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.

Women, in general, don't enjoy adversarial pastimes, as I've already mentioned, it goes to the hunter-gatherer nature of men vs the more nurturing nature of women.

To argue that a low cut dress in a sketch is in any way sharing "intent" whatever you mean by that, with porn is just daft.

Nobody, HAS to have something sexy to look at while playing 40K, frankly they'd be SOL of they did, but some just don't get so hot under the collar about a bit of unnecessary cleavage.

Additionally, I think it is fairly easy to interpret some of GW's recent policies and actions as they, in fact, don't have a huge amount of confidence in their product. But that's another subject.

 azreal13 wrote:
Women, in general, don't enjoy adversarial pastimes, as I've already mentioned, it goes to the hunter-gatherer nature of men vs the more nurturing nature of women.

Oh good, let's bring in some evolutionary psychology pseudoscience. Can we talk about how these differences are clearly genetic and have nothing to do with social pressure to fit into those roles, or would that be too embarrassing for you?

To argue that a low cut dress in a sketch is in any way sharing "intent" whatever you mean by that, with porn is just daft.

How is the intent any different? It's blatant sex for the sake of sex with no purpose beyond that. The only difference between that and porn is that porn doesn't have a pretense of being anything else and so it has the freedom to do it right.

Nobody, HAS to have something sexy to look at while playing 40K

Really? Because that seems to be what people just said:

40k is squarely aimed at males and realistically most of us are straight, therefore we want to see some tits every now and then.

but some just don't get so hot under the collar about a bit of unnecessary cleavage.

You're right. Some people feel that since they have the privilege of not being on the wrong end of it there's no reason to care. That's not really something to brag about.

 azreal13 wrote:


Nobody, HAS to have something sexy to look at while playing 40K, frankly they'd be SOL of they did, but some just don't get so hot under the collar about a bit of unnecessary cleavage.

That's offensive I look sexy whilst playing 40k

A person =\= people.

Remember what I said about specific examples not really being effective at countering a general point?

If gender stereotypes really are all down to social conditioning, I wonder why it is that many of the young children I have contact with seem to follow those stereotypes while being too young to go without nappies let alone have any awareness of social trends? Must be coincidence.

I can't really address your point about intent, as you still really haven't clarified what you mean? Do you really consider the pic that was the genesis of this thread a mastabatory aid?

Who's bragging? I save my moral outrage for people being kidnapped, forcibly addicted to drugs and made to have sex with strangers to earn others money, or for those who cannot get ahead in their field solely for the random outcome of a 50/50 chance, or for any number of other reasons of gender inequality and exploitation.

If you can demonstrate how someone is somehow being negatively affected by this picture that somebody made up in their head, and not a theoretical "might under these circumstances" I mean right now, demonstrate how any legitimate art, from any walk of life is having a negative impact on even one person at this moment in our history, I will concede this argument and add "Peregrine is right in all things" to my sig.

EDIT Morally outraged doesn't count as "damaged" either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bullockist wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:


Nobody, HAS to have something sexy to look at while playing 40K, frankly they'd be SOL of they did, but some just don't get so hot under the collar about a bit of unnecessary cleavage.

That's offensive I look sexy whilst playing 40k

I'm sure you do dear.

Snaps for making an effort.

 azreal13 wrote:
If gender stereotypes really are all down to social conditioning, I wonder why it is that many of the young children I have contact with seem to follow those stereotypes while being too young to go without nappies let alone have any awareness of social trends? Must be coincidence.

How exactly are you getting any useful information about behavior from children that young? Are you sure you aren't just projecting your own expectations onto them? Or the expectations of their parents, which show social trends without explicitly giving them a lecture?

And of course there are plenty of counter-examples to the stereotype. Women can compete just fine in sports (including martial arts, which is about as anti-nurturing as you can get) when given the opportunity, for example. So it's a lot more likely that the reluctance to compete has more to do with social pressure to be "feminine" and cooperate than any inherent inability or lack of desire.

I can't really address your point about intent, as you still really haven't clarified what you mean? Do you really consider the pic that was the genesis of this thread a mastabatory aid?

