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.

No matter what way you portray women somebody is going to find it sexualized or objectionable.

The heavy set matron nun? that's somebody's fetish material. Nuns with guns are fetish material and can be offensive to the viewer simply from a religious point of view as it promotes the image of violence. (also why do you suppose only the matrons are fat and old, when the other nuns are always young and thin?)

There's even a group of people in Isreal who have proposed that the wearing of a burqa not only objectifies women but it even prompts sexual urges in certain fetish groups. (and thus is counter productive in the purpose of "saving men from impure thoughts")


Personally I find the subject of women in combat offensive, because I don't feel that women should be in combat, period. It's not that I don't feel that women aren't capable, but I feel that if we have resorted to sending women or children into combat we have already lost as a society. I get offended when I see a female in combat armor much the same way I get offended when I see a child being conscripted into some african army. Having women and children in combat is needless and wastefull, and IMO it's a cruelty that's entirely avoidable.

The point is no matter how you display a woman somebody is always going to find a way to be either turned on by it, offended by it, or even both at the same time.









Hybrid: lovely way to argue your point; cry about cleavage on the inquisitor's drawing yet say here's a great mini from reaper while ignoring the fact it has just as much cleavage, or here's some fetish nuns or female knights with sculpted boob armor. Women wearing plate armor wear the same breatplates as men, so sculpting boobs onto the breastplate is done to sexualize the sculpt. (Much akin to adding high heels to the boots, nobody willingly fights in high heels)



.

I don't think women in combat is any worse than men in combat as long as both are capable. I would prefer neither to be in combat but sadly thats not the world we live in.

 azreal13 wrote:
You'll just have to be patient with repeat arguments, once a thread gets to a certain length people do not want, or are unable to read the whole thing.

Yeah, but reading at least a little of the beginning of the thread and a little of the end is good manners imho.

 azreal13 wrote:
It doesn't make their point less valid though

It doesn't. My argument does. I mean, how can the discussion evolves if we keep going back to the same basic argument.

I confess I'm actually a bit frustrated that nobody seems to have noticed in any way my whole point about nudity actually serving the story and everything too.

Deadnight wrote:
what i intended to say was "canonness with a bolter". nothing to do with the nuns with guns.
http://www.reapermini.com/Miniatures/Sisters%20of%20the%20Blade/latest/03203

quite a bit of cleavage on show.

as to that laroche - that simply boils down to your paintscheme.whilst the one you linked shows cloth, the model is ambiguous. its just as easy to paint her skin "nude" as with "cloth".

Oh. I guess both models are the same on that area. It all boils down to the painter's interpretation. I've painted my Isabeau Laroche in the same golden armor as my whole conclave, with no cleavage, and I plan to do the same with Shaedra.
If I get the model and it actually looks like cleavage, then I'll green-stuff it.

Deadnight wrote:
Preferring little models with less skin showing isnt going to make the female population like you or me any more than they already do.

Can't make them like me less either .
Anyhow, I already mentioned a bunch of time in this topic that I complain first and foremost for my own, egoistical enjoyment of the miniatures or illustrations. And, just in case, that it's not about being prudish, and that I'm perfectly okay with full nudity when it serves the story.

 paulson games wrote:
No matter what way you portray women somebody is going to find it sexualized or objectionable.

Who cares if someone find it “objectionable” ? For instance, you find any women in armor objectionable. I neither care nor thing there shouldn't be plenty of female model with armor.
Now if you can argument your point, maybe you'll get me to change my mind. But really, it's not a great start so far.

 paulson games wrote:
Nuns with guns are fetish material and can be offensive to the viewer simply from a religious point of view as it promotes the image of violence.

