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.

An open question to those who are bent out shape about miniatures that fetishizes women's sexuality.

If one is okay with a universe that fetishizes violence, war, death, torture, murder and slavery, why pick boobies to make a stand on?

I think that the realism of war gaming models and the physical requirements for being a front line infantry person are two distinct subjects.

Also, feeder raises an excellent point.

feeder wrote:
If one is okay with a universe that fetishizes violence, war, death, torture, murder and slavery, why pick boobies to make a stand on?

/thread

 Peregrine wrote:


Women waring chainmail bikinis in combat is a major offense against realism. It isn't believable at all, and immediately stands out as a stupid idea without even having to think about it very hard. And, unlike having women at all, it's done for a bad reason. There's no greater good being served by defying strict realism a bit, it's just sex appeal at the expense of some potential players.

But how many potential players are we talking about here? Are these the same players that won't watch any action film ever, because a few action movies happen to portray women in an oversexualized fashion? It isn't like every single female miniature in every single mini wargaming game is a bikini samurai.

They can refuse to participate in anything that sexualizes women if they want, but then they really can't ever leave their houses.

The game companies gain a lot more customers with the sex, than with good role models.

feeder wrote:An open question to those who are bent out shape about miniatures that fetishizes women's sexuality.

If one is okay with a universe that fetishizes violence, war, death, torture, murder and slavery, why pick boobies to make a stand on?

Because it seems as though women get the short hand of the stick even beyond all of it.

Idc about the smut of 40k, it doesn't matter that it's in it, because it is an accepted part of the horror narrative that is 40k, and very well should be because it illustrates yet another dystopian thought - people as objects.

That said, why is it that there is an overwhelmingly majority of stories that have men be the heros? That the overwhelming majority of heros (and villians) on the model line are men? To barely include women in the narrative and give them their due respect as hero's of the Imperium is perpetuating the nonsense that Monster Rain and others on this thread are championing - That women cannot make good soldiers, and must take a back seat in supportive roles while the men be heros because they are better, faster, stronger. That in itself is the very sexism we are (or at least should be) talking about here. I mean really, if you actually stop to think of it, what difference does it matter if you bench 150, or 475, when a single pull of a trigger, a push of a button, the slash of a knife, or even a swift kick to the nads can even the odds? Women also make fantastic endurance athletes, because humans make fantastic endurance athletes, and like anyone else can be trained or even augmented to become strong enough to perform any front-line duty. After all, look at the SoB or Callidus Assassin's, they exemplify the effort humanity makes to pit everything it has in the fight for its survival, and proves that women in this universe bring their enemy's face first into the dirt just as easily as any man on their best day. It's just an unfortunate fact that we hardly get to see this happen, and seldom see it in the guard, and must actively go the distance to make it happen in our own armies by outsourcing models or sculpting it ourselves, a skill not all of us are capable of.

Monster Rain wrote:I think that the realism of war gaming models and the physical requirements for being a front line infantry person are two distinct subjects.

Also, feeder raises an excellent point.

Furthermore, going back to my point of having the sex symbols of Eldar women (of both alignments) being more successful in the franchise than squat women - it just illustrates the point that sexism exists everywhere, after all, if you could pay to spend time with them in book or plastic form, most people would still choose the Eldar if squats were on equal footing (which they most certainly are not already). Sex undoubtedly sells. People like certain things, men like different things than women, and there aren't as many women buying into this hobby as men. It's unfair, but it's the truth, and the lack of sex appeal may have even attributed to squats disappearing from the lore for almost a decade, because it's hard to sell ugly things unless you can somehow find a way to make them sexy... a.k.a Badass.

feeder wrote:
An open question to those who are bent out shape about miniatures that fetishizes women's sexuality.

If one is okay with a universe that fetishizes violence, war, death, torture, murder and slavery, why pick boobies to make a stand on?

Because we're not too concerned with the poor serial killers who might be excluded from the hobby because they're not comfortable being objectified.

 Dannyevilguy wrote:
They can refuse to participate in anything that sexualizes women if they want, but then they really can't ever leave their houses.

"But they did it too!" isn't justification. Shouldn't we have higher standards than "well, I guess we're not the worst community out there"?

 Varrick wrote:
I think we are missing an important point in this argument. Now, obviously all humans & all soldiers are not Olympic athletes, but if you looked at the women's weight lifting categories, they tend to be slim. So i can quite easily buy a woman with infantry required strength having Lt. Miras body structure. And before anyone says a blasted thing, i know that there are a lot of Olympic weight lifters with a lot of girth to them, wide body range there.

