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.

That's exactly why I feel there's so many other things that belong at the front of that list. Miniatures are pretty low on the long list of real world things chipping away at women's esteem and percieved status.

Since I left the Philippines myself and my family have endured quite a bit of trouble. People have called me "stupid chink" even though I'm Filipino, I've had a rock thrown through my window, my tires slashed and my brother in-law got beat up by a group of guys "for taking their jobs."

The one place I can say that I have been absolutely 100% accepted without a single issue ever, was in the miniature wargaming community.

But I have noticed one thing. The acceptance stops the second you disparage what they are into. This is people's hobbies and when someone comes along to tell them their tastes are sexist or immoral guess what happens?

The discussion stops. No one will budge.

So if you want miniatures that appeal to you when it comes to depicting female soldiers, the way to go about doing that isn't to tell everyone around you that their tastes are sexist. It's 100% counter productive.

That's what gets feelings dismissed. Accusing other people of immorality. If you even imply contempt for someone else's tastes, they will stop caring what you have to say so very, very fast.

 Peregrine wrote:
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.

In the context of GW miniatures (not the hobby as a whole, and I qualified that when I said it) I do feel it is very much wanting a certain model and not having it rather than sexism or some bigger problems. If it were sexism then GW wouldn't have female models scattered through all the Elvish/Eldar races. In fact I think if you actually went through, you'd find GW make very few "cheesecake" models compared to non "cheesecake" female models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Fafnir wrote:
Men are promoted to be dominant, independent, and acting; while women are promoted to be submissive, dependent, and passive. Essentially, men DO, women ARE.

It's a good think no actual women I know act like that and no men I know treat them like that.

 Ouze wrote:
Also, "Sisters of Battle are pretty prominent"? I'd disagree pretty strongly. They're as barely supported as it's possible to be on the tabletop while still actually being in the game. They're a hair above Squats, frankly.

I think if you looked back over their history, what with the White Dwarf updates and whatnot, that you'd realize how hyperbolic this statement is.

 DemetriDominov wrote:
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.

Before I bother typing out a thoughtful response to your posts I'd like to know if you were being serious in the quoted text.

agustin wrote:
Snip

See, what you described there is having some perspective on actual injustice.

Something that is sadly lacking in the majority of this thread.

 Melissia wrote:

 Somedude593 wrote:
in the end if i like it im going to do it and feth what anyone else thinks...

So I like punching people in the face, so I'm gonna punch you in the face and feth what you think about it. If you don't like it, that's cool, but it doesn't matter because it's really all about how you see it. If you see me punching you in the face as a bad thing, well, that's your problem, not mine. Why so sensitive?

A mindset completely and utterly ignoring how others feel about your actions is stupid.

Someone was seriously butt-hurt when they said this.

And before we start talking about unrealistic looking and dressing female miniatures in the hobby, I would like to just point out how unrealistic it is in the first place for a woman to be running around fighting men in melee.

theGABE995 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Somedude593 wrote:
in the end if i like it im going to do it and feth what anyone else thinks...

So I like punching people in the face, so I'm gonna punch you in the face and feth what you think about it. If you don't like it, that's cool, but it doesn't matter because it's really all about how you see it. If you see me punching you in the face as a bad thing, well, that's your problem, not mine. Why so sensitive?

A mindset completely and utterly ignoring how others feel about your actions is stupid.

Someone was seriously butt-hurt when they said this.

And before we start talking about unrealistic looking and dressing female miniatures in the hobby, I would like to just point out how unrealistic it is in the first place for a woman to be running around fighting men in melee.