Not only it's more of a bonus for me if it offend religious feelings ( ), but the whole 40k range promotes violence. What are you even doing here if you are offended by that ?

 paulson games wrote:
There's even a group of people in Isreal who have proposed that the wearing of a burqa

A group of people in Israel. That's definitely an authority on burka !

 paulson games wrote:
cry about cleavage on the inquisitor's drawing yet say here's a great mini from reaper while ignoring the fact it has just as much cleavage

If you are speaking about Shaedra, that didn't seem like cleavage to me.

 paulson games wrote:
here's some fetish nuns

Well, they are nuns, that's undeniable.
However, fetish is in the eye of the beholder.
They don't have anything related to fetishism, or any kind of sexual practice, on them.

 paulson games wrote:
Much akin to adding high heels to the boots, nobody willingly fights in high heels

Good thing none of the models I linked to have any, then !

 paulson games wrote:

Personally I find the subject of women in combat offensive, because I don't feel that women should be in combat, period. It's not that I don't feel that women aren't capable, but I feel that if we have resorted to sending women or children into combat we have already lost as a society. I get offended when I see a female in combat armor much the same way I get offended when I see a child being conscripted into some african army. Having women and children in combat is needless and wastefull, and IMO it's a cruelty that's entirely avoidable.

Whoa, that's most sexist thing I've read for a while! Comparing women to children, way to go.

 paulson games wrote:
Nuns with guns are fetish material and can be offensive to the viewer simply from a religious point of view as it promotes the image of violence.

hybrid wrote:Not only it's more of a bonus for me if it offend religious feelings ( ), but the whole 40k range promotes violence. What are you even doing here if you are offended by that ?

Much the same could be in regards to gaming. Gaming promotes sexist depictions of women. What are you even doing here if you are offended by that?

Sorry but if you're going to lead off a thread about taking offense to something you can't just disqualify people's statements by saying well if you don't like it why are you here?, afterall that's exactly what everyone could counter your entire arguement with.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 paulson games wrote:
There's even a group of people in Isreal who have proposed that the wearing of a burqa

A group of people in Israel. That's definitely an authority on burka !

Considering that Isreal is also smack in the center of the Islamic world and they share the same city on a daily basis with hundreds of thousands of muslims I think they *might* have a more educated view on burqa than some dudes sitting in the France or the US, bothof which tend to have a pretty piss poor understanding of Muslim culture.




The Isabeau Laroche figure you quoted is only 1 of 4 "offically painted" minis that seems to be under the impression that those breasts are covered. The other 3 on reaper website all have flesh tones on the upper breast. Additionally the detail on the mini suggests that it is bare skin of the breasts. You have small details on the side and underneath of the breast area representing the foldings and sticthing line of the leather, that detail is absent on the top of the breasts and there is a hard line showing where the chest covering ends and the exposed breast is revealed. The painter doing the grey version simply got it wrong.

I would suggest you oggle them a bit more closely and take in all the details

 paulson games wrote:
Gaming promotes sexist depictions of women.

No, it doesn't.
Especially given how few depiction of women there is in 40k !
But it's right that if 99% of the miniatures for a game were pin-up girls, I wouldn't be interested in it, and wouldn't go on forums dedicated to it.

 paulson games wrote:
Sorry but if you're going to lead off a thread about taking offense to something

Except that :
- I'm not offended
- even if I was, it wouldn't be the important part. The important part would still be me explaining why I think it's wrong. Nobody cares if I'm offended except if, well, after I explain them, they feel offended too. Or at the very least, thing that my reasons for being offended are legitimate, and that they sympathize with them enough for wanting not to offend me.
And the bad news here is that I'm as far as possible to thinking your reasons for being offended legitimate. Actually, the truth is that I'm offended by your reasons for being offended. And so is Crimson. Hence, we really have no reason to try not to offend you on this subject.
We are actually going to offend you by reminding you that most modern countries have women as part of their military forces, and that there are a bunch of women fighting in history.
Especially, let me emphasize that Israel do have a lot of women in their military forces .

 paulson games wrote:
Considering that Isreal is also smack in the center of the Islamic world and they share the same city on a daily basis with hundreds of thousands of muslims I think they *might* have a more educated view than some dudes sitting in the France or the US, bothof which tend to have a pretty piss poor understanding of Muslim culture.

