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.
Ifalna wrote: I do however have problems with a lot of the models themselves within the hobby, simply because so many of them have such incredibly unnecessary 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 wouldn't 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 described as, they had to be giant naked girls. Something about that is very wrong especially from a hobby standpoint.
Androgyny of the miniatures would more than likely make many men feel uncomfortable. We don't want that [homosexual] stuff here. So, yes, I would assume that a big part of the Slaanesh line's appeal to the uninitiated is the T&A. It's a sexist notion (to both sexes) used to pander to their target audience.
It wouldn't kill anyone to include androgynous miniatures but it might force questions that, I feel, Games Workshop would rather not have being asked. I don't agree with this, but it's my take on the reasoning behind it.
Ifalna wrote: 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 matching that?
I painted up a studio mc vey fig recently that was mind blowing.. it's advertised as this -
[image]
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'd agree with that sentiment especially because it's not something readily advertised. Nudity doesn't add anything, in my opinion, to that model. Not to get too focused on the miniatures themselves rather than the overall attitudes in gaming.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/01/16 19:35:58
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.
Absolutely. But it's being fought over with the utmost ardency. As if it is a life or death issue.
I really like my hobby and I'm very passionate about it, but if I wanted to be an activist, I think I'd pick a more meaningful environment for my efforts.
Even if you were to accept this as a real and serious issue, the adversarial approach is nonsense. To break it down into those fighting for equality vs. those who are sexist is ridiculous and only serves to polarize and bolster the status quo. It also assumes a defeatist zero-sum attitude when the situation is not zero-sum. There is always room for a miniature provider who wants to go after a previously ignored audience.
Instead we have people demanding others change their behavior and products while doing nothing to expand their own opportunities. And then they couch their inability/unwillingness to act in terms of being champions for equality and talking about ending privilege.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/01/16 19:57:40
agustin wrote: [Absolutely. But it's being fought over with the utmost ardency. As if it is a life or death issue.
I really like my hobby and I'm very passionate about it, but if I wanted to be an activist, I think I'd pick a more meaningful environment for my efforts.
I don't think anyone is actually equating it with life and death, so that's kind of a strawman. Again, this is a forum dedicated to miniature wargames, so pointing out that anyone who cares about the hobby more than you do can go join the peace corps or whatever is offtopic, at best.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
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.
Absolutely. But it's being fought over with the utmost ardency. As if it is a life or death issue.
I really like my hobby and I'm very passionate about it, but if I wanted to be an activist, I think I'd pick a more meaningful environment for my efforts.
Even if you were to accept this as a real and serious issue, the adversarial approach is nonsense. To break it down into those fighting for equality vs. those who are evil is ridiculous and only serves to polarize and bolster the status quo. It also assumes a defeatist zero-sum attitude when the situation is not zero-sum. There is always room for a miniature provider who wants to go after a previously ignored audience.
Instead we have people demanding others change their behavior and products while doing nothing to expand their own opportunities. And then they couch their inability/unwillingness to act in terms of being champions for equality and talking about ending privilege.
These affluent white activists trying to fix the moral corruption in the miniature gaming industry should probably check their privilege as well.
Pretty big logical fallacy. I (and most likely everyone else) can care about more than one thing at a time. And if you're calling trying to convince nerds on Dakka tooth and nail, you've got a pretty low threshold for tooth and nail. In reality, this is an excuse used all the time to suggest anything is an FWP (including things like first world poverty) to attempt to brush someone doing something crappy under the table.
agustin wrote: We really are talking about toy soldiers here though. Little plastic and metal soldiers that you play games with. Maybe make some pew-pew sounds.
Ifalna wrote: Complete invalidation of my feelings is why I rarely raise my opinions on this kind of thing, oh well. Bowing out.
If it makes you feel better I'm pretty sure no one really feels validated or happy as this isn't an issue that can come to a very happy conclusion through discussion on a board for miniature gaming.
Having said that though, if this even does as much as spawning some new miniature line or inspires a kickstarter miniature game project, I'm pretty sure most people here on any side of this spherically-seperated discussion would rejoice.
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.
