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.

I asked my wife why she isn't into 40k, she said she isn't confident in her painting ability, and if I painted the figures for her she wouldn't feel connected to them.

She also thinks the rules are way too needlessly complicated, so maybe streamlining the ruleset would be far more useful in drawing in new gamers than banning breasts.

Also, I'm a feminist, because my wife told me to be

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
it makes for a pretty ugly picture for her.

This is my problem statement, where I think the leap is. What is ugly about the picture it makes for her? That men like looking at half-nude women? That companies will cater to that drive? That some young men view women as sexual objects?

None of this should be a surprise to anyone, cheesecake models or no.

Surprise or no, it can be unpleasant.

Besides, it's not too much to ask that companies cater to women, men who like competent women, and also horny men who like breasts instead of only catering to one demographic. When companies cater to young men who view women as sexual objects, they are telling her that they are not interested in her as a customer (or a person). When many companies alienate her, she is naturally crowded out of the wargaming mainstream, certainly not welcomed.

Your first point isn't very strong. I agree that it is unpleasant. I also think that farting in a closed space is unpleasant. I also find getting sick to be unpleasant. But it happens, regardless, and we prepare. To be utterly shut down by unpleasantness is... unpleasant.

The second point doesn't really make sense. The companies don't do it because anyone asks them to. They do it because there is profit in it. If there IS profit in it, then I think you should start a company catering to that market and corner it before someone else finds your secret. Otherwise, if there ISN'T profit to be had, then yes, it is too much to ask.

 Agamemnon2 wrote:
Ah yes, "white knighting". A term invented whole cloth by the people who also coined gems such as "redpill", "mangina", "friendzoning", and "negging". Purveyors of misogynist fantasies and cloudcuckooland relationship advice for the benighted masses, bouncing ideas off each other in a permanent echo chamber. The MRA/PUA community has a lot to answer for in the final tally, but belonging to it is in many ways its own punishment.

You think all those terms were originally coined by the MRA? That's hilarious. Ill-informed, but hilarious.

 Seaward wrote:

You think all those terms were originally coined by the MRA? That's hilarious. Ill-informed, but hilarious.

Well I'm glad that in the absence of anything else of value, this thread can at least make people laugh. Enjoy your rhetorical victory over me for as long as you may. I hope it gives you warmth in your existence. It takes a very special kind of knave to mock people for being ill-informed and not make any effort to inform them.

As always, I am open to being corrected, but you instead decided it would be more amusing to kick me in the kneecaps a couple of times, which to me is rather indicative of wanting much more to have the last word in an inane game of tit-for-tat than actually engaging in dialogue. Yes, my statement regarding the coinage of those terms was inaccurate. But do you deny that all of them are now used exclusively or nearly so by the group referred to? Because if so, then you being technically correct really matters not a jot.

My argument stands. Adherents to a certain ideology cannot understand that for some people, feminism is not some long-term cynical ploy for personal satisfaction. How does that even work? If I'm for gay marriage, does that mean I'm secretly yearning for the hirsute embrace of some leather-clad gentleman of the bearish persuasion and am only advocating for the cause in order to further that agenda? Are people against corporate greed and exploitative practices because they want to be the greedy exploiters themselves?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The second point doesn't really make sense. The companies don't do it because anyone asks them to. They do it because there is profit in it. If there IS profit in it, then I think you should start a company catering to that market and corner it before someone else finds your secret. Otherwise, if there ISN'T profit to be had, then yes, it is too much to ask.

There's many, many kinds of catering, and you rather assume that all companies are 100% rational capitalist actors, which I don't think is entirely unproblematic. Consider the local game or comics shop whose uncouth, opinionated staff makes people feel unwelcome. In a pure profit perspective, those people should not exist, they're costing stores money. And yet, the last time I tried to buy a Marvel album, I was met with a guy who asked me why I was reading a "loser comic" like Iron Man instead of Batman. He was not maximising profits by doing that, he was being an opinionated fan and a bit of a jerk. I haven't been to that store since, based on their quality of service, instead I bought my next Marvel albums online, which is money that I would gladly have spent at a real store that treated me like an adult.