I'm pretty sure I've seen more integral veils (though they were niqab rather than burka) than most Israeli (and without any hint of doubt more chadors, thanks Khamenei and co ), and I have a better understanding of “Muslim culture” than you do (hint : there is no such thing, Islam is a religion). Burqa is not worn in Palestine, except maybe for a statistically insignificant number of women.
But you seem to fail to grasp the real issue here. With no better description than “a group of people in Israel”, you could as well have said “Some tiny-tiny minority of extremely biased people with an agenda but without anyone taking them seriously”. I'm sure there are a lot of Israeli groups of people with extremely biased views on Islam.

Now I don't want to go too deep on Islam here. Please. Don't get me banned .

I don't care for models of women with big tits, big butts and showing a ton of skin. They look like strippers that were given guns and told "Go shoot stuff". I'd rather have proffesional looking soldiers TBH. I do like those ouftits but on fighters? Stupid as hell. I mean, skimpy outfits are a sniper's/marskman's dream. You got so many vital organs exposed.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I don't care for models of women with big tits, big butts and showing a ton of skin. They look like strippers that were given guns and told "Go shoot stuff". I'd rather have proffesional looking soldiers TBH. I do like those ouftits but on fighters? Stupid as hell. I mean, skimpy outfits are a sniper's/marskman's dream. You got so many vital organs exposed.

Trying to use logic is a dead end when talking about a fictional creation that's already as preposterous as 40K.

Professional looking female soldiers at 30mm just look like soldiers, hence the features need exaggerating in order for them to work visually.

 azreal13 wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I don't care for models of women with big tits, big butts and showing a ton of skin. They look like strippers that were given guns and told "Go shoot stuff". I'd rather have proffesional looking soldiers TBH. I do like those ouftits but on fighters? Stupid as hell. I mean, skimpy outfits are a sniper's/marskman's dream. You got so many vital organs exposed.

Trying to use logic is a dead end when talking about a fictional creation that's already as preposterous as 40K.

Professional looking female soldiers at 30mm just look like soldiers, hence the features need exaggerating in order for them to work visually.

Why? Why do we need to distinguish the males from the females if, when wearing appropriate armor, they would just blend into the crowd? Is it to show that you got female minis? I always disliked that reasoning because it falls into this idea of males being the default and females being the exception.

But in a military situation, women are the exception.

Everything is exaggerated in 40K. Infinity perhaps is often held up as an example of more accurate proportions, and one could struggle to tell the gender of certain models at tabletop range, other than the odd bit of cheesecake and bare midriff, both male and female models can be found in armour or in lightweight jumpsuits or similar. But in 40K, everything is turned up to 11, there is no such thing as subtle.

 azreal13 wrote:
But in a military situation, women are the exception.

Everything is exaggerated in 40K. Infinity perhaps is often held up as an example of more accurate proportions, and one could struggle to tell the gender of certain models at tabletop range, other than the odd bit of cheesecake and bare midriff, both male and female models can be found in armour or in lightweight jumpsuits or similar. But in 40K, everything is turned up to 11, there is no such thing as subtle.

In a historical context, yes, but this is fantasy where anything is possible. In the Imperial Guard and Sisters of Battle, and indeed in every army save the Space Marines/Orks/Necrons/Chaos/Nids and CSM women serve are not the exception. Though you wouldn't know within the art.

And your second point is valid to a certain extent. Guns and heads are emphasized on GW's "Heroic" scale but this is for 1) Aid in identifying different members in the squad and 2) To emphasize certain stylistic elements. Not to emphasize the gender of the model. After all, space marines notwithstanding, not very many GW models have incredibly wide shoulders and bulging pants.

