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.

 Melissia wrote:
If you think women can't or won't be intensely competitive, apparently you haven't been paying much attention to the women in your life.

And you certainly haven't played any mixed-gender sports. In my experience the men may have some physical advantages, but in terms of who is serious and competitive even in a friendly pickup game it's a pretty even split between men and women even though women overall are significantly less than half the group. Similarly there are plenty of men whose goal is to be the embodiment of casual play and not caring about winning. In this case gender is completely worthless for predicting competitiveness.

Aren't you agreeing with me in a disagreeable way?

After all, check the end of my post.

 Melissia wrote:
Competitiveness is a human trait, not a male one

Maybe I just read it wrong.

 Melissia wrote:
Aren't you agreeing with me in a disagreeable way?

Continuing from the quoted sentence using the same hypothetical "you", not you the author of the post. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Annoyingly video games have a similar problem.

 Melissia wrote:
A better discussion of Wonder Woman is done here by Linkara.

http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/linkara/at4w/5109-amazons-attack-prologue

There has been a long and unfortunate history in how DC's various writers have handled her.

This very video got me started reading Wonder Woman as a matter of fact.

 Melissia wrote:
Also, I should note that during the recent MMA bouts, the womens' bout was considered much more exciting than the male bout-- the men danced about and were extremely cautious, while the women were highly aggressive. One of them obtained a vicious rear naked choke hold within five seconds of the round starting, and the other one just barely managed to get out of it, before winning via an armbar submission. Despite it never getting past the first round, that match was rated higher by fans and sponsors alike for the athleticism, skill, and aggression that the women showed than any of the mens' matches.

The men danced about, took pot shots, and had many long rounds, but they weren't very competitive or aggressive compared to the women. If you think women can't or won't be intensely competitive, apparently you haven't been paying much attention to the women in your life. Even in things that aren't about fighting or warfare, we are very competitive. Competitiveness is a human trait, not a male one

Part of the reason I will fail in my coming argument is because people spend so much time "reading between the lines" that they seem to miss what is actually written in those lines...

You read something I wrote, made an inference about what you probably thought I meant, and then made a completely new statement yourself. Then you somehow pass it back to me as if it were mine.

Here are two quotes from this thread:

My Statement:

And while the nature of competition does not, by it's nature preclude the involvement of females, it does carry with it some intangible quality that could be called "manly".

Your Statement:

If you think women can't or won't be intensely competitive....

I am seeing two totally different statements. I said that I think something (competition) as an inherently "manly" quality to it. No part of that statement implied that women at large, or a given woman in particular could not even would not be competitive. You prove that point quite nicely by being as "competitive" as you in this forum discussion.

I'm not saying this to derail the thread, which incidentally is called "Misogyny and the lack of normal women in 40K." I am saying it because the word misogyny was used. The title of this thread is an attack on the integrity of the game on the grounds that its makers (GW) hate women and have not included "normal" women in it's fiction. Throughout the following posts this was redirected to specify that the game is lacking in female miniatures.

My contention has never been that the game does not have a skewed ratio of male to female models. This is evident on any store shelf. But to attribute that ratio to misogyny is exactly the same fallacy of logic that I highlighted above.

I would have no problem with GW producing more female models, but I won't accuse them of being sexist if they do not. Personally I think there are far more pressing matters at hand than the lack of female miniatures. I would rather they devote their resources to improving the finecast mixture so that the existing models do not suffer from so many defects and imperfections, (which would also improve the quality of any female models they produce in the future) or to finish the process of replacing all the pewter models with either plastic or finecast kits.

And if the complaint is solely with the fact that models and rules are not "in line with the fluff" than why is no one complaining about the fact that part of the entrance exam for being a GK Paladin involved wondering naked into a frozen wilderness and hunting down one of the 666 named greater daemons, but when you put a Paladin on the table fully clad in his wargear he is no match for even a normal greater daemon? 40k is rife with this kind of inconsistency, but it's a bit much to assume that it's motivated by a hatred of women.