Ya we had this conversation on page 4, nice to see it back again. I really dont like the "I'm mad someone else fix it!" Feeling that permiates through this thread, especially as others have linked to many many examples of respectable female sculpts. Instead of saying, oh thanks hey look at those, its met with, "ya but not all of them are like that! My feelings are still hurt?"
Ifalna wrote: Complete invalidation of my feelings is why I rarely raise my opinions on this kind of thing, oh well. Bowing out.
The reason this occurs is that the request for female miniatures appropriately dressed for their combat roles is often not made-- instead, it's demanded and couched in terms like sexism which is an invalidation of other people's preference as a horrible "ism"
Ifalna wrote: Complete invalidation of my feelings is why I rarely raise my opinions on this kind of thing, oh well. Bowing out.
The reason this occurs is that the request for female miniatures appropriately dressed for their combat roles is often not made-- instead, it's demanded and couched in terms like sexism which is an invalidation of other people's preference as a horrible "ism"
Thank you for demonstrating the problem here very nicely. You ignore things like the fact that the sexism in question is the dominance of those sculpts, not an individual who happens to like them, and the community's reaction to criticism. And then when someone says "I've been there, this makes me uncomfortable" you dismiss it as "first world problems" as if anyone who isn't currently starving to death has no right to complain about anything*. More than just a specific model this is why there is a sexism problem.
*Though of course that's not true, "FWP" only applies to "things I don't want to hear complaints about", complaining about approved things is just fine.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
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've done what could probably be perceived to be this when talking to a mail order company I buy a lot of "man crap"-type movie collectables from. Whenever Poppie used to answer the phone, I'd always ask to speak to Steve or Ash. It wasn't anything personal or even sexist, though - it was simply that I'd always dealt with Steve and Ash while Poppie was new there. I do the same thing when other guys answer though - though now I'm happy to speak to Poppie as well.
Ifalna wrote: Complete invalidation of my feelings is why I rarely raise my opinions on this kind of thing, oh well. Bowing out.
The reason this occurs is that the request for female miniatures appropriately dressed for their combat roles is often not made-- instead, it's demanded and couched in terms like sexism which is an invalidation of other people's preference as a horrible "ism"
Thank you for demonstrating the problem here very nicely. You ignore things like the fact that the sexism in question is the dominance of those sculpts, not an individual who happens to like them, and the community's reaction to criticism. And then when someone says "I've been there, this makes me uncomfortable" you dismiss it as "first world problems" as if anyone who isn't currently starving to death has no right to complain about anything*. More than just a specific model this is why there is a sexism problem.
*Though of course that's not true, "FWP" only applies to "things I don't want to hear complaints about", complaining about approved things is just fine.
Personally I don't have a lot of experience as the hobby as a whole outside of GW, but when it comes to GW I do feel a lot of the complaints just come down to "I want X model and X model doesn't exist" rather than actual sexism.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Personally I don't have a lot of experience as the hobby as a whole outside of GW, but when it comes to GW I do feel a lot of the complaints just come down to "I want X model and X model doesn't exist" rather than actual sexism.
Well, if you follow the chain of quotes here the person talking about "first world problems" was responding to this post by a woman about GW:
"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. "
So yes, there's more to it than another "I want X and X doesn't exist" just like all the IG players who want a plastic Hydra kit, and agustin is just dismissing that experience as "first world problems" to avoid having to acknowledge it. Besides the original experience that motivated the post, the dismissal itself is a serious problem.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/01/16 23:20:05
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Ifalna wrote: Complete invalidation of my feelings is why I rarely raise my opinions on this kind of thing, oh well. Bowing out.
Sounds like marriage boiled down to one sentance.
Jesus man change your tampon and drive on - darefsky
In the grim darkness of the far future something will shoot your dog. - schadenfreude
And saying you have the manliest tau or eldar tank is like saying you have the world's manliest Prius. I mean yeah, it's fast and all, but it's a friggin PRIUS. - MrMoustaffa
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Personally I don't have a lot of experience as the hobby as a whole outside of GW, but when it comes to GW I do feel a lot of the complaints just come down to "I want X model and X model doesn't exist" rather than actual sexism.