Not literally to that extreme, but the intent is to get interest by presenting a sexual image. It's degrees of the same concept, not a totally different idea.

Who's bragging? I save my moral outrage for people being kidnapped, forcibly addicted to drugs and made to have sex with strangers to earn others money, or for those who cannot get ahead in their field solely for the random outcome of a 50/50 chance, or for any number of other reasons of gender inequality and exploitation.

So because there are worse things in the world we should just shut up and stop complaining? That's an awful "argument".

If you can demonstrate how someone is somehow being negatively affected by this picture that somebody made up in their head, and not a theoretical "might under these circumstances" I mean right now, demonstrate how any legitimate art, from any walk of life is having a negative impact on even one person at this moment in our history, I will concede this argument and add "Peregrine is right in all things" to my sig.

Have you really not seen anything about women feeling unwelcome because of images like that? This specific one might not be the worst offender, but it's still part of the same problem.

I came back here to say, I see women here in NZ wearing low cut shirts, very short shorts, bellies showing, fishnets, thigh high stockings etc all the time. That picture in the OP is pretty much how women TEND to present themselves in the first place. Of course its not all of them, but a lot of them. If i go into the city or to the mall i can pretty much garantee ill see women dressed similar or worse than the picture of the inquisitor above.

And chances are its worse in America and other western countries.

Heck adverts, tv shows and movies all have it too.. have any of you been in a fashion clothing store? Its full of ill modest clothing and children even wear that kind of clothing.

So when i see a picture like that its nothing at all shocking in any way as that's how i see girls, teens and women presenting themselves all the time. If it where truly offensive, wrong or inappropriate towards women then most of them probably wouldn't dress like this in the first place.

Before i get ripped into for this im not calling women sluts or anything nor am i saying ALL women behave this way but it is the trend. My girlfriend looked at this picture and agrees that what women wear in real life is far worse than what is depicted in that picture.

I've seen little girls choosing dolls, or pink things, purely because they wanted them, and boys going for toy cars and guns, even when given free reign

I had My Little Pony when I was young, because I grew up with horses, but the majority of my toys were Transformers, Masters Of The Universe and other assorted action figures, because that's what I wanted.

Yes there are worse things in the world, which hopefully makes this looks so insignificant it makes people realise how pointless it is giving it a second thought, let alone getting bothered by it.

To the point about women feeling unwelcome, I say, so? That might sound a bit callous, but if I went I to something traditionally female dominated, like say, an aerobics class, I'd expect to feel bloody awkward. I wouldn't start throwing my hands in the air demanding they make it more "man friendly." You can bet that if I was really keen though, I wouldn't let it stop me participating.

I'll take that as a "no" on the demonstrating that art is in any way damaging then shall I?

 azreal13 wrote:
I've seen little girls choosing dolls, or pink things, purely because they wanted them, and boys going for toy cars and guns, even when given free reign

But you don't really have free reign. Even if the parents allow free choice there's still the message from people around them that girls play with dolls and boys play with guns, a desire to play with the same toys as their friends, etc.

Yes there are worse things in the world, which hopefully makes this looks so insignificant it makes people realise how pointless it is giving it a second thought, let alone getting bothered by it.

Do you apply the same standard to everything else in your life? For example, do you ignore any local political issues because starving children in Africa are so much worse?

To the point about women feeling unwelcome, I say, so? That might sound a bit callous, but if I went I to something traditionally female dominated, like say, an aerobics class, I'd expect to feel bloody awkward. I wouldn't start throwing my hands in the air demanding they make it more "man friendly." You can bet that if I was really keen though, I wouldn't let it stop me participating.

How exactly does an aerobics class make men feel unwelcome, beyond the men being a minority?

I'll take that as a "no" on the demonstrating that art is in any way damaging then shall I?

Only if you make the ridiculous assumption that being made to feel unwelcome in a hobby you're interested in joining doesn't count as damage.

No, I ignore local political issues because I'm a UK resident and local political issues in my part of the world tend to revolve around what days the bins are collected and excessive numbers of seagulls.