Now that's just sad. Go with that logic, tell us some other things women can't do. Balance a check book maybe? Any math related material really I mean there's men around for that so she shouldn't worry herself right? I know multiple females who I'd happily put up against a solid 85% of the men I know in hand to hand, with the remaining 15% being people like Matty (a member of a military elite) or are competitive fighters who've been swinging since they could walk and tear apart every threat they run into just as a general rule of thumb. Throw weapons into the mix and you're just leveling the playing field for women. That's the modern reason for a woman to carry a gun, it doesn't matter how big and tough you are, if she's got you on the wrong end of a pistol you're done. Far future military equipment such as power swords, chain swords, etc will only continue to level out that playing field for a trained soldier, and you'd be flat amazed with some of the crazy gak a determined individual with a rifle and a bayonet can do.

Thinking about it. in certain cases women may even have an advantage. Now a human in general isn't really going to hold up to say Orkz in close combat but there's actually an argument that a smaller, faster and thus harder to hit for an Ork's more lumbering strength based fighting style. (The difference between practiced martial arts and drunk rednecks having a punch up).

Then again we're talking about open melee combat period which is about as realistic as a tank made out of faerie cake is combat effective.

theGABE995 wrote:

Someone was seriously butt-hurt when they said this.

And before we start talking about unrealistic looking and dressing female miniatures in the hobby, I would like to just point out how unrealistic it is in the first place for a woman to be running around fighting men in melee.

"before we start talking" might be a ship that sailed 20 pages ago.

As for Melissa's original post, I think the only real problem with it was that it equated (for hyperbolic effect) real injustice (being punched in the face) with liking miniatures that have prominent breasts. Her actual point that we need to take into consideration the interests of others is actually pretty valuable. This is part of the problem with approaching this discussion from the perspective that liking miniatures that have prominent breasts is bad, it doesn't take into the consideration the interests of others and instead assigns them a negative moral value: sexism.

As for you realism point, we're dealing with fantasy and sci-fi here, so it's perfectly plausible to shrink the physical disparity between men and women to produce a kind of fictional underpinning that gives design space for competent female warriors. One could argue that with the advent of guns and modern training, women may actually be the more competent warriors.


[

As Manchu and others have touched on, the real problem in this thread is that people are talking past each other, mainly because there is fundamental disagreement on what the problem actually is. Roughly, the positions boil down to;

-One position is that there isn't enough variety in the available models, forcing women (or males interested in using female models) to use poor or pin-up style models out of a paucity of options. The people that hold this position don't want the pin-ups to disappear, they just want there to be more options.

A second position laments the very existence of pin-up models and that they are enjoyed by anyone. This side casts aspersions on people that do enjoy pin-ups, and regards the very existence of pin-ups as a form of oppression/sexism.

Now, I'm quite firmly in the first camp, as it appears most of the reasonable voices posting here (as does Melissa, unless I very much misunderstand her position). But there are posts in here of the second camp, and it is worth noting that the original article that prompted this is firmly in the latter category (the author, Lillian Cohen-Moore, dismisses KD:M as "patently sexist, exploitative and offensive miniatures").

I agree completely that there should be more options, more varieties of figures available and a greater number of female characters (in general, some companies are far ahead of others...). To me, that Jon troy Nickel can follow his passion and produce, as he says, "beautiful 3D women" is a wonderful thing and something that should be encouraged.

I also firmly and completely reject Lillian Cohen-Moore's notion that JTN and the other people behind KD:M are "disturbing and discouraging". Or that the content is "astoundingly sexist material" and "pointedly sexist artistic content". Finally, I utterly reject the notion that KD:M is ultimately funded by "consumers who... want sexist miniatures"*.

The great problem with the way things are going, of course, is that the people in the first group, who want more options, are... winning. As costs plunge and artists are increasingly able to enter the marketplace, more and more options are becoming available. The simple fact is, like they used to say about the weather, we can now say "don't like the miniatures you have available? Just wait a minute." Gone are the days when a single company stood over the miniature marketplace like a colossus; technology, globalization and the ability of people with an idea to pull in money have irrevocably changed the marketplace for the better. Seriously now, if a pair of young women from Wichita, KS can pull in almost $30,000 to start the line of miniatures they want, the only barriers now are motivation.