Pointing out something you don't like to acknowledge isn't an attack on the hobby

 Peregrine wrote:
Because those two are not equivalent.

The scantily-clad female models are meant to appeal to a male audience by saying "look at how sexy she is, you want to have her".

And my point is that this:

The scantily-clad male models are meant to appeal to a male audience by saying "look at how powerful he is, you want to BE him".

Applies to women as well, which is why the double-standard is stupid. That the shirtless catachans were created to cater to the male audience is entirely irrelevant. What's important is why shirtless Catachans is considered catering to men. And the answer to that question is: Shirtless catachans appeal to men because being extremely buff, and fit, and badass, is appealing to men.

Similarly, when women see Wonder Woman in her underwear, beating the gak out of people, their first thought isn't "oh my god, why is she in her underwear, that's so sexist." Their first thought is "Wow, she's so sexy and fit, and kicking ass. I want to BE her."

BlaxicanX wrote:
Applies to women as well

No, it doesn't.

Not the way you phrased it to be sure. Wonder Woman has far, FAR more character, history, and personality than any Catachan. She is a distinct individual, rather htan being a generic everywoman. Who she is and what she does are very important to her success, not just her being a surrogate for power fantasies (at least, not THAT kind of power fantasy, given the history of the character's creators and the often pathetic treatment she got from DC).

The same can't really be said of the faceless nameless characters of 40k tabletop. And that's fine. Not every character NEEDS to be in depth, sometimes having an audience surrogate is perfect. But if all you ever have is an audience surrogate for one specific part of the audience ,the rest of the audience will be left out. And really, nothing you said is a justification for the status quo, it's a lame argument, unable to get itself off the ground.

If you had said, say FemShep, then yeah, that's arguably true. But Mass Effect has far fewer problems with accessibility to the female audience than 40k does-- for one, it actually makes an effort to reach out to us.

What does that have to do with the fact that women see Wonder Woman and think "I wish I was sexy like her?"

Most people who know of Wonderwoman aren't even aware of her personality and history as a character- that doesn't stop her appearance from being iconic, however. Walk up to ten random people who don't read comics and show them a picture of Wonder Woman. Most of them are going to say"that's Wonder Woman". Ask those same 10 people to summarize her origin story and defining personality traits, most of them are going to say "Uhhhh..."



That she has more history than Catachans is neither here nor there. I don't see the relevance.

BlaxicanX wrote:
What does that have to do with the fact that women see Wonder Woman and think "I wish I was sexy like her?"

Wonder Woman was never actually built to be a sex object. She was built to be a role model, a powerful woman who did what she thought was right with the powers granted to her.

If you're trying to argue "most people", you're really just pulling it out of your ass. What is done with her character IS important because what she DOES defines her, not how she looks. That is the very reason why she is so beloved-- she was the most influential superheroine in breaking the "women are judged by their looks, men are judged by what they do" crap that society tries to force down our throats.

 Melissia wrote:

BlaxicanX wrote:
What does that have to do with the fact that women see Wonder Woman and think "I wish I was sexy like her?"

Wonder Woman was never actually built to be a sex object.

And this is important, how? I'm not sure if you're arguing with me for the sake of arguing, or just missing the forest for the trees. She's a sex symbol, and her appearance is more iconic than her origin/personality. Whether that was the intention from the start or not is rather immaterial, and it's definitely immaterial to my point, which is that women like women who are fit and attractive, just like men like men who are fit and attractive.

BlaxicanX wrote:
She's a sex symbol

Except she's not.

Frankly, I get the idea that you would define someone as a sex symbol simply for BEING female.

Of course I would, because I hate women and I'm a dirty sexist, right?

You are pulling "facts" out of nowhere, and speaking for huge groups of people who you do not know very much about, assigning labels to pop culture icons based off of... nothing, really. Wonder Woman's uniform being iconic doesn't make her a sex symbol. It just means that her uniform is very well designed and memorable. Even amongst the non-comic reading public consciousness, more likely than not the Lynda Carter Wonder Woman that would be remembered more than anything, or perhaps the DCAU Wonder Woman-- and again, she wasn't treated as a sex object in either of those settings.

