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.

So to try and add something else to this conversation, here are some of our own observations.

For the Endless: Fantasy Tactics Kickstarter we offered models as both prepacked sets (with a mix of sexes) and also individual figures. We produced 7 Female miniatures, 8 Male miniatures, and 7 'Monsters'.

The top 10 Figures picked solo were:
Cleric [F] #1
King Gel #2
Summoner[F] #3
Dragoon [M] #4
Pugilist [F] #4
Archer [F] #5
Chemist [F] #6
Squire [F] #6
Gunsmith [M] #7
Rhapsodist [F] #8
Adept [M] #9
Dwarf Gunsmith #10

With the preset bundles the breakdown is such:

Void Crystal #1 (3F, 2M)
Air Crystal #2 (3F, 2M)
Water Crystal #2 (1F, 2A)
Fire Crystal #3 (1F, 2M)
Miasma Crystal #4 (1M, 2A)
Earth Crystal #5 (3A)

The two bundles with the most female models outsold everything else.

nkelsch wrote:


Some of us would rather realistic representations of females in combat. Some of us don't feel the need to sexualize our figure collection which is often used with kids. And no matter how you slice it, It does objectify women, underboob is not empowering and if I had half those minis on my desk at work, I would be cited for sexual harassment.

Oh? One can say the samething.
If dressing sexy objectify women, then so do all the 9 feet tall space marines, all with body builts that make Arnold look like a sissy.
Have you seen Catachans? they have larger arms then their heads!

I care not which gender gets what treatment, double standard annoys me.

Aura likes it so much and is so not offended by it that shes doing fan art at the moment for the Iron Empire, hopefully we'll be able to share it in a few days.

Just adding a female perspective there.

Widdershinz wrote:
Anyone here posting in this thread a woman?

All of the posters are women....on the internet.

Yep those Raging heroes mini's should be banned, all the nude paintings by the masters should be censored, all the statues in museums and outside should be clothed, and those catwalk models need some more clothes (and food)

Aren't we blowing this way out of proportion?

I wonder how many people in this thread who are so valiantly crusading against the objectification of women watch pornography, which can easily be argued to be the ultimate expression of that phenomenon.

I would also love to hear their rationalization as to why one is okay and the other is not.

this may have already been stated, but they would need a whole new expensive mould to produce the female figures, maybe they just didn't want to foot the cost in that particular area (maybe they shift more guard, so it's cost effective to just produce men, I dunno)

That said, I wish they did have some decent female minis, maybe a box of 5 for about £6/7 so you could choose to add them in your squads for flavour or build a whole army of them, would be nice, and less sexist.

EDIT; Plus they have sisters of battle, so maybe that's GW's 'women quota' beside the odd models

I'm getting a few of the not-DKoK ladies myself. Mostly just for painting.

On another note, those that keep talking about how Marines and Bare-Chested Manly Men are all objectification of men have made a mistake in their argument. A small logic fallacy called False Equivalence.

I think Shortpacked's most famous (I believe) strip covers this best.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

shade1313 wrote:

I wouldn't, and I'm not likely to get the Wet Nurse either. It's a nightmare, but not to my particular tastes. I didn't keep up with the KS, and if it was confirmed in there that it's a "rape monster", then I'd have a problem with it. But I don't recall reading that bit in the very little amount of fluff on the piece that I saw on KD's site. It nurses the creatures of the Holy Lands, and takes the children of human women upon birth. It's a nightmare, and a horrifying visual in a surreal way, and all the tits and dicks aren't titillating to see, nor does that seem to be the intent of them.

Oh, by the way, that's a heck of a conclusion you jumped to, taking my opinion all the way from a comment about how the Wet Nurse fits the aesthetic of nightmare horror to being okay with women being raped by monsters. Classy type of arguing there.

My classy argument, your reluctance to label the model for what it is, tomayto, tomarto...