What you're suggesting is that the marketplace is 100% self-correcting and there's never any need to advocate for any kind of change, since companies will always leap at new things as soon as there's profit to do them, whereas I don't think it's that clear-cut. To my knowledge, the rude comic book buy in [city redacted]* is still employed. Left to their own devices, things have a tendency to stagnate. Maybe you're right and no companies can afford to do things differently, but we should still have the right the raise the issue every now and then.

Maybe someone, somewhere wakes up and sees that hey, THEIR company could make those figures, they just hadn't thought about it before. It costs money up front to try to release figures, and it's bound to be pretty hard to measure their eventual selling power ahead of time, so that's an incentive for companies to be cautious about untested ideas, even if they eventually would be profitable. As such, discussions and advocating for change can perhaps move those projects along a bit, convincing companies that maybe there's people out there for this, or maybe they could do a kickstarter and see how it goes. You're right that companies don't just do X because people ask for X, but people asking for X can get the whole process of doing-X started.

I see no way in which questioning the status quo like this is a negative thing. Maybe nothing will change at the end of the day. Maybe some people complain about things in a way that gets on people's nerves. But that's always going to be the case. Living in the kind of online community as we are, there's always going to be people in it whose opinions we cannot stomach and whose priorities come across as bizarre to us. We're not owed a complaint-free, controversy-free hobby, and by jingo, why would we want one?

--
* Pardon me for doing this, but I live in a small country with a fairly tiny community, and I don't want to come across as calling that one guy out specifically like some anonymous douchebag. If i wanted to complain about him specifically instead of using him as an example, I would have done so in writing to his employers, not online to nobody in particular.

 Agamemnon2 wrote:
But do you deny that all of them are now used exclusively or nearly so by the group referred to?

Christ, yes. You think "friendzone" and "white knight" are now MRA exclusives?

 Seaward wrote:

 Agamemnon2 wrote:
But do you deny that all of them are now used exclusively or nearly so by the group referred to?

Christ, yes. You think "friendzone" and "white knight" are now MRA exclusives?

I believe I might have committed the typical error of paying undue heed to the loudest voices in the room, as it were. I hear them thrown around casually and loud by people who've bought on to the MRA philosophy. If I am in error, I apologize. It happens. And since you invoked the name of Christ, ask yourself what he would rather we do? Continue arguing about those specific minutiae, or try to resolve them and look beyond to a broader picture and bigger issues than matters of terminological inexactitude? I don't know about you, but he always struck me more as a live-and-let-live kind of guy.

"White knighting", regardless of its provenance, seems to me as a term to indicate a certain kind of dubiousness. Being accused of being one is not a nice thing to happen, it implies you're assuming the mantle of virtue not for the sake of virtue itself, but because in so doing you achieve selfish ends. And thus I clothe my naked villany / With odd old ends stol'n out of holy writ, / And seem a saint, when most I play the devil.

Do you think that a fair assesment of the semantic meaning of the term, or would you like to suggest a nuance I am missing?

 Agamemnon2 wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Agamemnon2 wrote:
But do you deny that all of them are now used exclusively or nearly so by the group referred to?

Christ, yes. You think "friendzone" and "white knight" are now MRA exclusives?

I believe I might have committed the typical error of paying undue heed to the loudest voices in the room, as it were. I hear them thrown around casually and loud by people who've bought on to the MRA philosophy. If I am in error, I apologize. It happens. And since you invoked the name of Christ, ask yourself what he would rather we do? Continue arguing about those specific minutiae, or try to resolve them and look beyond to a broader picture and bigger issues than matters of terminological inexactitude? I don't know about you, but he always struck me more as a live-and-let-live kind of guy.

"White knighting", regardless of its provenance, seems to me as a term to indicate a certain kind of dubiousness. Being accused of being one is not a nice thing to happen, it implies you're assuming the mantle of virtue not for the sake of virtue itself, but because in so doing you achieve selfish ends. And thus I clothe my naked villany / With odd old ends stol'n out of holy writ, / And seem a saint, when most I play the devil.

Do you think that a fair assesment of the semantic meaning of the term, or would you like to suggest a nuance I am missing?

Look, many people assume the mantle of the "white knight" or similar for selfish reasons. Many have done and many will do. I know that I have done what appeared to be good, but was actually for selfish ends, myself. Its always been there and it always will be, no matter what you want. And yes, that is a fair summary of it.