The reason this is a problem is that the people in the second group don't want more, they want less. Does anyone really think that Mrs. Cohen-Moore would be able to dredge up some encouraging words for the women behind JunkRobot? Their models make KD:M stuff look subtle and restrained. So as the market becomes more and more open, the second group is going to become more and more shrill and angry, even as the first is more and more satisfied with the evolving situation.

So, is there a problem in the modeling hobby? Sure, but how we define it completely determines whether one sees it as getting better, or getting worse.





*Note, her phrase is "I’d like to see the miniatures market catch up to consumers who don’t want sexist miniatures", that is, as opposed to the troglodytes that funded this...

I read the article Buzzsaw linked the first time he linked and I think that's actually a good point. It really comes down to a question that I think the /real/ debate is about. The goal posts for what is and isn't sexism seem to move around a lot and I think that's because we're still trying to define what will honestly be a /very/ thin line. What is objectification vs. art? Is this http://i00.i.aliimg.com/img/pb/172/676/292/292676172_178.jpg art or sexism? (probably wouldn't click that at work, no worse then a KD model though). If it's objectification or creepy (and frankly I think a dozen odd of those things in someone's room are creepy as hell. but that's personal experience with the types of people who own them) what makes this model any different? http://www.zbrushcentral.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=181137 (The Twilight Knight Pin Up from KD)

I honestly think my original intent with the thread got lost a little. It was originally more introspective then I think it came out. Then the "feminazi" crowd came out and frankly I hate those guys. I mean the first response to the thread was the usual "nerd blow off" argument when this type of thing, or other accusations of issues in our overarching community like violence, comes up. So even trying to have a rational discussion about it "Is this actually a problem? It seems like it might be" half the posters responding had their backs up and were growling from the word go. That usually indicates an issue.

For myself I /like/ cheesecake. If anyone was still selling them for less then a fresh kidney I'd probably collect original WW2 Pinup art. Most of the Kingdom Death models were a little OTT for me for anything but the start of a fantasy armor themed playboy spread but the Twilight Knight I posted above is on my potential buy list. She's a little more reasonably armored then her companions and I still enjoy the old school Heavy Metal art, where the White Speaker Pin up and even some of the female models within the main range had more a pandering "yo! sex appeal here!" feel to them.

With that said I'm right on board with Melissia, I think the issue isn't the cheesecake, it's that except for a rare few examples, cheesecake seems to be the default setting for the community. Like I said in the OP for the thread I'm transitioning to a hobby painter from an army builder (unless the Necrons manage to draw me in so I have at least one xenos faction XD) so I want to paint fun models and stick'em in the display case with my army. I want to combine my ability (limited as it is) with the sculptor and create something beautiful. Each mini is a tiny piece of art right? Well the majority of female minis that meet my unreasonably high standards are cheesecake, and I can't help but wonder what that says to a person coming into my home for the first time. One pin up? Probably not terrible, especially if it's well done, a case full of them? Anecdotes aside it's probably a different story.

But then again, the sales info from Reaper and the like doesn't lie, someone quoted a sales stat of 10 to 1 cheesecake models to let's call them "modest" models, but is it because the latter is usually worse in quality to the former? Or because the purchasers just want to enjoy some T&A with their D&D game? You could probably make a solid argument for BOTH those things to be true. I've certainly noticed the quality's poorer on the whole if you step off planet cheescake for female minis.

So am I the problem? Probably not. Are most of us? Probably not. Is there a problem for our little sub culture within the nerd culture, and for nerddom and society on the whole? Yes. Undoubtedly. Now where do we go from here?