So, for me, a giant monster covered in genitals with a big cock about to be pushed into a sleeping, prone and vulnerable woman and with tendrils milking another woman's breasts whilst a third woman kneels before it, also nude, in supplication, is a big rapey monster in poor taste and it as a whole, portrays women as dull eyed victims of this monster, instead of chirpy armored women, with or without big boobs, who could claim to be 'a bit of fun'.



Tell your missus that you'd like her to consider getting into wargaming, or your mum or sister, and show her that picture and see what she thinks of you. Unless you're a Lannister, it's unlikely to be a favorable outcome I think.

Further, I was making the point that lots of (primarily, I'd bet a few million pounds) men bought that mini, men that would likely not have bought it if it was the boy buggering newt I mentioned... because it is a sexualized image and titillates with imagery of vulnerable women being used/raped by a monster.

These things reinforce old stereotypes, these things denigrate women and these things should be left to gather dust by an informed and aware community instead of being quietly fawned over as 'art' by people who should know better.



And again, because this is diverting from the source, I do not label the bubblegum/boob armor/cute female mini in this way, the Raging Heroes stuff looks good and I don't have issue with it, only this unpalatable side of things, when it surfaces and sets our image back 20 bloody years.

I just saw photographs of a trans woman being savagely beaten by a mob of children. I find your obsessive attempts to make some grand moral stance out of complaining about macabre artwork frivolous and obscene. Not only does it show a severe problem with your priorities, it speaks of a foul desire to repress and censor others into conforming to your own personal, dainty notions of morality.

The nonsense ideas about sexual content being thrown into the mix you're bringing to the table are the sort of thing that makes it impossible for me to take feminism seriously: such outrageous notions cannot be the product of a sound ideology. It's reactionary flailing against an imagined foe, and it seeks to enforce an arbitrary, baseless standard upon others. This is not an acceptable position to take. I don't see it in a particularly more favorable light than I do the ideologues and moralists who whipped those animals into a frenzy in the name of enforcing their own arbitrary standards of conduct. It's more trivial, yes, but the fundamental nature is the same.


And yeah, maybe I am just seeing red over that whole thing right now, but I cannot abide such ideology, whether its target is violent games, macabre art, or LGBT issues.

You flutter your fan and adjust your periwig all you want, but until you present something substantive to support you, it's just bitching and claiming some elitist intellectual high ground you've no real claim on.

Try again.

It's funny, I switched over to a different tab when I reached this point, and had forgotten whose post I was on when I came back; I assumed it was someone talking to you until I scrolled back up, it seemed so perfectly tailored a dismissal of your arguments.

I liked that soldier mini a few pages back. She was cool.

I don't want all female minis to be unambiguously female any more than you'd demand all male minis be "unambiguously male." I just want the female soldiers to plausibly exist and be represented.

I think from the art, raging heroes is going to do many good female miniatures. Some of them will be slightly cheesecake-ish but meh, in the grand scheme of thing a sexualised miniature is not really meaning much , there is more sexualisation in mainstream media.
Anyways, the easiest way to solve this argument is to proclaim " I blame the Patriarchy".

Bullockist wrote:
I think from the art, raging heroes is going to do many good female miniatures. Some of them will be slightly cheesecake-ish but meh, in the grand scheme of thing a sexualised miniature is not really meaning much , there is more sexualisation in mainstream media.
Anyways, the easiest way to solve this argument is to proclaim " I blame the Patriarchy".

Or you can just blame it on the money. Sex, and sexualization of women, sells. What better way to get more seed funding from KS?

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
When I was a 12-30 male I didn't lust after big breasted wargame figures, perhaps because I was busy pinching copies of Men Only from the newsagent (or buying them when I got old enough).

I hope you placed them in the correct location of under a shrub near a railway bridge when you were finished. I found a mostly unused Razzle in such a location once and have since learned that most others of the pre-internet times found gentlemen's literature in similar locations at an impressionable age.

Viz Comic did a good strip about an outdoor museum for the preservation of wild jazz mags

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
I just saw photographs of a trans woman being savagely beaten by a mob of children. I find your obsessive attempts to make some grand moral stance out of complaining about macabre artwork frivolous and obscene. Not only does it show a severe problem with your priorities, it speaks of a foul desire to repress and censor others into conforming to your own personal, dainty notions of morality.