Its late, my battery is low, and you just asked why a man would feel awkward in an aerobics class full of women.

I don't have the energy to continue us this just now, perhaps we will continue at a later juncture.

Remember, these are fantasy / sci-fi wargames.

If you are looking for realism, play historicals.

 snurl wrote:
Remember, these are fantasy / sci-fi wargames.

If you are looking for realism, play historicals.

This is actually a very good point. These are sci fi and fantasy games. Given the context of sci fi and fantasy, scantily clad women shouldn't be a surprising thing at all. Even geek holy grails like Star Wars and Star Trek have their fair share of it - for example, there was no reason for Leia to be in a gold bikini when she was Jabbas slave. There is no reason for Aayla Secura to have her massive cleavage showing in the middle of a lightsaber battle. Look at geek cult fantasy settings. Conan? Yah, Valerias nice, visible rack was a huge combat asset, I'm sure.

Yet someone makes a fantasy miniature with visible cleavage, and suddenly they're pandering to a completely different audience?

No one was saying the problem is exclusive to wargames or miniatures. There is a problem in many works of fantasy though where women tend to be sex objects first and characters second.

 carlos13th wrote:
No one was saying the problem is exclusive to wargames or miniatures. There is a problem in many works of fantasy though where women tend to be sex objects first and characters second.

Subject: Representation of women in miniature games (go-to thread to prevent off-topic on other threads)

Key word here is Fantasy.
I don't want my fantasy stuff to be filtered by the everything must be P.C. crowd.

 -Loki- wrote:
for example, there was no reason for Leia to be in a gold bikini when she was Jabbas slave.

Sure there was, she was a slave being kept for decoration and entertainment. You'll notice that every other time she appears in the movies she's wearing normal "unsexy" clothes just like everyone else.

Yet someone makes a fantasy miniature with visible cleavage, and suddenly they're pandering to a completely different audience?

Nobody is arguing that this is something unique to miniatures games. But that doesn't make it less of a problem.

 Peregrine wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:
for example, there was no reason for Leia to be in a gold bikini when she was Jabbas slave.

Sure there was, she was a slave being kept for decoration and entertainment. You'll notice that every other time she appears in the movies she's wearing normal "unsexy" clothes just like everyone else.

Except Chewbacca and the droids, everyone forgets Chewbacca was always naked save his utility belt. C3PO is always parading his gay gold body everywhere and even shares a steamy oil bath scene with R2.

Lucas probably wanted to offer some fan service to all the furries and technopilles out there.

 Troike wrote:
But as I said, her fluff is solid.

What fluff ? She's whipping the repentia. Apart from that…

 Troike wrote:
But she also fits very will with the relgious nutter theme. Flagellation and extreme pennance is something that extremists like the Sisters do, so she has a good basis for being there, at least.

Self-flagellation, yeah. Not flagellation of others while staying comfortably in a power armor.

 azreal13 wrote:

Peregrine wrote:The issue isn't people wearing attractive clothing in social situations where nice clothes are important, it's that women are portrayed in attractive clothing even in situations (a battle, for example) where attractive clothing is irrelevant at best, while men just wear practical stuff with no attempt to be sexy.

azreal13 wrote:Exactly!

Like the Catachans!

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:Catachan aren't attempting to look sexy. Those guys are :

Rostere wrote:

You're not even trying to follow the conversation now are you?

I am. I ignored the practical part because we all know nothing in 40k is practical. Men wears unpractical stuff with no attempt to be sexy, including the Catachan.

Khan Raider wrote:
Hybrid Son of Something I can't Pronounce

Oxayotl. The Chameleon Skink special character back when it was unique of its kind. Now, he has been renamed Oxyotl.

Khan Raider wrote:
Myself and a buddy who is a navy vet pretty much guard dog for everyone.

I usually play at my FLGS where the staff will and do play this role better than me .

xruslanx wrote:
it does not break the willing suspension of disbelief, it is in keeping with the aesthetic...