As for this cheesecake, well I personally like cheesecake. It tastes good, especially my mums homemade lemon cheesecake. The creaminess of it, and the way it just melts in your mouth.... Wait, whats that? Oh you don't mean real cheesecake, you mean sexy minis? Ah, I see......
I have no problems with them. I have my Warwitch Deneghara, my Witch coven of Garlghast, my OOP DE succubus..... Hell, I have my Skaard Harpies.... One of which is totally naked. I have no problems with them. I am still polite and courteous to women, and I don't view them as sex objects... (unless they want it of course ) Just because the stereotypical gamer (and yes, they do sadly exist) gets off over his little toy soldier womens it dosnt mean we all do. Hell I would be surprised if any here do.

And as for the point on Female Fantasy Armour..... Ill just leave this here:


But, im with the ones calling for this thread to be locked. This has gone on too long and has seriously de-railed. Worse so than some of the OT threads.
Please Mods, bane this thread...

I have to say that the definition of "white knighting" that has been discussed over the last few posts doesn't match my understanding of the idiom. Maybe I'm totally out of touch.

I thought "white knighting" was merely any time that someone rushed to the defense of anything from any perceived attack, regardless of the merit of that attack. I've seen it used on political forums where one person vigorously defended their pet political party from expressions of valid concerns about that party. I've seent he term used on this very web site to describe people who blindly defend GW policies from anybody who expresses a negative opinion of those policies.

In my experience, the idiom that most closely resembles the usage of "white knight" expressed by Aga and MOO is "KISA," or "Knight in Shining Armor." Maybe it's a difference between European usage and American usage, but I dunno for sure.

Ah man you kids kill me.

This thread has cheered an otherwise dull afternoon.

Ironic exalts all round!

You keep going fellers those digital damsels won't save themselves.

Shame on Mattyrm for getting dragged in and bringing the topic up in the pub - you've changed mate: less chat more drinky-drinky!

 master of ordinance wrote:


But, im with the ones calling for this thread to be locked. This has gone on too long and has seriously de-railed. Worse so than some of the OT threads.
Please Mods, bane this thread...

 notprop wrote:


Shame on Mattyrm for getting dragged in and bringing the topic up in the pub - you've changed mate: less chat more drinky-drinky!

Haha! This gak is fething prime pub talk when you are drinking with two diminutive married lesbians!

I'm still curious why there's a bunch of guys protesting about something that boils down to a women's issue. If you guys are truly enlightened in wanting a gender free gaming world shouldn't you let women actually be the ones advocating it? There seem to be constant quotes about how women aren't weak and don't need men to be fighting their battles, but this thread is a bunch of males arguing points "on women's behalf" and women for the most part don't seem to care whatsoever.

I think it's primarily a case of people wanting to make an argument out of a trivial issue. If women wanted to game they would be, and if sexism in gaming was an issue they themselves would confront it. They don't need guys standing up for them saying all you other mean men are sexist, why would you be fighting the battle "on their behalf" unless deep down you feel that women aren't capable of standing up for what they want?

By trying to bear that cross for female gamers you are putting them on a pedestal which is exactly what you are claiming makes the rest of us sexist. If you are a guy how can you state with any personal authority what females find sexist or not? I don't see you quoting any actual objections from female gamers as the basis of your arguments.


Most women don't show any serious interest in gaming, those that actually are interested are already playing regardless of what anyone else thinks, so what is the big deal?

Even if you magically made the gaming community completely gender neutral we wouldn't see a huge influx of women any time soon as it's not something they are into as a collective. Do you think female members on a forum dedicated to women's shoes or fashion really care about the lack of men in their stores or in their shopping groups? It's not that they are sexist towards men, they just recognize that female shoes or fashion aren't a point of interest for the majority of men.

 paulson games wrote:
I'm still curious why there's a bunch of guys protesting about something that boils down to a women's issue. If you guys are truly enlightened in wanting a gender free gaming world shouldn't you let women actually be the ones advocating it? There seem to be constant quotes about how women aren't weak and don't need men to be fighting their battles, but this thread is a bunch of males arguing points "on women's behalf" and women for the most part don't seem to care whatsoever.