My question, though, still remains. Why does a female's gender need to be emphasized so much? I can understand it in rulesets where certain rules differ between genders but I've never heard of one.

 paulson games wrote:


or here's some fetish nuns or female knights with sculpted boob armor.
.

btw to touch on the whole fetish about women in armor thing...

Did you know they sell chain mail undergraments for women? I was looking for historical type chain mail armor stuff on eBay (because nerd) and it was like 80% female stuff.

Personally I would think that gak chaffs like mad.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I can understand it in rulesets where certain rules differ between genders but I've never heard of one.

Macho Women With Guns...

There, now you have heard of one.

I neither care nor thing there shouldn't be plenty of female model with armor.

That doesn't make sense at all. If you didn't care - you wouldn't care, and you wouldn't be in this thread. You have been active from the start of it and have been arguing quite fervently that women should be in full armor all the way.

I don't care, however I have just pointed out that companies have attempted to point out that companies have tried to fulfill what people like you claim should happen and it isn't economically viable. For everyone of those miniatures sold - you sell 10 French maids in high heels (and really - how many of those do you need). You also have games like MWWG that has sold out of every single print run he has done whereas female friendly games like Blue Rose fell flat (yes, it won an ENnie - but largely was a loss for GRP)

The other issue goes to how big of a problem is it? Believe it or not - the majority of females like the idealized miniatures who are showing a bit of skin. It is inline with the same reason why the male miniatures are not portrayed as being 50 lbs over weight with a receding hairline and neck beards. People prefer to look at pretty things.

Unless those who feel otherwise are willing to put enough cash on the table for it to make a difference - then, it won't make a difference and you will continue to see curvaceous miniatures, cleavage in rule books - and yes, Cosmo at your grocery store checkouts.

 paulson games wrote:



Personally I find the subject of women in combat offensive, because I don't feel that women should be in combat, period. It's not that I don't feel that women aren't capable, but I feel that if we have resorted to sending women or children into combat we have already lost as a society. I get offended when I see a female in combat armor much the same way I get offended when I see a child being conscripted into some african army. Having women and children in combat is needless and wastefull, and IMO it's a cruelty that's entirely avoidable.
.

We've lost as a society by not restricting competent, capable adults from pursuing their goals and serving out countries because of what's between their legs?

What year is it?

 Las wrote:

We've lost as a society by not restricting competent, capable adults from pursuing their goals and serving out countries because of what's between their legs?

What year is it?

Year is irrelevent. You can't critisise someone for being appalled by the notion of women in combat, that is just how some people feel. An innate desire to protect women from warfare is not offensive to anyone and is a perfectly natural - and overwealmingly common - opinion.

Yes you can criticise it. Ideally the criticism is backed up with reasons rather than simply assuming the obvious, but you can certainly criticise it.

The desire to protect women in particular, rather than say, human beings who are weak enough to warrant protecting, is the issue that I have. A protector needs to be strong and capable, not have a penis. Women are not an inferior victim class of human beings no matter how common that perception is.

 Kojiro wrote:
Yes you can criticise it. Ideally the criticism is backed up with reasons rather than simply assuming the obvious, but you can certainly criticise it.

The desire to protect women in particular, rather than say, human beings who are weak enough to warrant protecting, is the issue that I have. A protector needs to be strong and capable, not have a penis. Women are not an inferior victim class of human beings no matter how common that perception is.

So those of us who were raised that men should be protective of women...? That is quite a common cultural trait in our society, you might pretend otherwise but many people are simply disgusted by the notion of women in combat.

 Las wrote:

We've lost as a society by not restricting competent, capable adults from pursuing their goals and serving out countries because of what's between their legs?

What year is it?

Why I am not for women in combat isn't because they aren't capable but because it has a lot of potential fall out in regard to what happens as a result of the war. In order for a population to continue we need far fewer men than we do women. If the majority of men sent off to combat die the few men remaining are enough the population of the following generation doesn't decrease significantly. Now if you start sending the same amount of women into combat that die simular numbers to the men, you will see a decline in the population following that war as there are not as many females to carry offspring.