It does, and it's not.

 azreal13 wrote:
To argue that a low cut dress in a sketch is in any way sharing "intent" whatever you mean by that, with porn is just daft.

May be a slight exaggeration, but still, here this cleavage is definitely not here to convey some information about her character (unlike Dr Manhattan or Repentia sisters or Dark Elves Succubus or …). I think that was his point.



I'm quite sad that absolutely nobody at all reacted to my opposition between story-driven nudity versus eye-candy nudity.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

What fluff ? She's whipping the repentia. Apart from that…

That's simplifying it a little. She's not whipping them "just because", she's doing it to punish them for their sins, and to drive them ever harder towards seeking Big E's forgiveness. She's a brutal spiritual overseer, basically.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Self-flagellation, yeah. Not flagellation of others while staying comfortably in a power armor.

The point of the Mistress is that she actually is above the Repenita. Mistresses are some of the most faithful Sisters in the order, which is why they're chosen to oversee the Repentia, and punish them whilst also pushing them to forgiveness.

Sadly I don't access to my codex right now, else I'd reference what the fluff actually says, but I think that what I said about them is accurate.

Anyway, I thought you liked the extremity of the Repentia? You certainly seem to like the "hardcore version" that we see in the artwork. I just see the Mistresses of a part of that extremity, myself. Very over the top, as befits the extreme end of an organisation of extreme zealots.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Catachan aren't attempting to look sexy. Those guys are :

Rostere wrote:

In all honesty, if there where models like these I would go about getting some and using them in my army.

 Troike wrote:
The point of the Mistress is that she actually is above the Repenita. Mistresses are some of the most faithful Sisters in the order, which is why they're chosen to oversee the Repentia, and punish them whilst also pushing them to forgiveness.

The fluff mention how the repentia included some of the most devout Sisters that actually got in here because they obsess over extremely minor or imaginary sins. I like that way better than the Repentia being some kind of Penal Legion where you go when you are punished and forced to by others, and need an overseer.

 Troike wrote:
Sadly I don't access to my codex right now, else I'd reference what the fluff actually says, but I think that what I said about them is accurate.

Well, it mainly says that she is the one who will be able to say which one earned redemption at the end of battle.

 Troike wrote:
I just see the Mistresses of a part of that extremity, myself.

For me, it doesn't go well with it, because of what I said above. If anything, the Sororitas should try to restrain its more self-destructive elements so that they can actually help in battle.

The sentiment 'wargames are for guys so it is OK to have some T&A' is just stupid. It used to be same for RPGs, but nowadays most companies recognise an women are part of the potential target audience too. With computer games number of women playing is constantly increasing. And women do compete, they play competitive games, they compete in sports. Now, I hate prudery, and chainmail burkha is not an improvement over chainmail bikini, but if you are going to put sexy art in your game, then let there be sexy art featuring both genders equally.

That being said, I don't think that main problem in GW games regarding representation of women is that they're featured only as sex objects, it is that the're barely featured at all. There really should be a lot more female miniatures and female special characters.

 snurl wrote:

 carlos13th wrote:
No one was saying the problem is exclusive to wargames or miniatures. There is a problem in many works of fantasy though where women tend to be sex objects first and characters second.

Subject: Representation of women in miniature games (go-to thread to prevent off-topic on other threads)

Key word here is Fantasy.
I don't want my fantasy stuff to be filtered by the everything must be P.C. crowd.

It has nothing to do with being PC. Tits for tits sake serves no purpose except to draw in people via sex appeal. Its a very cheap and lazy approach to take.

I think the Repentia mistress is meant to represent a School Mistress, an older term for a senior female teacher who teaches at a girl's school, Master being the male equivalent. The Repenita would then be a cross between naughty schoogirls and naughty nuns, two tropes popular in earlier British humour. The Mistress, with deliberate cross reference to BDSM mistresses, and her whip would preside over these naughty young ladies and provide appropriate spankings when needed.

 Crimson wrote:
The sentiment 'wargames are for guys so it is OK to have some T&A' is just stupid. It used to be same for RPGs, but nowadays most companies recognise an women are part of the potential target audience too. With computer games number of women playing is constantly increasing. And women do compete, they play competitive games, they compete in sports.