I think it's primarily a case of people wanting to make an argument out of a trivial issue. If women wanted to game they would be, and if sexism in gaming was an issue they themselves would confront it. They don't need guys standing up for them saying all you other mean men are sexist, why would you be fighting the battle "on their behalf" unless deep down you feel that women aren't capable of standing up for what they want?

By trying to bear that cross for female gamers you are putting them on a pedestal which is exactly what you are claiming makes the rest of us sexist. If you are a guy how can you state with any personal authority what females find sexist or not? I don't see you quoting any actual objections from female gamers as the basis of your arguments.


Most women don't show any serious interest in gaming, those that actually are interested are already playing regardless of what anyone else thinks, so what is the big deal?

Even if you magically made the gaming community completely gender neutral we wouldn't see a huge influx of women any time soon as it's not something they are into as a collective. Do you think female members on a forum dedicated to women's shoes or fashion really care about the lack of men in their stores or in their shopping groups? It's not that they are sexist towards men, they just recognize that female shoes or fashion aren't a point of interest for the majority of men.

Pretty much exactly what I said yeah, and nothing bothers me more than people getting offended on other peoples behalf, its like those ridiculous hand wringing liberals who cry racism about things that are so petty and ridiculous you wouldnt find a black person in North America that would be bothered by it, like I said early, I think all these friggin "enlightened" geniuses do is make the whole group look petty and ridiculous, its entirely counter productive, but they are so busy concentrating on how clever and superior they are compared to all of us "sheeple" they dont realize that they are being entirely counter productive.

This thread has given me some good laughs, keep up the fighting for those internet damsels brave keyboard warriors.

 Agamemnon2 wrote:

There's many, many kinds of catering, and you rather assume that all companies are 100% rational capitalist actors, which I don't think is entirely unproblematic. Consider the local game or comics shop whose uncouth, opinionated staff makes people feel unwelcome. In a pure profit perspective, those people should not exist, they're costing stores money. And yet, the last time I tried to buy a Marvel album, I was met with a guy who asked me why I was reading a "loser comic" like Iron Man instead of Batman. He was not maximising profits by doing that, he was being an opinionated fan and a bit of a jerk. I haven't been to that store since, based on their quality of service, instead I bought my next Marvel albums online, which is money that I would gladly have spent at a real store that treated me like an adult.

What you're suggesting is that the marketplace is 100% self-correcting and there's never any need to advocate for any kind of change, since companies will always leap at new things as soon as there's profit to do them, whereas I don't think it's that clear-cut. To my knowledge, the rude comic book buy in [city redacted]* is still employed. Left to their own devices, things have a tendency to stagnate. Maybe you're right and no companies can afford to do things differently, but we should still have the right the raise the issue every now and then.

Maybe someone, somewhere wakes up and sees that hey, THEIR company could make those figures, they just hadn't thought about it before. It costs money up front to try to release figures, and it's bound to be pretty hard to measure their eventual selling power ahead of time, so that's an incentive for companies to be cautious about untested ideas, even if they eventually would be profitable. As such, discussions and advocating for change can perhaps move those projects along a bit, convincing companies that maybe there's people out there for this, or maybe they could do a kickstarter and see how it goes. You're right that companies don't just do X because people ask for X, but people asking for X can get the whole process of doing-X started.

I see no way in which questioning the status quo like this is a negative thing. Maybe nothing will change at the end of the day. Maybe some people complain about things in a way that gets on people's nerves. But that's always going to be the case. Living in the kind of online community as we are, there's always going to be people in it whose opinions we cannot stomach and whose priorities come across as bizarre to us. We're not owed a complaint-free, controversy-free hobby, and by jingo, why would we want one?

--
* Pardon me for doing this, but I live in a small country with a fairly tiny community, and I don't want to come across as calling that one guy out specifically like some anonymous douchebag. If i wanted to complain about him specifically instead of using him as an example, I would have done so in writing to his employers, not online to nobody in particular.

I'm not arguing for the status quo. I'm saying that if a company wants to do it, they will, and if they don't, they won't. I'm also saying that those desires are usually motivated by profit (though, as you say, I admit that it isn't always the case).

If the company decides not to do it, who are you to say that they should? Are you an executive? A board member? Even an important investor can change things with enough haranguing! Random joes like us, though? Short of a "VIVE LE PROLETARIAT" style Marxist revolution, we can do very little to influence the corporations directly.