When a male dies in combat it's just him as any other male can easily father dozens or hundreds children if need be, when a female dies her offspring are not as easily replaced, which is one of the reasons why women haven't been a main battlefield presence in most cultures. (except as supporting roles) You see it happen in a few points in history but those instances are rare and when it occurs in modern day it is typically from situations of extreme duress like in WWII wherre there simply weren't enough soviet men left.

Children soliders are also commonely a case of extreme military desperation and causes long term damage to the populations. There are regions in Africa where war has killed off so many men that they are left scrounging for whatever resources they can which is why they've taken to conscripting boys. It's so severe that many villiages in warzones are facing total population collapse within the next generation. So it feeds directly into the collapse of a society.

I respect the choice of a female soldier to serve as much as any man and I think there are a lot of fine and capable service women out there. But at the same time the level of warfare we engage in is differant than what occurs in other countries. Nowdays we aren't losing wave after wave of soldiers like has happened in the past, but should we encounter such situations again I do believe it's foolish to place females in combat under those circumstances as it has potential to jepordize the survival of the following generation.

Suppose we end up in a situation where we might lose a 1/4 of the females in our counrty due to mass warfare, those type of losses not only damage the current population but you'll see a sharp decline in the following generations as well. Lose 1/4 of the male population it's not nearly as pronounced.

It has nothing to do with percieving females as weaker or any less capable. It's based on how it impacts future generations.



Addiitionally I was raised that men fight because you believe that the lives of others are more important then your own. You take their place so that they can go on to prosper and grow it's not done to show disrespect towards women. Deciding to protect somebody does not inherantly mean that you view yourself as superior or that they are incapable. I'd put myself in front of a bullet for any of my fellow soldiers in a heartbeat, it has nothing to do with seeing any of them as less capable, it has everything to do with me wanting to see somebody else continue on living. (even if it costs me my life)



.

xruslanx wrote:
So those of us who were raised that men should be protective of women...?

Have cultural baggage like someone raised to believe blacks are inferior. Being raised with an idea about a group of people doesn't make that indoctrination true. Disgust is not a rational argument.

That is quite a common cultural trait in our society, you might pretend otherwise but many people are simply disgusted by the notion of women in combat.

As I said ' no matter how common that perception is'. If you want to claim women are an inferior class of human who are in need of special protections, considerations (and clearly limitations) go right ahead. You can't argue for equality and special consideration though.

Some people are weak, some are in need of protection and special assistance but to say that about all women truly is degrading and unfair to them.

See, you say inferior, I merely say different.

Men are, on balance (yes there are exceptions yadda, yadda) bigger, stronger, more agressive, generally better suited to combat than women.

Not to mention the simple biological mechanism that one man can father many children in a short space of time, whereas a woman can at most produce one baby a year, so the survival of the species hinges on the protection of the female.

 Kojiro wrote:

Have cultural baggage like someone raised to believe blacks are inferior. Being raised with an idea about a group of people doesn't make that indoctrination true. Disgust is not a rational argument.

The difference being of course that young men are not naturally predisposed towards starting a family with a black person as they are with a woman. Such a cultural teching reinforces the male desire to procreate, and to protect the carrier of his offspring as well as others in society.

As I said ' no matter how common that perception is'. If you want to claim women are an inferior class of human who are in need of special protections, considerations (and clearly limitations) go right ahead. You can't argue for equality and special consideration though.
Some people are weak, some are in need of protection and special assistance but to say that about all women truly is degrading and unfair to them.

Women have something about them that is very special though, the ability to make babies. Why shouldn't people who're special be treated...special?

 Kojiro wrote:

Some people are weak, some are in need of protection and special assistance but to say that about all women truly is degrading and unfair to them.

You might think its truly degrading, but its also truly factually correct.