That's the other interesting thing that thread brought up on it's own that looks past the minis and into the culture. "Well this is a man's hobby" or "It's not natural for women to be into stuff like this" despite several lady wargamers contributing their thoughts and experiences about resistance they've seen or experienced with in the community, personal feelings on things like the minis and basically sharing the female point of view on A. obstacles on adding more women to the ranks of wargamers and B. how to remove those obstacles.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I mean the first response to the thread was the usual "nerd blow off" argument when this type of thing,

Your original post included material (especially in that you linked to the article by MCM calling KD:M "sexist, exploitative and offensive miniatures") that morally impugns those who enjoy that kind of content as sexist. What should someone's response be when someone tells them that stuff they like is morally wrong and suggests that the industry/hobby might have a problem? I think the first response and the tendency you pointed out in the original post for people to just blow it off is a perfectly appropriate response.

You can't have a discussion when one side thinks the other are immoral and opens up with that. It's just not going to work. That's WHY you got that first response like that.

If you want people to engage in a real discussion, don't open up by impugning their character. Here's a later post of yours, also from the first page, in reaction to Sean O'Brian:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Well now we're into the meat and potatoes of the issue. The companies provide the goods but it's the masses at large who buy them, so we the masses are at fault for driving the consumption of the product. The same could be said for Nerd Culture's sexism issue on a whole. How do we correct that? Who should correct that? Is it the corporation's responsibility? Ours? Should we just not care and say it is what it is? I agree with Melissia's point on that last argument but I suppose it is on the table.

Look at your language. ""we the masses are at fault" "At fault" for what exactly? Buying products people enjoy? Oh, you go on to explain. It's the sexism of Nerd Culture! Oh, and we need to fix that!

Now imagine you've just been told you are "at fault" and what you like is part of "Nerd Culture's sexism issue."

Back to your latest post:

So am I the problem? Probably not. Are most of us? Probably not. Is there a problem for our little sub culture within the nerd culture, and for nerddom and society on the whole? Yes. Undoubtedly.

Or maybe in this case, sculptors are making figures they enjoy and people who want to own them, paint them and maybe play a wargame with them are buying and enjoying them. As Buzzsaw pointed out, there has never been an easier time to have a vision for some miniatures and then bring that to fruition in the form of cast product. So we're going to see more stuff like Statuesque but also more stuff like JunkRobot and KD:M.

I don' t think we need moralizing crusaders on this issue at all, but as Buzzsaw pointed out, the openness of the market is going to mean that the crusaders are going to have more and more reason to complain rather than less in their attempt to control what other people enjoy. And of course people who do like the new products are going to give the usual "nerd blow off" because why should they take this moral imperialism seriously when they're being told what they like is "sexist, exploitive and offensive"?

-a

agustin wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I mean the first response to the thread was the usual "nerd blow off" argument when this type of thing,

Your original post included material (especially in that you linked to the article by MCM calling KD:M "sexist, exploitative and offensive miniatures") that morally impugns those who enjoy that kind of content as sexist. What should someone's response be when someone tells them that stuff they like is morally wrong and suggests that the industry/hobby might have a problem? I think the first response and the tendency you pointed out in the original post for people to just blow it off is a perfectly appropriate response.

You can't have a discussion when one side thinks the other are immoral and opens up with that. It's just not going to work. That's WHY you got that first response like that.

If you want people to engage in a real discussion, don't open up by impugning their character.

Someone was mean to me so it's time to behave poorly? Yes I linked the article because it's what spurred the desire to have a discussion. Is the writer OTT? Yep, does she have a point? She certainly seems to think so, and just blowing it off like gamers always do the violent video games crowd seemed a poor idea in general. I promise I'll never think highly enough of the rest of Dakka that they'll have the ability to get past the specter of potential insult ever again.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Well now we're into the meat and potatoes of the issue. The companies provide the goods but it's the masses at large who buy them, so we the masses are at fault for driving the consumption of the product. The same could be said for Nerd Culture's sexism issue on a whole. How do we correct that? Who should correct that? Is it the corporation's responsibility? Ours? Should we just not care and say it is what it is? I agree with Melissia's point on that last argument but I suppose it is on the table.