Well, if you follow the chain of quotes here the person talking about "first world problems" was responding to this post by a woman about GW:
"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. "
So yes, there's more to it than another "I want X and X doesn't exist" just like all the IG players who want a plastic Hydra kit, and agustin is just dismissing that experience as "first world problems" to avoid having to acknowledge it. Besides the original experience that motivated the post, the dismissal itself is a serious problem.
That GW employee is hardly the official word from on high about why GW doesn't have male Slaneesh demons.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: That GW employee is hardly the official word from on high about why GW doesn't have male Slaneesh demons.
No, but it is a representative example of attitudes in the community.
And also, like I said, the dismissal of that experience as "first world problems" is itself a problem, even if the employee doesn't accurately represent GW.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
I did not have the patience to read through 20 pages of yes-no-yes-no, so call me a troll but to me it is pretty obvious that sexism is a big issue in the hobby (which not coincidentally is linked to the fact that the hobby has always been dominated by - or better an industry aimed at - boys caught up in puberty, and former boys who are still stuck in that time with one leg. The question is: Is it the left, is it the right, or is it the tiny one dangling in between?
There is a distinction between sexy and sexist, and erotic and pornographic. Where the line runs is up to negotiations, and depends on the level of moral intelligence of the negotiators.
In any case, negotiations should always be held in public (unless doing so would harm one party unfairly.) Just as moral values are not absolute but subject to ongoing discussions in society. (no, I don't believe in a god).
So I think that talking about this topic IS actually a form of doing something against it.
I like sexy models but I would still speak out against sexism in the hobby.
I also think the main question in this topic was less about individual miniatures, and more about a mainstream TREND. A trend to depict women as artificially sexualized masturbatory fantasies. A trend that might be less strong in recent years, or more strong, I cannot say. But this thread could have at least tried to find an answer to that (or did it somewhere hidden in these 20 pages of "you are dumb! No you! - No you!"?
What is definitely new in recent years is a) discussion and criticism of this topic and b) the rising quality in detail and explicity of examples of this trend (see see ass-tits-angles in minis, KD's hentai-inspired "Boutique models", for example).
I think the fanbase has changed a bit, with more female, as well as older and sometimes more mature male hobbyists set against the fundamentally male pubertarian majority; and an equally maturing (although not in moral terms) industry that delivers to the different interests.
Peregrine wrote: No, but it is a representative example of attitudes in the community.
And also, like I said, the dismissal of that experience as "first world problems" is itself a problem, even if the employee doesn't accurately represent GW.
Sorry, but again, I'm not seeing the problem. If that legitimately WAS the official response of GW as to why there's no models, you'd have something to complain about (the thing you are complaining about still may not be "sexism", but at least it would be something to complain about). It is just the opinion of one person as to why there ISN'T.
If I say the reason GW doesn't make Squats is because they wouldn't sell well, that doesn't make me heightist or against small people. Even if it were true that GW don't make Squats because they wouldn't sell well, that doesn't make GW heightist or against small people.
Now, if the GW employee had said "Pfft, go away you crazy woman, no man would want to see that and your opinion is irrelevant". THAT would be sexist.
So once again we come back to it being "I want X model and X model doesn't exist". It's a step of extrapolation to then turn that in to sexism, and it's a step of extrapolation to turn the quote Ifalna gave into sexism.
treslibras wrote: There is a distinction between sexy and sexist, and erotic and pornographic. Where the line runs is up to negotiations, and depends on the level of moral intelligence of the negotiators.
In any case, negotiations should always be held in public (unless doing so would harm one party unfairly.) Just as moral values are not absolute but subject to ongoing discussions in society. (no, I don't believe in a god).
So I think that talking about this topic IS actually a form of doing something against it.
I like sexy models but I would still speak out against sexism in the hobby.