Yes they may be slim but that does not guarentee that they wont even look the slightest bit more muscular than your average woman. Also you need to take into account that most miniatures are sculpted in 'heroic' proportions which in comparison, tend to be taller and bigger in every respect. Also the muscles are exaggerated and stylized.

For example, it would be silly to see realistically proportioned female miniatures amongst heroic poportioned male miniatures. It would be like mixing Imperial Guard with Infinity miniatures (I'm not saying Inifinity is realistically proportioned).

 Dannyevilguy wrote:
But how many potential players are we talking about here? Are these the same players that won't watch any action film ever, because a few action movies happen to portray women in an oversexualized fashion? It isn't like every single female miniature in every single mini wargaming game is a bikini samurai.

We do also keep flipping around about the subject matter we're talking about.

I don't really know anything about Kingdom Death, but from what I understand the uber sexualised models are entirely separate to the game and akin to buying a poster of a half nekkid chick to put up on your wall.

Then we flip to talking about GW games, which frankly I don't see the huge issue, they don't have a disproportionate number of "cheesecake" models (at least not that I've noticed, they have a few I know). They do have female models scattered through their range of both Fantasy and 40k, so I think it's hard to accuse them of direct sexism, the quality and quantity then becomes a debatable point.

Then we flip to talking about IG and Space Marines or whatever specific armies having female models, which I think becomes a bit more debatable (and can be debated without getting in to sexism at all, though we do keep getting in to it) and where my opinion falls toward "you want models that don't exist, that's a shame, but too bad, there's models I want that don't exist either".

Then we flip to sexism within the community. Personally I think this is exaggerated, I actually find it hard to believe unless someone can come along and tell specific cases where a gaming community has ostracised then for being a woman anymore than gamers ostracise anyone for any reason. I haven't met a lot of females interested in the hobby, but the ones I do know the only real thing you can accuse the local gaming communities of doing is smothering them because they either don't know how to treat women or are simply overwhelmed and excited that a woman would actually be interested in the first place (like when I see a woman interested in cars, admittedly my attraction doubles, I can't help it, the idea of a woman interested in the same thing as me is exciting ). One close female friend I had used to complain of sexism, but it was simply because guys would fawn all over her, my response was that's a shame but you can hardly blame them (FYI, I say "had" because I stopped talking to her after she couldn't stop making racist comments to me and projecting her dislike of men on to me).

Then we flip to discussions about whether women in front line combat roles is realistic (which IMO the only thing it has to do with wargaming is whether the sculpter feels women are appropriate in a given army, and that's certainly not the ONLY reason a sculpter might find females inappropriate for their army).

I'm sure the conversation flips around even more than that, that's just what I've been following.

And all the while it's unnecessarily emotionally charged (at least IMO).

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
One close female friend I had used to complain of sexism, but it was simply because guys would fawn all over her, my response was that's a shame but you can hardly blame them.

Of course we can blame them. This is part of the problem, the idea that women should just have to put up with being fawned over because who can blame the guys? People need to stop justifying that kind of behavior and understand that "not having a sexism problem" includes treating women just like any male player.

 Peregrine wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
One close female friend I had used to complain of sexism, but it was simply because guys would fawn all over her, my response was that's a shame but you can hardly blame them.

Of course we can blame them. This is part of the problem, the idea that women should just have to put up with being fawned over because who can blame the guys? People need to stop justifying that kind of behavior and understand that "not having a sexism problem" includes treating women just like any male player.

I see you love blaming people for things. That's a bloody great way to make progress, lets blame everything on someone. The reason I say you can't blame them is because chances are they're probably some mix of socially inept, ignorant and/or just flat out not used to dealing with women. Firstly, you probably DON'T want to be treated like just another one of the guys, I know I sling insults at my male friends far more happily than would be politically correct or even comfortable for a female, secondly, if you actually want guys to change you have to stop blaming people for things. When I say people fawning over her, I mean simply people paying too much attention, not whipping their cocks out or something. Once you've played a few games with them, they settle down. At least that's been my observation, as I said I don't know a lot of females in the hobby, but of the 2 girls who are in the local gaming club, people treat them just the same as everyone else. Once guys don't see you as some ditzy girl who stumbled in to the wrong door, they'll stop treating you as such.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
The reason I say you can't blame them is because chances are they're probably some mix of socially inept, ignorant and/or just flat out not used to dealing with women.

