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.

victim card

No.

 Ouze wrote:
I think female guardsmen are the better argument anyway.

Considering that his is QUITE SPECIFICALLY what I have personally been looking for, and I QUITE SPECIFICALLY explained that numerous times in this thread, yeah, I would say it is.

@Melissia: read the articles you posted and one was about how advertisers describe toys as using 'magic' to little girls, while with boys it was always about the technology but now is changing over. It's part of the sexual roles, men are supposed to fix things and women are supposed to organize the household, women in a gender role never need to know how things work and they prefer to think of it as 'magic'. I tend to think advertisers know exactly what they are doing, they're not idiots, nor do they do it on purpose (they're just trying to sell things), but they rely massively on the gender roles. The other was about making tools and other nonsense pink... that's what I meant when I said it goes both ways... there is also a graphical language for 'manhood' that we are just as stupid for buying into.

As for the topic of this thread... I fear it's being lost in the bickering...

 Meade wrote:
@Melissia: read the articles you posted and one was about how advertisers describe toys as using 'magic' to little girls, while with boys it was always about the technology but now is changing over. It's part of the sexual roles, men are supposed to fix things and women are supposed to organize the household, women in a gender role never need to know how things work and they prefer to think of it as 'magic'. I tend to think advertisers know exactly what they are doing, they're not idiots, nor do they do it on purpose (they're just trying to sell things), but they rely massively on the gender roles. The other was about making tools and other nonsense pink... that's what I meant when I said it goes both ways... there is also a graphical language for 'manhood' that we are just as stupid for buying into.

As for the topic of this thread... I fear it's being lost in the bickering...

This times over 9000.

Its all based on generating the best sales as possible. Advertisers rely on proven numbers, trends, and measured potential. Especially in a down economy, if you want a product that has not been shown as popular in the past, there must be a SEEN demand for it.

Expecting an established company to put themselves out on a limb with a product they are unsure will sell and have no numbers to back it up is unrealistic.

If you want change, prove to the makers of the miniatures there needs to be one.


And Melissa, I tend to agree with you and wouldn't mind seeing more miniatures made. However, I do not see it as a grand conspiracy, just as a dollars and cents thing.

 Meade wrote:
I tend to think advertisers know exactly what they are doing

Funny, by saying that they have no idea what the hell they're doing and how to market to women, I was giving the advertising agencies the benefit of the doubt.

The idea that they are intentionally insulting the intelligence of women and being condescending to women (see: Della) would have made several people on here call me a "feminazi" or "feminist nutjob" if I had stated it aloud. But apparently it's only okay for someone to point out sexism if they're male, and if you're female and try to do it you're a feminist [insert insult here].

 Melissia wrote:

 Meade wrote:
I tend to think advertisers know exactly what they are doing

Funny, by saying that they have no idea what the hell they're doing and how to market to women, I was giving the advertising agencies the benefit of the doubt.

The idea that they are intentionally insulting the intelligence of women and being condescending to women (see: Della) would have made several people on here call me a "feminazi" or "feminist nutjob" if I had stated it aloud. But apparently it's only okay for someone to point out sexism if they're male, and if you're female and try to do it you're a feminist [insert insult here].

Its comments like this that get people to call you those names, and why I say your frequently playing the "victim" card.

Whenever people come up with logical responses to you, you fall back on "If I were a male it would be fine for me to say this".

My wife likes the chainmail bikini style. She really likes the Kingdom Death style of female minis.

 hammeyaneggs wrote:
Whenever people come up with logical responses to you, you fall back on "If I were a male it would be fine for me to say this".

No, I don't. For the overwhelming majority of this thread I did not mention it. Then you came along and applied the double standard, and now I'm calling you out on it.

This is a good example of sexism in the hobby, amusingly enough, making what would normally be an off-topic post actually on-topic.

 hammeyaneggs wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Meade wrote:
I tend to think advertisers know exactly what they are doing

Funny, by saying that they have no idea what the hell they're doing and how to market to women, I was giving the advertising agencies the benefit of the doubt.