If it is a good idea to start producing fine, high-quality, armored female miniatures, then someone will do it eventually, if not you then me, if not me then PP or GW or Battlefront. If not them, then someone else. It's how the market works - businesses see a niche that is untapped, then move into them. My point is, though, there has to be a niche there to move in to.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

If the company decides not to do it, who are you to say that they should? Are you an executive? A board member? Even an important investor can change things with enough haranguing! Random joes like us, though? Short of a "VIVE LE PROLETARIAT" style Marxist revolution, we can do very little to influence the corporations directly.

I doubt these corporations are seriously hurt by having to listen to wellmeaning people suggest ideas to them, no matter how unfeasible, so again, I really do not see the harm. Even if I agreed with all the counterarguments why women will never pick this hobby up, i want to have more sensibly-dressed and less barbie-doll-aspected models for their own sake. I buy them when I see them, and I leave positive feedback and give future custom to companies that provide such. THAT is what I can do. It is not much, I readily agree.

I'm not interested in the gender balance of the wargaming hobby, since I will have little to nothing to do with it anymore. I just want to see less Generic Buxom Barbarian Wench #13 in catalogues, and more individualistic, memorable and varied female miniatures with which to build my display pieces and dioramas. I want for sculptors to do what I lack the means to do myself, and to produce things I've not already seen a hundred times.

That being said, I feel there's multiple aspects and issues that are being conflated in this thread, to overall confusion and general disarray. One of them is the "girlfriend in the game shop" thing that a lot of people have anecdotes about, how the FLGS turns into a weird and creepy geek-cave when a young woman enters. Another is the level of sexualization of the figures themselves. Then there's the overall complexity issue of the game, and the question of whether games should be geared even more towards getting non-miniatures gamers (of any gender) involved, a feat which I assure you is not impossible, though from past messages here a lot of people think it so. They're all big issues with some overlap, but should probably still be split up into different threads.

Now, the "why are guys talking about a women's problem?" issue. In some ways, the poster is right to ask it, but in some of the questions I mentioned above, guys have a genuine bone to pick by themselves. As mentioned above, I want to see more varied representations of people as miniatures because my dioramas are all the better for it*. Likewise, I would not mind a reduction of laddish behavior in game stores and clubs should I get back to a more active gaming schedule, since it's not an environment I'm confortable in myself, either** - not because of being outraged on behalf of unspecifed women. Getting women to try Warhammer, though? I have no dog in that race at the present time. If I was in a relationship with someone who wanted to game, or had a daughter interested in the game, then perhaps.

--
* A feat which, incidentally, I feel the modern miniatures industry, buyoued by Kickstarter and its ilk, is making headway towards. Our smorgasbord is ever-expanding. Boutique resin companies are poised to answer to niche customer requests far better than the giants of old ever were. Victoria Miniatures is bringing out female multipart resin sci-fi infantry, and the Raging Heroes campaign was a big vote of confidence from the community in one (albeit perhaps a bit narrow) conception of kickass women warriors. The particular battle to which you allude is, therefore, I feel in good hands and I see only limited cause for further action.
** For reasons which are sufficiently personal for me not to want to share here, begging your indulgence.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I'm not arguing for the status quo. I'm saying that if a company wants to do it, they will, and if they don't, they won't. I'm also saying that those desires are usually motivated by profit (though, as you say, I admit that it isn't always the case).

If the company decides not to do it, who are you to say that they should? Are you an executive? A board member? Even an important investor can change things with enough haranguing! Random joes like us, though? Short of a "VIVE LE PROLETARIAT" style Marxist revolution, we can do very little to influence the corporations directly.

Have you ever read these forums? People are expressing their views on what they think GW should or shouldn't do all the time.

And GW is free to listen to or ignore any of those they want to. We little people have no power to make anyone listen after all.

Several years back we had a female high school student that wanted to participate in the high school's (male) wrestling program. It raised a major debate within the school district and there was a lot of heated arguements on why it should or shouldn't be allowed.They decided that in the interests of promoting equality they would let her join the team, and any other females from any of the other high schools could participate as well.