So stop making excuses for them. The solution is to tell them that their behavior is unacceptable, not to excuse it and tell the victim of their social ineptness to just deal with it.

Firstly, you probably DON'T want to be treated like just another one of the guys, I know I sling insults at my male friends far more happily than would be politically correct or even comfortable for a female, secondly, if you actually want guys to change you have to stop blaming people for things.

Thank you for providing yet another example of the sexism problem. Women are people, they aren't some kind of magical creatures that have a greater-than-male sensitivity to insults.

 Peregrine wrote:
Thank you for providing yet another example of the sexism problem. Women are people, they aren't some kind of magical creatures that have a greater-than-male sensitivity to insults.

How the hell did you pull that from what I said?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To address your first point, if you go in with a confrontational attitude like that guess what, people aren't going to like you, it has nothing to do with your sex, they simply won't like you. Good luck finding equality when people would rather not have you around in the first place.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
How the hell did you pull that from what I said?

Because that's what you said. Let us review:

I know I sling insults at my male friends far more happily than would be politically correct or even comfortable for a female

You said very clearly that a woman would be uncomfortable with your insults while your male friends are fine with it. You're just stereotyping and assuming that you have to treat women differently just because they're women, and that is a problem.

To address your first point, if you go in with a confrontational attitude like that guess what, people aren't going to like you, it has nothing to do with your sex, they simply won't like you. Good luck finding equality when people would rather not have you around in the first place.

Then exactly what attitude should you have when dealing with socially inept people who make other people uncomfortable?

(Also, often that "I'm just socially inept" excuse is just that, an excuse, and the real issue is lack of respect for boundaries and the person knows very well that they're doing something inappropriate.)

Just seen a related BBC article...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21033708

 Peregrine wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
How the hell did you pull that from what I said?

Because that's what you said. Let us review:

I know I sling insults at my male friends far more happily than would be politically correct or even comfortable for a female

You said very clearly that a woman would be uncomfortable with your insults while your male friends are fine with it. You're just stereotyping and assuming that you have to treat women differently just because they're women, and that is a problem.

Sorry I misread what you said, too tired. The reason I don't insult a woman the same way I insult a man is because I have 3 older sisters and I know the type of things I say that the vast majority of dudes will shrug off would insult a lot of women. My first girlfriend taught me a lot as well, comments similar to what my friends laugh at would have her giving me a grim stare. Now, obviously some men are more sensitive to banter and some women aren't, I admit I was probably over generalising.

To address your first point, if you go in with a confrontational attitude like that guess what, people aren't going to like you, it has nothing to do with your sex, they simply won't like you. Good luck finding equality when people would rather not have you around in the first place.

Then exactly what attitude should you have when dealing with socially inept people who make other people uncomfortable?

(Also, often that "I'm just socially inept" excuse is just that, an excuse, and the real issue is lack of respect for boundaries and the person knows very well that they're doing something inappropriate.)

I feel like we're talking about different things here again. What I'm talking about is simply realise that the socially inept people are either ignorant and/or uncomfortable themselves. If you have the social skills they lack, just act normally and go about business, eventually they'll learn how to interact with you... usually only in the time it takes them to realise you are just another person who is enthusiastic about miniatures and wargaming. This is partly why I said I think the whole thing is overblown. You, right now, are overblowing it, making a mountain of a mole hill. If I actually thought that dudes were actually smothering women in gaming in any significant way, I might think differently, but hey, maybe it's cultural, the lasses in my local gaming club get along just fine with everyone and I've only really seen a girl getting kinda smothered with too much attention once and it was only up until people realised she was just another person interested in the hobby.

Maybe folks around my parts are just more mature or maybe you spend too much time hanging around with horny kids who have hormone imbalances and couldn't help staring at a girl if they tried.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'll add to that and say that labelling and accusing and being confrontational and acting like there's serious problems when there isn't is a great way to make well meaning people dislike you. And if they weren't well meaning people, why on earth do you want to be part of their community? Some people aren't sexist pricks, they're simply just pricks and you should not feel excluded by not being part of their community. A couple of my other hobbies I stopped hanging around the local communities simply because people were, too put it gently, not nice.

Mountains out of mole hills.