The idea that they are intentionally insulting the intelligence of women and being condescending to women (see: Della) would have made several people on here call me a "feminazi" or "feminist nutjob" if I had stated it aloud. But apparently it's only okay for someone to point out sexism if they're male, and if you're female and try to do it you're a feminist [insert insult here].

Its comments like this that get people to call you those names, and why I say your frequently playing the "victim" card.

Whenever people come up with logical responses to you, you fall back on "If I were a male it would be fine for me to say this".

Does this mean that victim has been blamed?

 Melissia wrote:

 hammeyaneggs wrote:
Whenever people come up with logical responses to you, you fall back on "If I were a male it would be fine for me to say this".

No, I don't. For the overwhelming majority of this thread I did not mention it. Then you came along and applied the double standard, and now I'm calling you out on it.

What double standard did I apply?


I told you what I have or would tell my friends when they have felt slighted about something... You don't like it, do something about it, don't just whine and say woe is me.


It isn't ok to use that mentality no matter what gender, race, sexual preference, planet of origin or whatever.

 hammeyaneggs wrote:
What double standard did I apply?

RIght here:

 Melissia wrote:

 Meade wrote:
I tend to think advertisers know exactly what they are doing

Funny, by saying that they have no idea what the hell they're doing and how to market to women, I was giving the advertising agencies the benefit of the doubt.

The idea that they are intentionally insulting the intelligence of women and being condescending to women (see: Della) would have made several people on here call me a "feminazi" or "feminist nutjob" if I had stated it aloud. But apparently it's only okay for someone to point out sexism if they're male, and if you're female and try to do it you're a feminist [insert insult here].

You approved of Maede's statements that advertisers are knowingly misogynistic and sexist, because Maede is (likely) a male, and therefor you agree with what he has to say. But the moment a woman has anything to say on the topic, you throw out insults like "feminist nutjob" or "victim card" and other such nonsense.

Because a woman will never have anything of value to say amirite?

 hammeyaneggs wrote:
Some petitions are relevant, some aren't... They aren't perfect, nothing in the world is. Stop trying to play the victim card. Is capitalism perfect? of course not, nowhere did I ever come close to saying that. Again, you are putting words in someone else's mouth to attempt to play the victim with no recourse.

If you are unwilling to make an honest attempt at changing what you see as an imperfection in the system, then you are part of the problem not part of the solution. You are no different that the thousands(or more) black people who sat in the back of the bus annd complained to friends before Rosa Parks DID something about it. Whining about it on the Dakka forums is not going to change anything. (no matter how much I may like the forums)

Your comment about "the most privleged class in modern society" comes across as though you don't have an open mind... Is this the image you wish to convey?

Uh, the point of privilege is that certain elements have developed the rules of society to continually tilt in their favor. Correcting this and re-balancing society is the only way going forward you're going to have real equality, versus the de jure equality that says all people, but some start with a huge lead in the race. Open-minded doesn't mean that you ignore the fact on the ground while looking for a "truth in the middle".

And your comments about civil rights are also both ignorant and incredibly insulting. First off, you're putting the onus on the oppressed to fix the situation. We don't ask for that in other section of society-- in fact that's the entire reason why we have a justice system in the first place. You'd never ask an assault victim why they didn't fight back more. Second, you're neglecting the incredible amount of violence used to support racism and segregation in the US. Few people stood up to it directly because you would be killed. And there are piles of examples of lynchings that were used as a way to direct violence to keep racial minorities in line. Arguing that all people who didn't stand up to be killed were complicit or blame-worthy in the situation is disgusting, and you should feel some honest shame for it. This is the typical revision of Southern history that has been going on since Wilson to rewrite and mythologize one of the more disgusting parts of American history.

I really dislike the fact that the lads on here are getting so offended by being labelled as sexist, or give the crappy "Oh look the men are always naked and buff and you dont see us complaining about it" excuse.

That one reminds me almost exactly of black people being racist, and old white blokes kicking off about it and saying "Oh can you imagine if WE said that about black people?!"

At the end of the day, it IS worse for women/black people, because they got fethed about for so long. Its a good analogy if you ask me.