Look at your language. ""we the masses are at fault" "At fault" for what exactly? Buying products people enjoy? Oh, you go on to explain. It's the sexism of Nerd Culture! Oh, and we need to fix that!

Now imagine you've just been told you are "at fault" and what you like is part of "Nerd Culture's sexism issue."

And yet it's exactly a valid point for what was being discussed at the time (oh no! context!), that was a direct response to why the market has the products it has now. Probably could have used a better choice of words but life happens. As to Nerd Culture having a sexism issue, you can deny that all you want, it's a free planet and you can ignore reality all you want.

Back to your latest post:

So am I the problem? Probably not. Are most of us? Probably not. Is there a problem for our little sub culture within the nerd culture, and for nerddom and society on the whole? Yes. Undoubtedly.

Or maybe in this case, sculptors are making figures they enjoy and people who want to own them, paint them and maybe play a wargame with them are buying and enjoying them. As Buzzsaw pointed out, there has never been an easier time to have a vision for some miniatures and then bring that to fruition in the form of cast product. So we're going to see more stuff like Statuesque but also more stuff like JunkRobot and KD:M.

I don' t think we need moralizing crusaders on this issue at all, but as Buzzsaw pointed out, the openness of the market is going to mean that the crusaders are going to have more and more reason to complain rather than less in their attempt to control what other people enjoy.

It's funny how you point fingers about inflammatory language and casting aspirations on people but do the same thing yourself. I just said I like cheesecake, not as much as apple pie but it's a decent desert now and then nor has any one to my knowledge in this thread said the cheesecake needs to go away, that includes our female posters.

Personally, I think that the GW-universe's abject horror at the notion of female Space Marines is as close to my threshold of sexism as I can take. While people are readily accepting of pink Orks, counts-as silver painted skeletons as Necrons, and Chaos Grey Knights, but plop down one genetically enhanced female super soldier in power armor and the great crying and gnashing of teeth ensues.

I’m in the ‘wish there was more variety in female minis’ camp. It’s hard to justify saves greater than a 6+ when the mini is topless.

 eledamris wrote:
Personally, I think that the GW-universe's abject horror at the notion of female Space Marines is as close to my threshold of sexism as I can take. While people are readily accepting of pink Orks, counts-as silver painted skeletons as Necrons, and Chaos Grey Knights, but plop down one genetically enhanced female super soldier in power armor and the great crying and gnashing of teeth ensues.

And off course you had to pick Space Wolves...

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Someone was mean to me so it's time to behave poorly?

Telling someone to "**** off" is a perfectly reasonable response when someone attempts to impose their morality on you. It's not behaving poorly at all.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
And yet it's exactly a valid point for what was being discussed at the time (oh no! context!), that was a direct response to why the market has the products it has now.

Right. I placed in in context by saying who you were responding to and then brought it right back to products and purchasing in my same post after I told you how you are coming across to those who like the things you are (hopefully inadvertently?) impugning as immoral.

It's funny how you point fingers about inflammatory language and casting aspirations on people but do the same thing yourself.

I'm trying to communicate just how polarizing the position you started with really is. And why people are reacting the way they do. I don't know how to do that without resorting to strong language. Blame it on English being my 3rd language-- sorry! Actually one of the reasons I'm posting in this thread is to practice.

If I were to sum up my position on this issue, it would be:

1) People don't like being told what they like or do is immoral. Whether it's a bible thumper telling them about their sins or a feminist point at them as participating in exploitation, it puts people's walls up and makes them either disengage ("nerd blow off") or answer back.

2) Artists should be able to sculpt what they like and people should be able to buy what they like as long as they are obeying the laws of their jurisdictions. I know I haven't really developed this thought very much, but my main point here is that it's okay for people to enjoy things I find immoral and for there to even be an industry around that as long as it's not actually harming people. And I've seen what real harm looks like, not this made up "it hurts my feelings" or "it makes me uncomfortable" harm.