I'm going to bed now, g'night.

The way that this thread is going i am apparently now a sesist prick for being a gentleman and allowing ladys to pass through a door before me or offering up my seat on the bus.

Oh and BTW my Girlfriend is about 6" smaller than me and far lighter built, cant pick me up off the ground, dosnt weight lift and i can lift her off the ground with ease. If she gets pissed she can drop almost anyone i know, baring myself, with one punch. Now try telling me women are not as good as men in combat.

 master of ordinance wrote:
The way that this thread is going i am apparently now a sesist prick for being a gentleman and allowing ladys to pass through a door before me or offering up my seat on the bus.

Well, yes, if you did not do that to any fellow man in the same situation, you were very rude to members of your own gender!

Also, last time I checked, it was customary and good behaviour to leave your seat to persons in need.
So if you leave your seat to any woman that comes around, you would be implying that all women are persons in need.*
...Unless you were fed up of being physically abused by your +6" girl-friend every time she was drunk, and you were taking every desperate move to hook up with a new one? I could sympathize with that!

I do agree, though, that too many people are ranting about their own little penises, instead of trying to advance the worthwhile discussion.

Hmm, you never said that??

*cough*strawman*cough*


*This would indeed qualify as a sexist statement, unless it was meant as part of a very broad philosophical argument of possibly buddhist flavour.

 master of ordinance wrote:
If she gets pissed she can drop almost anyone i know, baring myself, with one punch. Now try telling me women are not as good as men in combat.

I'm sorry, its a little OT, but that's just nonsense, and Im not even remotely sexist, .. surely its not even remotely sexist to simply be aware of the fact that we are different physically!?

Women simply aren't "as good" (entirely equal) with men in "combat" (I don't like using the word combat because its far too broad a brush) no matter how you slice it.

4 of the fittest women in the British Armed forces came down to Commando Training Centre Royal Marines in Lympstone and got put through their paces with a view to the Navy allowing women to try out, and they were merely good. None of them could get to the top of the 30 foot rope (Its free standing) wearing all of their webbing (25lbs) and carrying their rifles. The best effort got about 27 feet up before skidding down uncontrolled due to her fingers not obeying her brain anymore. And it is mandatory that you complete the test at week 24 before you are allowed onto the Tarzan Assault Course (a very high assault course) for safety reasons. If you dont pass it, you dont pass out and earn your green lid. Its bye bye for you.

A woman can be fit enough to do it I don't doubt, but she would have to be exceptional, a man merely has to be very fit.

The training bleed for men doing commando training is about 8/10. For women It would have to be 99/100. They are excellent (very nearly equal) at cardiovascular work, but really struggle with strength work, such as fireman's carrying a wounded soldier 200 meters in full kit with weapon (another pass or fail requirement they struggled with) doing rope regains or completing a 6 mile log run. A man of equal height and weight will ALWAYS be stronger than a woman, its biology and its common sense.

Women are awesome, and some women can doubtless perform well in a combat role because they don't have to be supremely fit. For example female snipers killed gak loads of guys in Vietnam and Russia.

But "combat" is a very varied and difficult thing to pigeon-hole, its not just shooting your pistol or lying on a compound roof and firing a sniper rifle. When I was in Afghanistan, some days you had to smash through a heavy compound door six hours into a fatiguing patrol, or carry some ladders with all your kit, or carry all of the ammo for the GPMG, or drag a casualty to a helicopter, or spend 6 hours throwing ammo crates onto Chinooks, whatever is needed in a hard pressed and under manned fob a mile away from an enemy stronghold.

There is no way anyone with experience of the matter would ever put women in that kind of job if they could pick equally fit men or similar age, or even attempt to make the argument. Go ask some ladies who have been in Afghanistan what they think about it for example! Several women serve on the front as medics for example, and I have always had a good rapport with them.. I guarantee they would tell you the same thing!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and this is relevant to the discussion by the way.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21033708

Deadnight wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


Dude they are genetically modified down to the cellular level. Plus they are wearing powered armor. Their physical strength is irrelevant. Concepts of Human Males Stronger HURR! doesn't apply 40,000 year int he future.

Again, unless they have a beard, in battle armor you can't really tell the difference. Plus GW (and tiny minies in general) are 8 kinds of messed up proportionally. When everyone's wearing heavy armor and baggy clothing, Its kind of a moot point.