I'm a white guy, but obviously a black bloke calling me a cracker or a white witch or something is not anywhere near as offensive as me doing the same, because of the historical context of the situation.

I mean, is it just me? Are you actually really offended when you get racially attacked as a white guy? It doesn't bother me much.. in the same way that surely, several women behaving er.. (misandricistically!?) towards me just makes me smirk and bugger off quickly before they start throwing punches or something.

I'm far from a turn the other cheek hippy type, and I don't roll over when I'm being abused or anything.. but really, blokes need to relax a little, because the sexism cards really aren't the same things when you throw the cards over and toss them back at the blokes.

 Melissia wrote:

 hammeyaneggs wrote:
What double standard did I apply?

RIght here:

 Melissia wrote:

 Meade wrote:
I tend to think advertisers know exactly what they are doing

Funny, by saying that they have no idea what the hell they're doing and how to market to women, I was giving the advertising agencies the benefit of the doubt.

The idea that they are intentionally insulting the intelligence of women and being condescending to women (see: Della) would have made several people on here call me a "feminazi" or "feminist nutjob" if I had stated it aloud. But apparently it's only okay for someone to point out sexism if they're male, and if you're female and try to do it you're a feminist [insert insult here].

You approved of Maede's statements that advertisers are knowingly misogynistic and sexist, because Maede is (likely) a male, and therefor you agree with what he has to say. But the moment a woman has anything to say on the topic, you throw out insults like "feminist nutjob" or "victim card" and other such nonsense.

Because a woman will never have anything of value to say amirite?

Please go back and reread the entirety of Maede's post.

There is also a statement about the same treatment given to men.

The underlying tone of that post is that they do know what sells, they intentionally go with brings in the best sales. If you truely wish to not believe this, then so be it. It is your right and opinion. That is what I agree with. They sell deoderant that makes men "manlier" and they sell things to women that make them "sexier". Although in my personal history attitude is what makes women sexy.

And please do not assume that I am sexist... which your last sentence does. You do not know me nor my situation.

 hammeyaneggs wrote:
The underlying tone of that post is that they do know what sells

History is filled with the corpses failed marketing campaigns.


edit: Fuggit.

 hammeyaneggs wrote:
[ They sell deodorant that makes men "manlier" and they sell things to women that make them "sexier". Although in my personal history attitude is what makes women sexy.

Yeah those commercials are ridiculous, have you seen the Axe ones (Lynx in the UK) where basically a bloke sprays some on himself and then he has to beat the women off with a pair of nunchucks all the way home?

I used to wear it as a teenager and all I ever got followed home by was stray dogs.

I read the article in the OP and all I can say is my respect for you is quite low if you feel the need to call your company "Bitch Media". Respect begets respect.

 Melissia wrote:

 hammeyaneggs wrote:
The underlying tone of that post is that they do know what sells

History is filled with the corpses failed marketing campaigns.

 hammeyaneggs wrote:
And please do not assume that I am sexist.

I'm not "assuming you're sexist".

I'm stating you're acting the part. Without any claim to your thought processes.

Sure... and those campaigns are usually not brought back... which leaves us to the campaigns that do work.

The root of my thought process is that form a newsgroup or get a bunch of like-minded people together and pitch what you want via social media to the companies making the miniatures. Without doing something along those lines the situation may never change because decisions on what to make and what to promote are made by people looking at historic sales numbers.

Or hope that a new miniature company comes along and makes what you want, but again for them to delve into making a wide array of models, they will need to have confidence that they will sell.

All of the sexism talk is really off topic.. This thread should have come across as more of a what models do I want them to create.

as for sexism, theres enough undertones for both of us being sexist at this moment... And perhaps thats truely whats wrong with the world. Too many emotions and perspectives about how sitauations are viewed.

 JudgeShamgar wrote:
I read the article in the OP and all I can say is my respect for you is quite low if you feel the need to call your company "Bitch Media". Respect begets respect.

I don't like the name either, but I can still empathize with it. After being called a bitch, a whiner, a nazi, and many other such epithets in this very thread, just for DARING to ask for female models that I can use in my 40k armies (while specifically saying that "fanservice models are perfectly fine" and NOT advocating removing them from the hobby), it's very tempting to just own up to the phrase and bitterly say "feth you". According to some of the people in this this thread, just BEING a feminist magazine means that they deserve no respect, because feminists are evil.