The various outfits of the various Doctor Who characters are iconic, yet they aren't sex icons. Batman, superman, the x-men, etc-- again, iconic uniforms, not sex symbols. You're really reaching here.

 Melissia wrote:

BlaxicanX wrote:
She's a sex symbol

Except she's not.

Frankly, I get the idea that you would define someone as a sex symbol simply for BEING female.

No. He defines her as sex symbol because she walks around with big,silicon breasts and skimpy clothes.

 Melissia wrote:
It just means that her uniform is very well designed and memorable..

You're right. Having incredibly unrealistic proportions, basically the "perfect" female body, barely contained in a skimpy pair of drawls and a sports-bra is a well designed and memorable outfit. It's certainly why my dirty, oppressive male mind remembers it so well.

 thenoobbomb wrote:
No. He defines her as sex symbol because she walks around with big,silicon breasts

Nah uh uh. You're thinking of Power Girl.

BlaxicanX wrote:
unrealistic proportions

Which Wonder Woman are you thinking of?

"That's just that artists interpretation of the character"

Calling it now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:




Two separate covers, from separate artists.

 thenoobbomb wrote:
http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/3/30154/623109-wonder_woman_super.jpg

The waist is somewhat thin, but that isn't exactly unrealistic proportions otherwise, especially by comic standards. A bigger issue is that the artist is incapable of drawing clothes-- which is a problem that the artist has, not the character.

If you want to use art like that, allow me to post some art that is likely to be far more recognizable in the public consciousness:
(first live-action series)
(DCAU)


Neither of which are really unrealistic body types, and both of which are far more iconic.

Face it, she still has nearly no clothes whatsoever.

'Cause the ones wearing* clothes are sooooooo much better.




*That look as though they're painted on.

Chongara wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
@Chongara: She's also rocking a thong. Would that be more points off or points off as included in "mostly naked"?

Also, does Lelith's in-universe job curb her points deductions? She's a performer. She sensually fights for the titillation of spectators. Setting aside whether that's misogynistic (arguably not, as there is no reason to suspect Lelith is the best at this because she's female), I think that makes her outfit kind of appropriate.

That gets filed under "Mostly Naked". That was a general overview, I'm sure I could find instances where I would take points off for a thong but I don't think it particularly changes anything with this model. Obviously If I stopped and listed out every little detail that could sort of count as "-50 DKP!" I'd be here a while.

There certainly are situations where say being an entertainer could prevent the docking of points for being mostly naked to naked. Depending on specifics, and this is key: So long as the character is being depicted in the context of solely being an entertainer.

In this case she may be an entertainer and that might be fine, it depends a lot on how it's handled. Though I'm not really confident enough in GW to give them the benefit of the doubt on that one. However, all that's irrelevant here because the context this model appears in is that of battlefield, here she's a warrior (and no if they've got some kind of thing with combat-as-performance it doesn't help make it "Count') when being depicted in this model.

I think your missing the point / ignoring some of the 40k background and context - battlefield and entertainment is the same thing to her and the other wyches. Armour is also less required as, on real space attacks many Dark Eldar usually keep a body part to be recloaned from on ice (if they can aford it), they mostly don't care about "dying" and pain - like with Slaaneshi cultists is simply annother expereince to spice up their life.

Protecting soldiers from their enemies has often not been a priority in warfare - soemtime armies have good qulaity armor - somethimes nothing more than rags or bright shiny cloth.

Also if they count combat as a performance - how can it not "count"? Very wierd

Also it goes back to the historical gladiatiors - for the most part you don't want lots of clothes / armour as you can't see the blood and injuires, the impacts and the sweat and oil. The current Spartacus TV series shows this very well, the whole point is to display semi-naked bodies for the titliation of the auidiance and to watch them bleed.