I dont want to get into this debate, but on a point of order, i will say the following:

you dont need "strength" to become a space marine. the creation of a space marine requires male tissues and hormones though. *shrug*.

and just for the record (getting out of the game-iverse for a second, and beyond theory), men and women are wired completely differently - its actually quite an interesting read as to how far/differently physically, mentally and hormonally we actually are from each other- never mind our brain chemistry, thought patterns, and evolutionary quirks that each sex has gained that set them apart, and so on. its actually quite interesting. Men and women are not always "stand-ins" for each other, like different "skins" for computer game characters with the same stats underneath. the end result is that simply, men are from mars, and women are from venus. Its actually quite a fascinating topic to read about.

And if that's how (ie, requiring male tissues/hormones) the Emperor, the greatest human mind of all time concocted it, well, i cant see us doing much better.

Fluff is irrelevant and utterly changeable. The point is that, at 28mm under heavy armor using genetically modified gorilla people, you won't be able to tell the difference.

treslibras wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
The way that this thread is going i am apparently now a sesist prick for being a gentleman and allowing ladys to pass through a door before me or offering up my seat on the bus.

Well, yes, if you did not do that to any fellow man in the same situation, you were very rude to members of your own gender!

Also, last time I checked, it was customary and good behaviour to leave your seat to persons in need.
So if you leave your seat to any woman that comes around, you would be implying that all women are persons in need.*
...Unless you were fed up of being physically abused by your +6" girl-friend every time she was drunk, and you were taking every desperate move to hook up with a new one? I could sympathize with that!

I do agree, though, that too many people are ranting about their own little penises, instead of trying to advance the worthwhile discussion.

Hmm, you never said that??

*cough*strawman*cough*


*This would indeed qualify as a sexist statement, unless it was meant as part of a very broad philosophical argument of possibly buddhist flavour.

I didnt say that but every time i look at this thread, be it the first post or the last, i bloody well think it. What happened to the days of good, civil conversation

Oh and BTW my Girlfriend is -6" of my height-Im around 6ft something and shes 5ft 6"-7". And when i said pissed i meant angry . And she dosnt hit me-atleast not in that way LOL

mattyrm wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
If she gets pissed she can drop almost anyone i know, baring myself, with one punch. Now try telling me women are not as good as men in combat.

I'm sorry, its a little OT, but that's just nonsense, and Im not even remotely sexist, .. surely its not even remotely sexist to simply be aware of the fact that we are different physically!?

Women simply aren't "as good" (entirely equal) with men in "combat" (I don't like using the word combat because its far too broad a brush) no matter how you slice it.

4 of the fittest women in the British Armed forces came down to Commando Training Centre Royal Marines in Lympstone and got put through their paces with a view to the Navy allowing women to try out, and they were merely good. None of them could get to the top of the 30 foot rope (Its free standing) wearing all of their webbing (25lbs) and carrying their rifles. The best effort got about 27 feet up before skidding down uncontrolled due to her fingers not obeying her brain anymore. And it is mandatory that you complete the test at week 24 before you are allowed onto the Tarzan Assault Course (a very high assault course) for safety reasons. If you dont pass it, you dont pass out and earn your green lid. Its bye bye for you.

A woman can be fit enough to do it I don't doubt, but she would have to be exceptional, a man merely has to be very fit.

The training bleed for men doing commando training is about 8/10. For women It would have to be 99/100. They are excellent (very nearly equal) at cardiovascular work, but really struggle with strength work, such as fireman's carrying a wounded soldier 200 meters in full kit with weapon (another pass or fail requirement they struggled with) doing rope regains or completing a 6 mile log run. A man of equal height and weight will ALWAYS be stronger than a woman, its biology and its common sense.

Women are awesome, and some women can doubtless perform well in a combat role because they don't have to be supremely fit. For example female snipers killed gak loads of guys in Vietnam and Russia.

But "combat" is a very varied and difficult thing to pigeon-hole, its not just shooting your pistol or lying on a compound roof and firing a sniper rifle. When I was in Afghanistan, some days you had to smash through a heavy compound door six hours into a fatiguing patrol, or carry some ladders with all your kit, or carry all of the ammo for the GPMG, or drag a casualty to a helicopter, or spend 6 hours throwing ammo crates onto Chinooks, whatever is needed in a hard pressed and under manned fob a mile away from an enemy stronghold.