3) We're talking about toy soldiers and games people play with them. This ties into the "First World Problems" posts I made and my preceding point about real harm. There's a difference between real exploitation of women and MCM's claim that miniatures can be exploitive. I think this conflation between real sexism, exploitation and misogyny and "it made me feel uncomfortable" is a direct result of western affluence and privilege on the part of the feminists.

4) The accusers of sexism are going to lose in the end. The market is becoming more and more accessible and the KD:M and JunkRobot kickstarters, along with Reaper's info, prove that people are going to fund what they like and more and more "sexist, exploitive, and offensive" miniatures are going to be made. There will also be other great miniatures that take a different approach to depicting women (does Statuesque count?), but the proliferation of the type of miniatures you brought up as being problematic in your original post is going to increase.

Am I still being too strong in my language? Let me know.

1. I don't disagree with this point, but it doesn't mean there isn't a problem. Just bringing up "Sexism" in any sense, accusatory or not (and I wasn't trying to be) triggers these reactions. So just by starting the conversation you're stepping on some toes, but the conversation's probably worth having if you have to step on toes and shake things up to have it. That female space marine mini above is a /perfect/ example. You ever want to troll less civil wargaming forums then Dakka? Or hives of scum and villainy like /tg? That's a great way to start. Even in this thread there was a massive negative reaction to the implication there could be or should be or that the fluff could accommodate female space marines. (Again no one's asking for that either, at least not here)

2. Don't think any one here in the thread is saying that still.

3. Being made to feel uncomfortable or unwelcome in a setting is not exactly a new tactic for excluding individuals from somewhere or something. I have a friend who's a female welder and she ended up suing her first shop for discrimination, the entire staff didn't need to do anything direct, just make things uncomfortable to her till working there was miserable. Can't break up the boy's club right? (Her shop settled out of court before it could reach trial, she now has a new shop that's much more open, and does metalworking art on the side)

4. Do we really want them to lose though? I'm not even talking about minis at this point, but over all as a society on the whole better there are people willing to call things out as potentially being harmful or wrong then just letting things ride as they are. The teenage girl who called out magazines targeted at her age group for excessive photoshop for example and got that changed. Are some of these folks a little OTT and do they ride the controversy train a little too much? It's possible, but I'd still rather have them then not.

You're fine, but it's worth noting that "Crusader" and "attempting to control" have strong connotations in English. Possibly more so for me more then others, but being spit on and called a "crusader pig" leaves an impression.

 eledamris wrote:
Personally, I think that the GW-universe's abject horror at the notion of female Space Marines is as close to my threshold of sexism as I can take. While people are readily accepting of pink Orks, counts-as silver painted skeletons as Necrons, and Chaos Grey Knights, but plop down one genetically enhanced female super soldier in power armor and the great crying and gnashing of teeth ensues.

Pray do tell, from who does this great greiving come from? Certainly not me thats for sure. I actually have plans for female super soldiers in my forces. Now if people have a problem with that its tough titties for them. I actually welcome diversity. And to all those out there, if me owning a model of a nudy or semi nude hot chick makes me a pervert in your eyes well feth you. If i want at some point in my lidfe to make an army of but naked chicks then thats my problem and it sure as hell dosnt make me a pervert (unless its for an aspect of rule 36[shudder]). As it is if the model is good then i will paint it. It has nothing to do with this sexulisation of women.

This thread has de-railed magnificently. Now that weve all had our slanging match and aired our opinions and/or greivances can we please try to settle into a calm debate? Is it really that hard?

oh and @Melissia im sorry if i offended you, i did not intend to.

 eledamris wrote:
Personally, I think that the GW-universe's abject horror at the notion of female Space Marines is as close to my threshold of sexism as I can take. While people are readily accepting of pink Orks, counts-as silver painted skeletons as Necrons, and Chaos Grey Knights, but plop down one genetically enhanced female super soldier in power armor and the great crying and gnashing of teeth ensues.