I think, since we've gone around full circle to the original post yet again, I'm gonna bow out. I apologize to any one I have offended in this thread. Offending people wasn't my intent, and I don't really want to hurt your feelings. This is, however, a major issue and I feel extremely strongly about it, so it gets my blood going.

I have came to the conclusion that this thread is stupid and offers nothing to DakkaDakka or miniature wargaming at all.

 DemetriDominov wrote:

C. Women don't really do much in the narrative apart from die, usually as horrible failures.

Given the GRIMDARK tendencies of 40K as a whole, you could change "Women" to "Humans" here and be just as accurate.

A mod should close this.

Please don't spam the forum. Use the modalert button to request moderator action. If a thread is no longer of interest to you, consider unsubscribing and posting in other threads. Thanks!

 Melissia wrote:
But apparently it's only okay for someone to point out sexism if they're male, and if you're female and try to do it you're a feminist [insert insult here].

I'm late for work so I'm not going to make a detailed response, but I think this statement just isn't true. Maybe in the olden days it was, and maybe you've had some bad experience or maybe it's just cultural and I grey up in a different one, but men talking about anything these days get less respect than a woman talking about the same thing because everyone is too scared to call her out on it either because they need to be politically correct and/or because she's downright scary.

The workshop I used to work in was heavily male dominated, we tried to encourage women as much as possible and some years there were a few women, some years there weren't. In the times women weren't around, typically the language becomes worse (natural phenomenon, put a bunch of men together in absence of females and it's what tends to happen) and many guys complained about the racism, sexism, abuse, swearing, crass sexual humour, etc and it fell on deaf ears, "harden the up" is an often heard response and they usually quit. When a woman complained about it actually meant something and things changed (and remembering that it was never as bad when women were around in the first place, everyone cleaned up their behaviour at the mere presence of a female).

That's MY personal experience and is obviously just anecdotal evidence, maybe your experience differs, though the workshop isn't the only place I've experienced such feelings.

This is the finest example of trolling and thread hijack I've ever seen.

The dakka mods need to step in and either getting back on track or closing it. We're adults

People are getting emotional, so how about we be adults and call it a day.

 hammeyaneggs wrote:

This times over 9000.

Its all based on generating the best sales as possible. Advertisers rely on proven numbers, trends, and measured potential. Especially in a down economy, if you want a product that has not been shown as popular in the past, there must be a SEEN demand for it.

Expecting an established company to put themselves out on a limb with a product they are unsure will sell and have no numbers to back it up is unrealistic.

If you want change, prove to the makers of the miniatures there needs to be one.

But again the argument is merely that the advertising is following archaic, sexist gender roles... as is GW to some extent...

Are we arguing what, here? Whether or not GW should open up the game to both genders (morally), or whether or not it is profitable?

I think you can argue using the example of the video game sector, that there is a huge untapped market in women. They like collecting stuff and painting stuff just as much as men do, especially if there are female characters that are easier to identify with. Absolutely, GW's treatment of the sisters, as well as the lack of females for guard players if they want an all-female force is shortsighted and insulting to women. It does take capital to break into that market, but you could at least make the argument it's there. But I still can't see fem- space marines. I can see 7 ft tall amazons kicking ass in the 40k universe, but not space marines it's just a dude thing, like some clubs are chick clubs and I don't have a problem with that either. Space Marines are barely human anyway and have very little remaining of their sexuality... they are monks at least and I think of them as eunuchs... they are avatars of ALL humanity and they are made only to fight and do little else, so there is no point in them having T&A and I'm sure if they were based on women they wouldn't have what we would call a woman's shape.

And once again, I don't think sexyness is bad in a game, or anywhere else provided it's the proper time and place, and nudity is something else entirely, and that occurs in KD as well, the pinups are extras and the players are all mostly adult. I can see how some women would find it hard to identify with sexually objectified characters in a game if they don't enjoy thinking of themselves that way all the time and there are no other options.