Ah, you're going to play the 'sliding scale of evil' game, well pal, I just opened a picture of the killing fields of Cambodia, so I find your suggested outrage over a beaten trans woman frivolous and obscene... Do you see how that works, or rather, is a pathetic strawman, or do you just lack the wit to understand relative distaste?

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
I
The nonsense ideas about sexual content being thrown into the mix you're bringing to the table are the sort of thing that makes it impossible for me to take feminism seriously: such outrageous notions cannot be the product of a sound ideology. It's reactionary flailing against an imagined foe, and it seeks to enforce an arbitrary, baseless standard upon others. This is not an acceptable position to take. I don't see it in a particularly more favorable light than I do the ideologues and moralists who whipped those animals into a frenzy in the name of enforcing their own arbitrary standards of conduct. It's more trivial, yes, but the fundamental nature is the same.

So your counter to my wife and I taking issue with a depiction of rape and the denigration of women through violent sexual depiction is to accuse us of being the sort of people who encourage angry mobs to attack transgender people. That is perhaps the feeblest and lowest attempt at an argument I've read on this thread and trivializes the abuse and attacks on women, trans or otherwise, the world over. It is not 'sexual content' as you so effortlessly belittle it, it's sexual violence, do you not understand the difference? You are arguing from a position where it would be wrong to take any offense, or call for any censure, on anything... and I don't believe for a second you do not have morals or don't find things visually unpleasant, if you were the other, that would make you a sociopath.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
I
And yeah, maybe I am just seeing red over that whole thing right now, but I cannot abide such ideology, whether its target is violent games, macabre art, or LGBT issues.

You flutter your fan and adjust your periwig all you want, but until you present something substantive to support you, it's just bitching and claiming some elitist intellectual high ground you've no real claim on.
Try again.

It's funny, I switched over to a different tab when I reached this point, and had forgotten whose post I was on when I came back; I assumed it was someone talking to you until I scrolled back up, it seemed so perfectly tailored a dismissal of your arguments.

'But it's art', 'If you don't like it, you're for censorship and suppression', 'If you don't like it, it's because you don't understand it', 'You're stupid and we're smart'...

What you and others in this thread have attempted is an artistic/intellectual elitism, that I am somehow ignorant for finding something offensive, as though there is nothing to be offended at, or that it's too far down that 'sliding scale' of evils to take offense at, and I just don't buy it. The reason being I find the above work to be a by-blow, a demonstrative evidence of a prejudice that exists in the hobby towards women and an indicator of an underlying opinion among some male hobbyists and gamers. It is perhaps the most perfect example of what I find wrong with the underlying prejudice among some gamers and if we could take that titmonster with it's rape victims and put just one on a plinth for all time with a plaque that read 'why women won't get into wargaming' (or 'this is why we can't have nice things') I think it would suit.

My original point was that a model like that was damaging to the potential for more female inclusion and a fairly offensive piece to most women. You can prattle about 'art' and 'trans gender's getting attacked by children' (and comparing me to those children, which I am frankly fething furious about), but it doesn't stop the piece depicting a giant tit and cock monster about to penetrate a prone and vulnerable woman and my dislike of it and my ascertation that a great many women viewing it would take a very dim view of it and it's owner. It is what I said it is, a relic of the boy's only club and an insulting and belittling depiction of women as sexualized objects to be victimized and abused. The sooner we speed the process of getting rid of that sort of infantile titillation from the hobby and concentrate on inclusion instead of exclusion, the happier I'll be.

And another point I raised still remains untouched, had it been a violent sexual act of a male monster on prone, vulnerable males, I doubt that anything like as many would have sold, because all of you so valiantly defending it as 'art' are entirely reluctant to just admit it's a 3d representation of tentacle rape. It was designed for and purchased for male sexual arousal about rape and female victimization in sexual violence.



Now, for comparing me to people who victimized and beat a vulnerable person, your ass is going on ignore.