That's an awful model though.. Why the feth did they put tit-sockets on the power armour? Tits aren't big enough to require them being worked into the armour.. and I know this because my missus wore plate-mail in the British museum once.

Unless every woman in the future has had Ceramite Breast implants.

When it's done as part of an aesthetic on miniatures, that are pretty damned small, breasts are the easiest way to define the gender. There are examples of bad sculpts and good sculpts.

Is this maybe just a case of Lady Nerds with body issues? Not that I'd know anything about that, being a fine specimen of a young man... raised on alcohol, deep fried food and a strict regime of minimal exercise... *cough*

Does anybody actually treat women any differently by the way they are portrayed in miniature war games/fantasy role play? Really?

 mattyrm wrote:

 eledamris wrote:
Personally, I think that the GW-universe's abject horror at the notion of female Space Marines is as close to my threshold of sexism as I can take. While people are readily accepting of pink Orks, counts-as silver painted skeletons as Necrons, and Chaos Grey Knights, but plop down one genetically enhanced female super soldier in power armor and the great crying and gnashing of teeth ensues.

That's an awful model though.. Why the feth did they put tit-sockets on the power armour? Tits aren't big enough to require them being worked into the armour.. and I know this because my missus wore plate-mail in the British museum once.

Because little nerdy boys want sexy space wimins. But i have to agree, those Breasts are an awful job.....

Oh and high 5 to your missus for wearing plate mail .

That's another point that I don't understand.

"Nerdy boys want sexy space women". Absolute nonsense, it's the rule of cool. Sisters of Battle aren't appealing because they are "sexy". They are appealing because they take the image of a Nun and make it into something cool. They hunt and burn Heretic, Witches and Mutants whilst having an awesomely Gothic aesthetic.

I think the people that want female miniatures to be sexy are woefully in the minority. Like, "get away from me you freak" minority in a hobby that's about collecting plastic model kits that do battle.

 Medium of Death wrote:
That's another point that I don't understand.

"Nerdy boys want sexy space women". Absolute nonsense, it's the rule of cool. Sisters of Battle aren't appealing because they are "sexy". They are appealing because they take the image of a Nun and make it into something cool. They hunt and burn Heretic, Witches and Mutants whilst having an awesomely Gothic aesthetic.

I think the people that want female miniatures to be sexy are woefully in the minority. Like, "get away from me you freak" minority in a hobby that's about collecting plastic model kits that do battle.

Sisters of Battle are not even that appealing to most people at all because the sculpts are terrible and don't fit in to 40k at all. I like minis such as the ones by Kingdom Death, I think the sculpting works is incredible and the minis really have artistic merit, does that make me part of the "get away from me you freak" minority?

 Medium of Death wrote:

"Nerdy boys want sexy space women". Absolute nonsense, it's the rule of cool.

Yeah you have to be right there like.. I mean, really.. you cant see feth all worth looking at on a mini, its not like its because they want to perve on chicks.. its the internet era for feths sake, there are numerous, free and easy ways to see as much tit as you like...why worry about 28mm models?

Actually, I think the same kinda thing about mens magazines. I have literally never bought one. You know.... gak articles and a woman on the front who is a little bit scantily clad?!

I mean, if I want to read something, I read an actual book.

If I want to look at tits, I look at proper pornography!

What the hell is the point in FHM anyway!?

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."

No, sexism isn't a first world problem, it's a planetary one. The degree on the scale is certainly different to Manila's treatment of women, but prejudice doesn't go away in the first world, it just changes it's tone and tactic. The Philippines are world famous for the treatment of women, for all the wrong reasons, so I imagine this does seem terribly petty by comparison, but it is a cog in a link of continual representation of women as property, sexual objectification and as victims.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

theGABE995 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Somedude593 wrote:
in the end if i like it im going to do it and feth what anyone else thinks...