I also think the main question in this topic was less about individual miniatures, and more about a mainstream TREND. A trend to depict women as artificially sexualized masturbatory fantasies. A trend that might be less strong in recent years, or more strong, I cannot say. But this thread could have at least tried to find an answer to that (or did it somewhere hidden in these 20 pages of "you are dumb! No you! - No you!"?
emphasis added
Many solid points, Tres. And a good summation of what this thread should be about. A lot of the discussion has gotten bogged down and convoluted but hopefully it'll get back on track.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Now, if the GW employee had said "Pfft, go away you crazy woman, no man would want to see that and your opinion is irrelevant". THAT would be sexist.
And here's the problem: you assume that all sexism has to be blatant over-the-top "I HATE WOMEN" rants, and ignore more subtle forms.
So once again we come back to it being "I want X model and X model doesn't exist".
And I note that you continue to ignore my point that, in addition to the original situation, there's also the person in this thread dismissing it as "first world problems". And not only is that a problem, it goes way beyond "I want this model, make it for me!".
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Now, if the GW employee had said "Pfft, go away you crazy woman, no man would want to see that and your opinion is irrelevant". THAT would be sexist.
And here's the problem: you assume that all sexism has to be blatant over-the-top "I HATE WOMEN" rants, and ignore more subtle forms.
Forms so subtle that they're at best subjective and at worst non-existent. It's not sexist to feel the reason GW don't make a certain model is because you think they think it wouldn't sell as well.
There's a lot of commonalties with Halloween costumes aimed at women. Sex based advertising sells even with products aimed entirely at women. Every woman's magazine has some gorgeous female model on the cover, make-up, lip stick, lingerie all feature women of impossible standards. These products are aimed at a female audience yet still feature an unrealistic idealized female forms. (many of those products are designed and produced by women themselves) On a base level the sexualized female form appeals to women in some manner otherwise they wouldn't be buying many of those items.
Miniatures are hardly the first products to adopt that strategy, and IMO they are minor blip on the screen compared the much more sexist imagry we see everyday on TV or at the store.
I also know severel female gamers who specifically collect a lot of female cheesecake sculpts, they talk about them being hot and like the sexiness of the pieces so not every woman is offended by female nudity in miniature form.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/01/17 00:19:45
Paulson Games parts are now at:
www.RedDogMinis.com
Peregrine wrote: And I note that you continue to ignore my point that, in addition to the original situation, there's also the person in this thread dismissing it as "first world problems". And not only is that a problem, it goes way beyond "I want this model, make it for me!".
I choose to ignore it because I don't have a lot to say about it, in fact I didn't know that "FWP" stood for first world problems when I first read the post that used the term.
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.
Eh, Slaneesh Demons are hermaphrodites, at least in the first few iterations, the miniatures have changes over the years but not the backstory as far as i know.
And only the demonettes look like females, greater demons were always 4 armed minotaurs.
But i agree the most female figures are marketed at "the boy in puberty " still present in us males.
Peregrine wrote: And I note that you continue to ignore my point that, in addition to the original situation, there's also the person in this thread dismissing it as "first world problems". And not only is that a problem, it goes way beyond "I want this model, make it for me!".
I choose to ignore it because I don't have a lot to say about it, in fact I didn't know that "FWP" stood for first world problems when I first read the post that used the term.
You don't need to provide a detailed response to it, but you can't just keep saying "It's all about wanting model X and not having it" when there are other serious problems.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Every woman's magazine has some gorgeous female model on the cover, make-up, lip stick, lingerie all feature women of impossible standards. These products are aimed at a female audience yet still feature an unrealistic idealized female forms. (many of those products are designed and produced by women themselves) On a base level the sexualized female form appeals to women in some manner otherwise they wouldn't be buying many of those items.
Honestly, it would be fantastic if that was the only problem with those magazines.
I did a project once where I compared dozens of magazine covers for men's and women's magazines (this was a painful project). While both magazines typically focused on good looking, airbrushed people, one thing to note is the nature of the content itself. On the covers of men's magazines, you'll find advertisements about being active, getting things done, improving one's self for a better purpose, and generally doing things (it's important to note that although these magazines did focus on self-worth, it was almost never to do with a woman). Women's magazines tend to focus almost exclusively on being in a woman's relationship to a man.
Men are promoted to be dominant, independent, and acting; while women are promoted to be submissive, dependent, and passive. Essentially, men DO, women ARE.