This is quite interesting actually, but one thing to keep in mind when you compare video games to wargaming is that you cant really compare the two The video game industry is massive and rivals both the movie and music industry, video games is also mainstream these days while wargaming is still very much a niche.

With that said, what really interested me is why women dont seem to be interested in wargaming? As you say women are becoming more and more common in video game circles and in my experience there has always been a female demographic for roleplaying games, but in wargaming? Not so much. In my limited experience I have never met a women who has showed any interest in wargaming (Their sentiment usually ranges from "indifferent" to "condescending") and I dont see any inherent reasons for it. I dont buy the "competitive" argument as Wargaming isn't really that competitive in my opinion. Painting and sculpting is not male-exclusive and fantasy and sci-fi have had female fans for a long time too. And if you get down to it, is there really such a big difference between toy soldiers and doll houses?

 Crimson wrote:

That being said, I don't think that main problem in GW games regarding representation of women is that they're featured only as sex objects, it is that the're barely featured at all. There really should be a lot more female miniatures and female special characters.

Well you have to keep in mind that GWs main market is 12-year old boys and that is who their targeting. And if had to guess which demographic would be the least interested in female miniatures, my guess would be 12-year old boys

Which begs the question, how do you market wargaming to a female demographic?

One of the reasons you will find is that big tits on a poster in a public place will instantly make a lot of girls uncomfortable.
It's a sign that your unwanted there for anything other than your sex appeal and for looking at.
Pictures at conventions and such, and in game stores. It also doesn't help that if you walk in you do get stared at. So it becomes a sign to just stay away.
You can also look at how things are worded, playing some RPGs with guys comeing from wargaming had them weirded out by how often the books would refer to the players as female, think how that feals for female players reading up about Alot of these games. With the lack of female representation it's much harder to get into the game.

Lego is a good example, they started advertising heavily to boys and girls started to stop getting there products. It become a thing boys do and girls are not welcome, now they are trying to get girls back into it with realy crappy products.
At pax there was a good amount of girls playing pokemon TCG, but nearly non playing magic the gathering.
And board games of all sorts are very popular with both sexes.

Sex sell easily, but it also pushes out potential custermers easy.

There are a couple of things I want to point out.

Firstly, the reason people object to sexualised depictions of women in media isn't because they think sex is bad or breasts are sinful or something*. It's because of what the subtext of the images conveys. When all your depictions of women are young, attractive to men and sexually available, you're suggesting that those are really the only women that matter. You have this breadth of men ranging from the beautiful to the hideous, the young to the very old, but when it comes to the women you have this tiny, narrow spectrum and the rest are disappeared. There's a strong message from society that if you're a woman, nothing you do counts unless you're attractive to men. That's harmful. These things reinforce it.

Secondly, these depictions can send a message to female players, current and prospective, saying: this game isn't for you. That you like this at all is an accident and don't expect what you want to be given the slightest consideration. It's all about the men (or, some would argue, the boys). These can drive women away from the game before they even get into it. Even those of us who've been around this sort of thing for a long, long time can get hit by that alienated feeling occasionally.

Anyway, in relative terms the inquisitor is a pretty good drawing. Hey, the armour is kinda stupid, but still, it's not too bad. What annoys me about that picture is the male-as-default pronoun in the text. Guys: it's okay to use generic pronouns. Male pronouns aren't "generic." They never were. Using them as if they are is quite creepy and exclusionary.

These guys just haven't been quoted enough yet and bear some more repetition just in case we all missed it.

 Troike wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
why should 40k be appealing to women?

Why should it not? It can appeal to men whilst appealing to women too, it's not some weird cleavage-based tradeoff.

well in the real world there are very few things that seek to appeal to both men and women. I see no reason why a sci-fi setting where 99% of the people who follow it are men, should appeal to women instead.

For people asserting that these images or miniatures put off potential female gamers, I just want to put out one little bit of anecdotal information.