So I like punching people in the face, so I'm gonna punch you in the face and feth what you think about it. If you don't like it, that's cool, but it doesn't matter because it's really all about how you see it. If you see me punching you in the face as a bad thing, well, that's your problem, not mine. Why so sensitive?

A mindset completely and utterly ignoring how others feel about your actions is stupid.

Someone was seriously butt-hurt when they said this.

And before we start talking about unrealistic looking and dressing female miniatures in the hobby, I would like to just point out how unrealistic it is in the first place for a woman to be running around fighting men in melee.

Now that's just sad. Go with that logic, tell us some other things women can't do..

Ok I'll bite.

On average (per DoD studies, I'll dig up the links later) women cannot throw a hand grenade far enough to take themselves out of the blast radius. Women also due to musculature build can not forced march with gear and pack as far as men. Now before you start screaming these are averages and there are always results on either side of the bell curve.

If you wish to argue either of these points please make sure to cover in your rebuttal the outcry over women being moved to Pull up's for the the USMC's physical fitness test from bent arm hangs. Also please cover the divergent standards in every branches physical fitness tests, one level for men one level for women.

I think we can all agree on FHM being completely pointless and only make you look like a d-bag if you buy one. There's a time and a place, and it's at home for free on the internet.

 MetalOxide wrote:


Sisters of Battle are not even that appealing to most people at all because the sculpts are terrible and don't fit in to 40k at all.

Sculpts are a subjective, but the "don't fit into 40k" just needs to be laughed out the room.

I'd like you to coherently point out were the Gothic Space Nuns don't fit into the Grimdark Universe or Aesthetic of the Imperium.

I'm curious:
What exactly is currently the topic of this discussion?

Also, I've seen "Well, our hobby HAS a sexism problem, can't deny that" thrown around several times.
How exactly? Could somebody elaborate?

 Medium of Death wrote:
Sculpts are a subjective, but the "don't fit into 40k" just needs to be laughed out the room.

But... their existence is devastating to my portrayal of women being sidelined in 40k! We need to marginalize them as much as possible in this thread!

I think we can all agree on FHM being completely pointless and only make you look like a d-bag if you buy one. There's a time and a place, and it's at home for free on the internet.

 MetalOxide wrote:


Sisters of Battle are not even that appealing to most people at all because the sculpts are terrible and don't fit in to 40k at all.

Sculpts are a subjective, but the "don't fit into 40k" just needs to be laughed out the room.

I'd like you to coherently point out were the Gothic Space Nuns don't fit into the Grimdark Universe or Aesthetic of the Imperium.

agustin wrote:
Since I left the Philippines myself and my family have endured quite a bit of trouble. People have called me "stupid chink" even though I'm Filipino, I've had a rock thrown through my window, my tires slashed and my brother in-law got beat up by a group of guys "for taking their jobs."

The one place I can say that I have been absolutely 100% accepted without a single issue ever, was in the miniature wargaming community.

But I have noticed one thing. The acceptance stops the second you disparage what they are into. This is people's hobbies and when someone comes along to tell them their tastes are sexist or immoral guess what happens?

The discussion stops. No one will budge.

So if you want miniatures that appeal to you when it comes to depicting female soldiers, the way to go about doing that isn't to tell everyone around you that their tastes are sexist. It's 100% counter productive.

That's what gets feelings dismissed. Accusing other people of immorality. If you even imply contempt for someone else's tastes, they will stop caring what you have to say so very, very fast.

So, let me get this straight. You've been prejudged and treated as somehow less than a man for being somewhere the locals don't accept you.

You have been subjected to blatant and outright abuse, and I'm sure subtle digs as well, because of what you look like, not who you are.

You find a haven of acceptance in tabletop miniwargaming.

Someone else says, hey, I feel marginalized in tabletop miniwargaming, even though I like that hobby and participate just like you. But there is an institutional underlying prejudice about me because of what i am, what I look like, not who I am.

And you say GTFO. If you say anything bad about it, you deserve what you get. My haven can't be yours.

Wow.