Dark Eldar take this to the extreme as they feed off the cruelty and agonies of the performers /and their victims as well as enjoying the view.

Lastly we all know of historical forces that fought naked or near naked - for various reasons including culturally or being used as canon fodder and as 40K is a hodge podge of influences, plus can allow for almost invisible protection such as energy shields.

Lastly I am confused what you actually want from a 28 -32mm model - there is presenrtly a vast variety of female figures across large amount of manufactuers in all types of dress, pose, style and influence and you can't find any worthy of you? Can you point to a larger sculpture or image and say this is what it should be - or is it simply that there never will be one that works for you and so why bother making any?

Are there any male figures that are "right" to your eyes?

Her original look as well wasn't to off.

Course back then the authors had some odd fascination with bindings, being tied up, and some other off fetishy things, as Suffering Scappo of Superdickery.com shows.

 thenoobbomb wrote:
Face it, she still has nearloy no clothes whatsoever.

A stylized leotard suitable for acrobatics and physical action, a tiara, a pair of vambraces, and boots. The only real problem is the boots have heels-- low heels, but heels.

That aside, it's suitable clothing for an Olympic athlete, which she is in more ways than one. Have you ever paid any attention to Olympic level gymnasts, runners, and so on? Their leotards aren't as flashy or stylized, but they cover about the same amount of skin usually-- sometimes they cover the arms as well, but not always. The purpose of a leotard is specifically to leave the legs free. There IS another kind called a unitard that covers the legs. Both are used for things such as yoga, gymnastics, and the like.

Amusingly, leotards were originally designed for men.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
'Cause the ones wearing* clothes are sooooooo much better.

*That look as though they're painted on.

A LOT of comic book artists have no fething idea how to draw clothes. This incompetence applies both male and female characters however.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Lastly I am confused what you actually want from a 28 -32mm model

First and foremost? I'm looking for female Cadians, myself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This entire tangent is pointless, irrelevant, and off topic. Let's talk about 40k some more instead.

Random points:

Ripley wasn't actually written as a woman for Alien. The script allowed for casting of whoever seemed best.

The first instance of a Sister of Battle (that I'm aware of) showed her shooting a Marine:

http://gregorhutton.com/roleplaying/sister-sin.jpg

More of both would be nice.

No, no, no. You can't quote a post that wasn't even directed at you, talk a bunch of gak to the person who made it, and then be like "well this all off-topic".

My post was entirely on-topic, until someone decided to take the thing that was being used as an example and make a big deal out of it. =|

This thread is now about Wonder Woman, and how she is nearly naked.

Someone change the title.

Graphite wrote:
Random points:

Ripley wasn't actually written as a woman for Alien. The script allowed for casting of whoever seemed best.

The first instance of a Sister of Battle (that I'm aware of) showed her shooting a Marine:

http://gregorhutton.com/roleplaying/sister-sin.jpg

More of both would be nice.

Ah yes, that old image. As amusing as it is, I'm still glad the art style shifted since then.

That marine just looks kind of dorky. Then again I've never liked beakies


More characters like Kasteen or Criid would be nice at the very least.

BlaxicanX wrote:
Similarly, when women see Wonder Woman in her underwear, beating the gak out of people, their first thought isn't "oh my god, why is she in her underwear, that's so sexist." Their first thought is "Wow, she's so sexy and fit, and kicking ass. I want to BE her."

Nonsense. Some people might see it that way, but the intent of the generic minimally-dressed female character* is to appeal to a male fantasy about who they want to have sex with. I'm sure the people in charge of the marketing decision are very happy if a few women want to be the character, but that's not the primary goal. For example, if you look at wargaming examples can you really plausibly argue that the minimally-dressed female characters are a power fantasy for women, who make up a small percentage of the total players, rather than a sex fantasy for the men who are the majority of the customers? Of course not.


*I'll put aside the issue of whether or not Wonder Woman specifically is one, since that wasn't part of my argument.