Only seeing this thread now and going to be spending quite a while reading through it so bear with me if I'm a bit off topic or repeat something already said.

I've not personally been subject to situations I would call sexist within the hobby community, but I have heard horror stories and know that plenty of others have.

Ireland is a pretty laid back place and even the more "nerdy niches" are not as closed off and isolated within themselves as they seem to be elsewhere, so sitting down with a group of magic players you don't know or joining a chat with wargamers is rarely met with that kind of confrontational condescension towards you as a woman that you read about sometimes.

The worst I have personally encountered is being overlooked as a source of info in favour of a guy, customers defaulting past me to speak to a man instead, but that's more a case of a stereotype and them subconcisously assuming I'm not going to be able to help them. I would seriously doubt it is intentional and they never repeat it having been redirected to me to have their query answered

I do however have problems with a lot of the models themselves within the hobby, simply because so many of them have such incredibly unecessary features that they feel dumbed down and made a bit petty. I never understood why Slaanesh demons were always female, especially the greater demons. I remember asking a GW employee why that was and being told "Well, they wouldnt sell if they were lore accurate." Something about that was really irritating, like the only reason they sold at all were tits and ass. That their sexualisation was the only reason they existed, they couldn't be these giant mixed sex demonic creatures they were descibed as, they had to be giant naked girls. Something about that is very wrong especially from a hobby standpoint.

Trying to find female figs that are just women is unbelievably hard, I remember one of the characters in the Space Marine game released recently was a lady IG ( I think) who was brilliant, sweaty muddy face, still pretty, proper functional breastplate, no flesh on show, she was believable and a great character, so why is it such a rarity to see figs matcing that?

I painted up a studio mc vey fig recently that was mind blowing.. it's advertised as this -



Guess what's on her other side? Giant exposed breast. Just hanging out there. Totally unnecessary, and it's not even used as a selling point.. so why? Why was that needed? Was she not cool enough as this woman in combat gear in the midst of an enemy hive? Clearly not, and she is cheapened by that I think.

I have very mixed feelings about this subject, there are some facets of mini's that get me very frustrated when it comes to how they are sexualised, but I find it very hard to put into words that can help other people understand why I feel that way.

 Monster Rain wrote:

Sisters of Battle are pretty prominent, right?

But they aren't. They lose constantly in the fluff - some unfortunate few are even villianized and taken down by a single 'man', their victories pale and seem to have no consequence in the narrative compared to the IG and SM's, and are often even scapegoated for the failures of others- looking at you GK's. They even joined the forces of the Imperium by losing while fighting for a tyrant that butchered countless billions. On top of all that, there are only two novels that put SoB in the driver seat - one has them utterly exterminated (which is fine for GrimDark if it didn't make it seem they lose far more than anyone else), and the other achieves a narrow and desperate victory with so many friendly casualties over a single objective, almost exclusively from a single source, one could argue that they really are incompetent in battle.

 Monster Rain wrote:

I'm not sure that this is because of sexism, or simply the penchant for "cheesecake" in sci-fi. Which is to say, I think the intent behind these sort of things matters.

True, but objectifying women, even with the best of intentions with no compass, legend, or explanation as to why, is neglectful at the very least and possibly even harmful because like the bombardment of other media sources, fantasy slowly creeps into reality. It's perfectly possible GW hasn't even considered itself in perpetuating the idea of sexism in society, but it doesn't give them an excuse to continue to turn a blind eye. We are the ones being influenced by society may come to expect things in relationships that are unobtainable or a partner is unwilling or unable to do. If you want an example, think of why women need makeup. Most women are gorgeous without makeup, it's just that we've (or more likely a select influential few a really long time ago) decided that they would look hotter if we painted their faces like a sepia crazed clown, that the ideal body image is that of a 6' peasant from the equator who washes their teeth with lime; they also should wear heels that actually put so much strain into their heels it fractures bone, and they are worth every penny of their body image and nothing more.

But this is fantasy no?