There is no way anyone with experience of the matter would ever put women in that kind of job if they could pick equally fit men or similar age, or even attempt to make the argument. Go ask some ladies who have been in Afghanistan what they think about it for example! Several women serve on the front as medics for example, and I have always had a good rapport with them.. I guarantee they would tell you the same thing!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and this is relevant to the discussion by the way.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21033708

Ill take it from the expert mattyRM . Still wouldnt like to get on the wrong end of many women i see-try spending a night out around town and watching 2 girls snap at each other and start tearing one another apart.

Is it possible to objectify a woman without objectifying all women? What would be the compromise in this situation since making both sexy and non sexy female models available is apparently not enough.

Men and women treating each other and viewing each other differently is not going to change. Genetics/biology/evolution/and religion all happen to agree that men and women are different. So why not celebrate diversity instead of trying to homogenize the genders?

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Dude they are genetically modified down to the cellular level. Plus they are wearing powered armor. Their physical strength is irrelevant.

Except their physical differences (strength, speed) are highlighted as differences. Obviously you can see it whatever way you want, it's your fantasy land, but I still see it as Marinification of a weakling = stronger weakling, Marinification of a tank = stronger tank. Then power armour augments strength, not over rides it completely thus making it irrelevant. At least that's how I've always seen it.

Yea it really does. The weight of power armor would be such that, without the armor, the soldier wouldn't move. Thats exactly how the original suits were in Starship troopers, from where GW stole the idea. The armor of a terminator must literally weigh a ton.

This is part of the problem with 40K. Bad fluff is used to exclude femlae players who want to play female marines. In a game with space faeries, space orks, robot mummy ghouls, demons, and genetically modified humans (including Ogryns) anything is possible. Exclusion is stupid.

Again, at the scale of play, under al the armor, you can't tell the difference. With a helmet on (which they should do) you definitely couldn't tell.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 MetalOxide wrote:
People think female guardsmen would look like Mira from Space Marine... no they wouldn't. The Imperial Guard fight on many different planets, most likely harbouring harsh conditions; I somehow doubt your average man/woman could survive. I recon the average Guardsman/woman need the build of schwarzenegger to fight in the environments such as Tyranid infested worlds ect.

Except that Mira was a Cadian, who's Imperial Guard regiments are under near constant attack by daemons. Unless you're running Codex: Whole Army of Rambos, I think your average guardswoman would fair just as well as your average guardsman...

Ah you play Catachans then...

Back when I played demons, I converted Dark Elf witches to demonettes. The Wife was somewhat bemused by the minis. She also didn't like the "neckbeard stare" she'd get sometimes if she showed up sometimes when I was gaming.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dannyevilguy wrote:
I have long stood against sexism in miniature wargaming. This is why in protest for the unacceptable sexualization of the Sisters Repentia (and having nothing to do whatsoever with how fething expensive the models are) I created the Brotherhood Repentia. Boys in bondage!

I must admit, ten guys running at me with chainsaws and maskes would be...disconcerting.

 mattyrm wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
If she gets pissed she can drop almost anyone i know, baring myself, with one punch. Now try telling me women are not as good as men in combat.

I'm sorry, its a little OT, but that's just nonsense, and Im not even remotely sexist, .. surely its not even remotely sexist to simply be aware of the fact that we are different physically!?

Women simply aren't "as good" (entirely equal) with men in "combat" (I don't like using the word combat because its far too broad a brush) no matter how you slice it.

4 of the fittest women in the British Armed forces came down to Commando Training Centre Royal Marines in Lympstone and got put through their paces with a view to the Navy allowing women to try out, and they were merely good. None of them could get to the top of the 30 foot rope (Its free standing) wearing all of their webbing (25lbs) and carrying their rifles. The best effort got about 27 feet up before skidding down uncontrolled due to her fingers not obeying her brain anymore. And it is mandatory that you complete the test at week 24 before you are allowed onto the Tarzan Assault Course (a very high assault course) for safety reasons. If you dont pass it, you dont pass out and earn your green lid. Its bye bye for you.

A woman can be fit enough to do it I don't doubt, but she would have to be exceptional, a man merely has to be very fit.

The training bleed for men doing commando training is about 8/10. For women It would have to be 99/100. They are excellent (very nearly equal) at cardiovascular work, but really struggle with strength work, such as fireman's carrying a wounded soldier 200 meters in full kit with weapon (another pass or fail requirement they struggled with) doing rope regains or completing a 6 mile log run. A man of equal height and weight will ALWAYS be stronger than a woman, its biology and its common sense.

