excluding a lot of potential players as a result. Thank you for proving my point very nicely.

kb305 wrote:
sisters should be more attractive/sexualized, not less, they look butch.

And people still believe there isn't a sexism problem...

**DemetriDominov**

Think we're confusing the word "pure" and virgin which is sexist in itself. Even nuns and priests don't have to be celibate before they enter their order so long as they are after their oath to their God. Kinda like a marriage, frowned upon to be adulterous beforehand, but unforgivable after the vow. Perhaps that might be a reason why the SoB were once called Brides?

Also,

It takes an extremely strong willed person to resist natural urges, which in my mind makes the SoB even more heroic than SM's because they have all the abilities, gear, and toys of a super human warrior, but must contend with still being human at the same time.

**Melissia**

DemetriDominov wrote:
Even nuns and priests don't have to be celibate before they enter their order so long as they are after their oath to their God

Yes, this is certainly true. They may have experimented while in the Schola Progenium, but once they enter the Sororitas, they really don't have time for such luxuries.

**Peregrine**

Why does the whole "do SoB have sex" question matter anyway? Who cares what they do when they're not fighting, that isn't what is being represented on the tabletop. Having sex does not mean dressing up in sexy-but-impractical armor, or being less effective at killing the enemies of god, or worrying about looking pretty in the middle of a battlefield.

**CajunMan550**

Peregrine wrote:

CajunMan550 wrote:
The problem with this argument is models are everyone's fantasy land. And personally in my fantasy land I want chicks in sexy armor with huge asses and bigol booobies. I want my space marines built like brickshit houses and I want my nurgle dude rotted to the core.

In other words, you want a fantasy land based around your desires that leaves no place for anyone who wants anything different, excluding a lot of potential players as a result. Thank you for proving my point very nicely.

Please remove head from ass before talking. I said everyone has a fantasy land I EVEN SAID IN MY POST THERE IS A PLACE FOR BOTH TYPES OF MODELS. Offering all types of models fulfills everyones fantasies when playing no matter what they are. You are calling me wrong when all I said is I want both so anyone can live out what they want and so anyone can enjoy them. Thank you for being an idiot and incapable of reading holy crap please go count something before I get banned for ripping you apart on here.

Melissia wrote:
DemetriDominov wrote:
Even nuns and priests don't have to be celibate before they enter their order so long as they are after their oath to their God
Yes, this is certainly true. They may have experimented while in the Schola Progenium, but once they enter the Sororitas, they really don't have time for such luxuries.

That is not none for sure

Peregrine wrote:
Why does the whole "do SoB have sex" question matter anyway? Who cares what they do when they're not fighting, that isn't what is being represented on the tabletop. Having sex does not mean dressing up in sexy-but-impractical armor, or being less effective at killing the enemies of god, or worrying about looking pretty in the middle of a battlefield.

I really wasn't arguing whether the armor matters for showing that (was just a side note and fun to argue about) He just said that SB are very butch and I commented not all are some are quite beautiful and some nto so much.

**Melissia**

Peregrine wrote:
Why does the whole "do SoB have sex" question matter anyway?

It doesn't matter, but that doesn't stop it from coming up all the time.

And the answer is that they don't. Even if they have no vow of chastity, they do not have the time or inclination for such things-- sex is a vice and a weakness, and they live a life of self-denial and discipline that does not allow for such weaknesses.