Are we not at the same time imagining ourselves as heroic Space Marines, gifted with superhuman strength, intelligence, and speed? We crush the skulls of bad guys, lift tanks, and even save the girl at the end of the day - at least in our minds. We even somehow manage to infuse the swagger of a savvy off the cuff Rogue Trader and perhaps even the astute gentleman nature of an Imperial Lord to swoon that perfect woman, whoever, or whatever she is. We are after all entitled to picture whoever, or whatever we wish in our imagination, in whatever fashion we like. It is however, undeniable that we are influenced by this objectification of both men and women - and that one should feel a certain way when they go to the darkest corners of even a GrimDark universe and return sweaty and heaving back to reality. There must always be a disconnect between reality and fantasy and we should never hold the same values between the two. That said, it is irresponsible for anyone to even begin to believe a person is only worth their body. I see no effort being made by GW to make 40k bereft of this ideal - it is Grimdark after all, and it really doesn't have to - but even still,the studio can make a conscious effort to make public a stand saying "We believe people of both genders have worth not judged by their bodies, but by their deeds." by at least striving to make the majority of women as heroic and aspiring as their male counterparts.

 Monster Rain wrote:

Again, I'm not really sure this is backed up by the fluff. There are examples of female characters that are both successful and failures and believe me, I didn't have to look very hard.

The most successful women in 40k are the eldar - tall, beautiful, and arrogant. The most unsuccessful women in the universe are squats - short, fat, and unattractive. You're right, you really don't have to look very hard.

To keep this subject light, consider the following:

 mattyrm wrote:
I really dislike the fact that the lads on here are getting so offended by being labelled as sexist, or give the crappy "Oh look the men are always naked and buff and you dont see us complaining about it" excuse.

That one reminds me almost exactly of black people being racist, and old white blokes kicking off about it and saying "Oh can you imagine if WE said that about black people?!"

At the end of the day, it IS worse for women/black people, because they got fethed about for so long. Its a good analogy if you ask me.

I'm a white guy, but obviously a black bloke calling me a cracker or a white c*** or something is not anywhere near as offensive as me doing the same, because of the historical context of the situation.

I mean, is it just me? Are you actually really offended when you get racially attacked as a white guy? It doesn't bother me much.. in the same way that surely, several women behaving er.. (misandricistically!?) towards me just makes me smirk and bugger off quickly before they start throwing punches or something.

I'm far from a turn the other cheek hippy type, and I don't roll over when I'm being abused or anything.. but really, blokes need to relax a little, because the sexism cards really aren't the same things when you throw the cards over and toss them back at the blokes.

I fully see and agree with this. It illustrates the concept of power differential very clearly. Being called a name when you have a political and economic apparatus behind you is just a name; being called a name when you have the force of the state and the economy bearing down on you is something totally different.

As someone who grew up in Manila, putting so much effort into decrying sexism inside of a hobby like miniature wargaming strikes me as being a perfect example of "first world problems."

hands_miranda wrote:
Uh, the point of privilege is that certain elements have developed the rules of society to continually tilt in their favor. Correcting this and re-balancing society is the only way going forward you're going to have real equality,

This zero sum, we have to take from them so we can have more, approach is defeatist. It assumes that people can never make their own opportunity or power. It's the theory of mostly white academics divorced from the real world. It also sets up conflict as you are literally telling people that you are going to take away their opportunities so they have less. In such a situation, they'd be dumb not to fight to keep them.

 Ifalna wrote:
I painted up a studio mc vey fig recently that was mind blowing.. it's advertised as this -



Guess what's on her other side? Giant exposed breast. Just hanging out there. Totally unnecessary, and it's not even used as a selling point.. so why? Why was that needed? Was she not cool enough as this woman in combat gear in the midst of an enemy hive? Clearly not, and she is cheapened by that I think.

lol wtf?? I used her other sculpt as an example of female minis done right. That's just... not cool.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

agustin wrote:
As someone who grew up in Manila, putting so much effort into decrying sexism inside of a hobby like miniature wargaming strikes me as being a perfect example of "first world problems."

Everything that's not starving to death or dying of malaria is a first world problem. This is a forum dedicated to the miniature hobby, so - shock - there are going to be discussions on sculpts and paints and plastic army men.