Women are awesome, and some women can doubtless perform well in a combat role because they don't have to be supremely fit. For example female snipers killed gak loads of guys in Vietnam and Russia.

But "combat" is a very varied and difficult thing to pigeon-hole, its not just shooting your pistol or lying on a compound roof and firing a sniper rifle. When I was in Afghanistan, some days you had to smash through a heavy compound door six hours into a fatiguing patrol, or carry some ladders with all your kit, or carry all of the ammo for the GPMG, or drag a casualty to a helicopter, or spend 6 hours throwing ammo crates onto Chinooks, whatever is needed in a hard pressed and under manned fob a mile away from an enemy stronghold.

There is no way anyone with experience of the matter would ever put women in that kind of job if they could pick equally fit men or similar age, or even attempt to make the argument. Go ask some ladies who have been in Afghanistan what they think about it for example! Several women serve on the front as medics for example, and I have always had a good rapport with them.. I guarantee they would tell you the same thing!

To be fair, Royal Marines are about as elite an outfit as you can hope to roll with. Then again as was referenced earlier my Marine Corps just had a pair of females fail out of the Infantry Officer's Basic Course, which is still fairly brutal. Then yet again the Canadians have successfully gender integrated their basic infantry.... blegh. Who knows at this point?

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

To be fair, Royal Marines are about as elite an outfit as you can hope to roll with. Then again as was referenced earlier my Marine Corps just had a pair of females fail out of the Infantry Officer's Basic Course, which is still fairly brutal. Then yet again the Canadians have successfully gender integrated their basic infantry.... blegh. Who knows at this point?

The difference can likely be accounted for by the fact that the Cadians are an imaginary fighting force. Women are generally weaker, and it's a simple fact. It doesn't make them inferior, only different. But, given that they are different, they shouldn't expect inclusion in things requiring the great strength they don't posses.

It's factual and logical. There's no sexism there.

I can understand why people get bent out of shape over it, but that's just the nature of the world and humans, and it can't be changed.

A fine jest.

Tl;dr. SOBs always surprised me because they were badass bitches (for lack of want towards a better term). They had 'sex appeal' of being woman and thus BOOBS, without compromising their armour and equipment.

I believed that this was a step in the right direction, that maybe GW and other companies would stop saying BOOBS BOOBS BOOBS whenever they tried to sculpt and thus sell models of the female variety.

This was, of course, until I saw the Bretonnian witches (Damsels?)

 Peregrine wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
The reason I say you can't blame them is because chances are they're probably some mix of socially inept, ignorant and/or just flat out not used to dealing with women.

So stop making excuses for them. The solution is to tell them that their behavior is unacceptable, not to excuse it and tell the victim of their social ineptness to just deal with it..

Yeah, if they speak to the superior woman creature tell them to feth off.
If they try to interact, kill them.
Only by ostracizing females from the group, continuing to worship plastic bodies and ignore the female presence in a gaming establishment, can you be fair and inclusive to women in the hobby..
Oh crap wait.

 DemetriDominov wrote:
Furthermore, going back to my point of having the sex symbols of Eldar women (of both alignments) being more successful in the franchise than squat women -

This is a ridiculously cherry-picked non-sequiteur.

You would need to prove that the reason the squats were "squatted" was because of the homeliness of their women. You may proceed.

 Monster Rain wrote:

 DemetriDominov wrote:
Furthermore, going back to my point of having the sex symbols of Eldar women (of both alignments) being more successful in the franchise than squat women -

This is a ridiculously cherry-picked non-sequiteur.

You would need to prove that the reason the squats were "squatted" was because of the homeliness of their women. You may proceed.

Or the fat, gamer-looking race died off while the healthy, athletic males got to live.
There's no argument to be made from squats, sorry.

 Peregrine wrote:

feeder wrote:
An open question to those who are bent out shape about miniatures that fetishizes women's sexuality.

If one is okay with a universe that fetishizes violence, war, death, torture, murder and slavery, why pick boobies to make a stand on?

Because we're not too concerned with the poor serial killers who might be excluded from the hobby because they're not comfortable being objectified.

So you're leading the charge against cheesecake models because you hold the opinion that the existence of cheesecake models excludes women from the hobby?

You think that women would be all over miniature gaming if not for all this sexist cheesecake?