Bye.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Viz Comic did a good strip about an outdoor museum for the preservation of wild jazz mags

Ah, you just reminded me I need to order a Profanisaurus for the downstairs craphouse.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

I just saw photographs of a trans woman being savagely beaten by a mob of children. I find your obsessive attempts to make some grand moral stance out of complaining about macabre artwork frivolous and obscene. Not only does it show a severe problem with your priorities, it speaks of a foul desire to repress and censor others into conforming to your own personal, dainty notions of morality.

I'm confused.. I thought that MGS was basically saying that demon rape gak wasn't cool? Why then are you having a go at him?

Your rebuttal of his point actually adds fuel to my argument though, because that was my entire point.

There is really awful gak going on around the world with regards to women's rights, let alone the rights of the trans community, so I will repeat my point.

Men and women get "objectified" in the West to the point that you see them on the cover of magazines with no clothes on, or looking "sexy" or wearing thongs or wet tshirts and winking, but whats the big deal? 99% of people don't find it offensive, and the same goes for minis. I don't care about them, and I don't buy them, but there is no real harm done by a mini of a classically sexy women, with a thin waist and big baps, smoking a cigar and winking.

There is real harm done by other gak, such as genital mutilation, sex trafficking, paedophilia, rape, etc etc etc...

So I don't get it.. surely you see things similar to MGS right? I don't think he was in full agreement with me (almost everything to do with minis is trivial and women should focus on something more important) but surely you and he agree on the most important point.

Are you saying that rape minis are great? Or are you saying that they aren't, but transgender people getting filled in is worse?

See, I think he probably agrees with you on both counts is all..

 Kettu wrote:
I'm getting a few of the not-DKoK ladies myself. Mostly just for painting.

On another note, those that keep talking about how Marines and Bare-Chested Manly Men are all objectification of men have made a mistake in their argument. A small logic fallacy called False Equivalence.

I think Shortpacked's most famous (I believe) strip covers this best.

Speaking of logical fallacies, you should check out Special Pleading.

There's also the small matter that there are plenty of women who find muscles attractive. Finally, the male who is made "uncomfortable" should be ignored just as dismissively as the people who are offended by cheesecake models. I give that comic a C-.

 Monster Rain wrote:

 Kettu wrote:
I'm getting a few of the not-DKoK ladies myself. Mostly just for painting.

On another note, those that keep talking about how Marines and Bare-Chested Manly Men are all objectification of men have made a mistake in their argument. A small logic fallacy called False Equivalence.

I think Shortpacked's most famous (I believe) strip covers this best.

Speaking of logical fallacies, you should check out Special Pleading.

There's also the small matter that there are plenty of women who find muscles attractive. Finally, the male who is made "uncomfortable" should be ignored just as dismissively as the people who are offended by cheesecake models. I give that comic a C-.

I concur old chap. Both sexes have to put up with corny magazine covers involving lone men/women surrounded by sexy members of the opposite gender dressed stupidly while they look smug.

Christ.. has nobody seen the Diet Coke ads before!?



That lot seem pretty happy eh?

And you don't see me complaining about it.. I'm still jolly enough to go down the pub on my pogo stick.

Anyway, must be off.

For goodness sake, an advert isn't reality.

That's not true. It can't be true. Red Bull will (eventually) give me wings so that I can fly. And that add in the comic book for getting bigger muscles so that I can kick sand in my bully's face! Also the x-ray glasses!

 Kilkrazy wrote:
For goodness sake, an advert isn't reality.

And neither are miniatures, what is your point?

Sex sells, and the vast majority of people don't find it offensive, be it a sexy lady in a bra holding a bottle of booze, or ten men with a six packs following a woman who wears a certain perfume, so there isn't really any need to worry about sexy miniatures as long as they aren't promoting the mistreatment of people/multi cocked rape demons.

Thats mine by the way incase you missed it..

Things have got a tad convoluted in here.

Toy soldiers are real toy soldiers though.

Anyway I think this topic has gone as far as it can usefully be taken, so I am going to lock it.

If anyone is keen to continue the discussion, please PM a moderator for a second opinion on the thread.