I attended special forces training, the only women that are allowed in are in the Special Reconnaissance Regiment, and they have longer times, and have to carry lighter weights than the men on every single criteria test.

In the USMC, women are allowed to do less chin ups, and complete all of the runs slower.

Women ARE weaker than men physically. It is a proven fact. If a man and a woman are of equal height and weight, the man will be able to bench around 20% more weight than the the woman.

I loathe misogynist feth heads, but being a man who reveres logic and reason above everything else, I also loathe political correctness getting in the way of facts, Its why gak like this happens.

http://nypost.com/2013/11/10/female-fdny-recruit-fails-running-test-five-times-but-graduates-anyway/

If I was a New Yorker and I was desperate to become a firefighter and I read that story, I would be utterly appalled, as it stands, Im merely somewhat disgusted that PC bollocks is even being allowed to interfere in situations where peoples fething LIVES are on the line. That chick should be nowhere near a fire department.

Anyway, Im rambling, but the point is, ladies are great, and in many situations they are superior to men, certainly evidence suggests that they really are better multitaskers for example, but lets have it said right here and now so this thread doesn't start to get filled with nonsense.

Women are weaker and slower than men, and if you argue otherwise you are ignoring reality.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azreal13 wrote:
See, you say inferior, I merely say different.

Men are, on balance (yes there are exceptions yadda, yadda) bigger, stronger, more aggressive, generally better suited to combat than women.

Not to mention the simple biological mechanism that one man can father many children in a short space of time, whereas a woman can at most produce one baby a year, so the survival of the species hinges on the protection of the female.

Yeah I agree with you and Rus, I don't think women should be in frontline combat roles, but for different reasons.

I think they should only be allowed if they complete the same tests, and because they dont, they shouldn't, so clearly they deserve that special treatment, because they are already getting it in the first place.

It's not just combat, but sport.

Are there any sports where men and women compete in mixed gender at a professional level? Excluding mixed doubles racquet sports where the advantage is negated by the opposition being in the same boat.

No F1 drivers, not because the rules don't allow it, but, as yet, there hasn't been a woman fast enough to be selected. There's been what, one? Indycar female competitor.

All this isn't to say that there are things that women aren't superior at, or to say they're inferior overall, just that in certain things, men have a greater aptitude.

To load the dice to pretend women can somehow compete on an even level is unfair to men and patronising to women.

I do actually have a manual job where none of the people in my department are women. That's not to say that no woman in the entire world would be incapable of doing it - or that all men are capable, since they aren't. But certainly 95% of the girls who come in couldn't do it, the agency don't even bother sending women to us.

Not that I'd ever make blanket judgements about *all* men or *all* women, but I think that the differences between the sexes have been diminished in modern culture. If I view girls as little and feminine, and blokes as big and strong...it's because most of the guys I know are big and strong, and most of the girls I know are <5'4 and generally useless at manual activities .
Usual caveats about how this isn't universal, some women are built like a gak-brick house, some men will fall over at a fart in the wind, etc.

 azreal13 wrote:


To load the dice to pretend women can somehow compete on an even level is unfair to men and patronising to women.

Definately, the world we live in is truly mad though, up is down and left is right in the modern age of topsy turvy political correctness.

azreal13 wrote:See, you say inferior, I merely say different.

And subject to any given task that will be qualitatively better or worse. You can call that different if you like but it's a fine hair to split.

Not to mention the simple biological mechanism that one man can father many children in a short space of time, whereas a woman can at most produce one baby a year, so the survival of the species hinges on the protection of the female.

These considerations are long past and would only be considered in a massive, massive conflict. If the US armed forces doubled their female numbers AND made them all front line troops it wouldn't in any way threaten the US population. Yes if you get down to a literal race survival number of people men are more disposable, and I have no argument with that in that situation.

xruslanx wrote:The difference being of course that young men are not naturally predisposed towards starting a family with a black person as they are with a woman. Such a cultural teching reinforces the male desire to procreate, and to protect the carrier of his offspring as well as others in society.