Our FLGS has a large number of female gamers, more than I have ever seen at any game store in the 25+ years that I have patroned them. The store has the same amount of hypothetically "offensive" or "gender stereotype" imagery as any other place. It just about has to since it sells GW, Wyrd, PP, and everything else you can think of. All of their miniatures and art work, boobies and all.

None of them in my discussions have ever indicated that they bear offense to this imagery. Heck, many of them buy, paint, and play with the most sexualized miniatures out there.

If I had to guess, the reason they come to the store is because it is nice, clean, well-lit, and has an owner with a great personality and inclusive manner to all kinds of gamers. We even have severall openly LGBT gamers at the store.

If I had to guess, the imagery in the game is far less important to people that the actual gamers they meet and interactions they have on a social level.

Saldiven wrote:
For people asserting that these images or miniatures put off potential female gamers, I just want to put out one little bit of anecdotal information.

Our FLGS has a large number of female gamers, more than I have ever seen at any game store in the 25+ years that I have patroned them. The store has the same amount of hypothetically "offensive" or "gender stereotype" imagery as any other place. It just about has to since it sells GW, Wyrd, PP, and everything else you can think of. All of their miniatures and art work, boobies and all.

None of them in my discussions have ever indicated that they bear offense to this imagery. Heck, many of them buy, paint, and play with the most sexualized miniatures out there.

If I had to guess, the reason they come to the store is because it is nice, clean, well-lit, and has an owner with a great personality and inclusive manner to all kinds of gamers. We even have severall openly LGBT gamers at the store.

If I had to guess, the imagery in the game is far less important to people that the actual gamers they meet and interactions they have on a social level.

The images themselves are not the entire issue, and I would say I never talk about this stuff with my clup or store. As can be it means a very awquard and often when bring this up in places like this is something many of us have learned just not to do.
Also those company's are fairly good in there depiction of women with only GW falling behind due to lack of representation at all.. PP actuly gets praised for its depiction of women in gaming.
Which I agree with.
A good store can still be inviting, but It can still have issues that people just put up with.

Saldiven wrote:
For people asserting that these images or miniatures put off potential female gamers, I just want to put out one little bit of anecdotal information.

Our FLGS has a large number of female gamers, more than I have ever seen at any game store in the 25+ years that I have patroned them. The store has the same amount of hypothetically "offensive" or "gender stereotype" imagery as any other place. It just about has to since it sells GW, Wyrd, PP, and everything else you can think of. All of their miniatures and art work, boobies and all.

None of them in my discussions have ever indicated that they bear offense to this imagery. Heck, many of them buy, paint, and play with the most sexualized miniatures out there.

If I had to guess, the reason they come to the store is because it is nice, clean, well-lit, and has an owner with a great personality and inclusive manner to all kinds of gamers. We even have several openly LGBT gamers at the store.

If I had to guess, the imagery in the game is far less important to people that the actual gamers they meet and interactions they have on a social level.

How women are represented in the games themselves is just part of a much more complicated issue.

Before I got married, I never realized how much women have to take their personal safety into consideration every day of their lives. At first I though that how obsessive she was about locking the car doors while we drive, or not wanting to go to the mall or other crowded stores by herself was a little silly. But we talked about it, and I realized she has to deal with a lot of legitimate threats to her safety. Just because she's a 5 foot tall 100 pound woman in a world where women are often the targets of violence. It's a much scarier world when you're not a guy. Yeah, guys get mugged to, but every mugger's got to wonder whether that skinny guy is a secret Krag Maga master or is packing heat. As guys we benefit from those types of positive stereotypes with out really realizing it.

So yeah, there's are lot of girls that are potential mini's gamers that would be put off by a store that doesn't have any other girls around. As humans we get uncomfortable when there aren't other people like us around. For women it's compounded by the aforementioned personal safety concerns.

Luckily, I noticed that, if you do get women into a group, it becomes easier to grow that demographic. If a random women walks into a game store, and sees other women playing a game, she's more inclined to become interested herself. It's much more easier to be the nth person than the 1st person no matter your gender, race, orientation, or whatever.