Protecting your own offspring/partner is a wholly different matter to considering an entire gender victims in waiting, or the viability of woman to do a job like combat. Is she weaker than the male next to her? Maybe but if she meets the requirements so what? All that matters is she's strong enough to do the job.

Women have something about them that is very special though, the ability to make babies. Why shouldn't people who're special be treated...special?

So your argument now is that women are more valuable than men?

mattyrm wrote: Women ARE weaker than men physically. It is a proven fact. If a man and a woman are of equal height and weight, the man will be able to bench around 20% more weight than the the woman.

Don't get me wrong- as I said a protector needs to be strong and capable- and given the task at hand, like say top tier military training a (possibly overwhelming) majority women may indeed fall short. But that's an argument for uncompromising merit based testing, not for gross generalisations about a gender. If a woman can meet the standards there should be no barrier to entry due to her genitalia or potential breeding stock value.

Let me be clear I'm not claiming women are all universally equal to all men. I'm all for merit based everything. But outside of specific physical tasks women can meet those requirements.

Much of this topic reminds me of the Far Side incident with the Jane Goodall strip.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Goodall#Gary_Larson_cartoon_incident

i.e. stop getting offended on other people's behalf, ya knuckleheads

 Kojiro wrote:

azreal13 wrote:See, you say inferior, I merely say different.

And subject to any given task that will be qualitatively better or worse. You can call that different if you like but it's a fine hair to split.

Saying women are better at some things and worse at others than men is in no trichological way similar to saying women are inferior.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
Much of this topic reminds me of the Far Side incident with the Jane Goodall strip.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Goodall#Gary_Larson_cartoon_incident

i.e. stop getting offended on other people's behalf, ya knuckleheads

Couldn't agree more, people getting offended about the possibility of others offence is something that really rubs me the wrong way (there may be an irony buried deep in that, not sure!)

Such as those campaigning the Washington Redskins change their name, despite a relatively recent survey of Native Americans on the topic indicating the majority aren't the least bothered.

 azreal13 wrote:

Saying women are better at some things and worse at others than men is in no trichological way similar to saying women are inferior.

I'm not sure that's the word you want to use, but I get your meaning. There are quantitative differences between the sexes, I'm certainly not arguing against that. What I'm saying though is that for most tasks in this world some number of women measure up (likewise some men fail).
And don't think for a moment I'm a feminist- I am most certainly not, nor am I trying to assign to women any ability they don't have. I get annoyed when people try to claim that women are all delicate flowers, that they have no right doing X (in this case combat) as if they have no agency or are inherently inferior because they're women. Likewise if they want to expose their chests or dress sexily that's their decision and I would vehemently oppose any call to oppose/censor this.

And I have no trouble with any artist depicting anything that happens in real life.

I know a lot of people always bring up the subject of female guard units which is a situation that I'd find uncomfortable.

You have an image of an all female unit from a deathworld or wherever, if they refuse to fight they are mowed down by their own officers. Furthermore they'd likely be facing an all male marine force or other male force. That could send a lot of mixed signals about the precieved value of women in the game. While the guard player might think it's great, other people viewing the game with a more traditional approach to the role women in combat might not think it's very funny or appealing.

The WWII soviet style tactics of throwing a wall bodies against the enemy is already horrific and dehumanizing, translate that into walls of disposable dead women..... it's not a good picture.

Many of us don't even give a second thought to horrible things done to other men in action films or video games, but when same things are applied to women in a "fantasy" conext it starts setting off alarms bells warning of sociopathic behavior.


I certainly don't want to be playinga game where the objective is to shoot and kill as many women as possible. There's a disassociation that occurs when the models are faceless male goons, and the violence is marginalized, maybe it's not right but it's there. You change the percieved theme to "hey lets shoot women" and you'll likely never see a female gamer in your store again. (and that's not even including how often male teenagers love to toss around rape jokes)