She wrestled for a single season then left the team. Even though all the teams still allow women to openly participate she has been the only female wrestler in 7 years. The district includes more than twenty schools and has literally seen tens of thousands of students in that time. So even when they have the opportunity to participate it apparently is not an interest that any other females share and there was no change in their participation levels within the sport even though they made changes aimed at specifically accommodating female participants.

I see wargaming in much the same situation, even if we restructure the whole foundation of how gaming is run it may not actually result in any measurable change. On the whole females just aren't as drawn to certain hobbies or sports that tend to be male dominated regardless of how equally/fairly the women are treated.


3 of the players in my d&d group are female but none of them play wargames despite the fact they all collect miniatures. One of the girls also has a huge collection of cheesecake models. They also play magic, zombicide, WOW, and even MWO. They just aren't interested in wargames and it has nothing to do with the imagery. D&D is far more sexist than 40k or other wargames yet they still play D&D without any problems. A major element in why they play the other games is due to the higher level of social interaction and group participation, which is largely missing in most wargames.


.

 paulson games wrote:

I see wargaming in much the same situation, even if we restructure the whole foundation of how gaming is run it may not actually result in any measurable change. On the whole females just aren't as drawn to certain hobbies or sports that tend to be male dominated regardless of how equally/fairly the women are treated.

It could be true for wargames but probably isn't. It wasn't true for RPGs and it isn't true for computer games.

I find that some male gamers (not all and thats because some gamers are utterly shocked that a living breathing women is into this and treat them as some sort of oddity) are more off putting to female players than the content in the game. The reason I say this is because of something I noticed when I used to LARP. Most female larpers did not wear head to toe armour in fact many of them wore the more "sexy"l armour and many of them played warrior types, some learned real quick to wear pants instead of running around a forest with bare legs but even then they would wear tights. My significant other plays warhammer 40k with me and at the store I play at there is a another female player who loves the new dark elf witches and sisters of slaughter and is making a Chaos Warrior army of female models and is using dark elves, dark eldar and chaos warriors. It comes down to one thing and that is the individual person and what they like male or female.

If you want to attract more women to this game or hobby one way is to simply treat them like anyone else and make them feel welcomed even if your army consist of scantily clad female warriors.

and
This is the thread that never ends, it goes on and on my friends, some people started writing it not knowing what it was and we will continue writing it forever just because this is the thread that never ends. (Could not resist )

Alpha 1 wrote:
If you want to attract more women to this game or hobby one way is to simply treat them like anyone else and make them feel welcomed...

Agreed!

Alpha 1 wrote:
...even if your army consist of scantily clad female warriors.

Herein lies the problem. For some the miniatures or artwork leaves some feeling unwelcome. When cheesecake is your only real option it will inevitably leave those who aren't comfortable with that option rather disappointed.


Victoria Lamb has a great posting on her website from July regarding the female troops she is working on currently:

Hi, It is a great pleasure to show these first test sculpts. For a long time people have asked me to work on some modular female troops that are non-sexualised and can be mixed in with the existing male regiments. I am aiming to create women who look like practical combat troops that are dressed in the same uniforms as their male counterparts and are still recognizable as female on the tabletop. I don’t want to resort to barbie doll proportions, high heels, crop tops or any of the other cliches that are usually imposed on female soldier miniatures. I greatly welcome any feedback and comments during this developmental phase.

Bold emphasis mine.

Steps are being taken to offer more alternatives to cheesecake models, and I am pleased at the encouragement sculptors like Vic are getting for their forays into this area of miniatures. There is a demand for these other types of models, and the inclusion of more combat appropriate, practically attired female models, will do a lot to ease the negative stereotypes surrounding this hobby and make the entry barriers for women less severe.

 Crimson wrote:

 paulson games wrote:

I see wargaming in much the same situation, even if we restructure the whole foundation of how gaming is run it may not actually result in any measurable change. On the whole females just aren't as drawn to certain hobbies or sports that tend to be male dominated regardless of how equally/fairly the women are treated.

It could be true for wargames but probably isn't. It wasn't true for RPGs and it isn't true for computer games.

The social elements of rpgs and video games (with group chat) will attract more females than wargames, because women tend to be much more social as a group. The girls that we game with don't care for wargames because it's a 1 on 1 format and there's very little interchange between players in a way it's almost like playing solitare the opponent just moves pieces but you don't chit chat very much while playing.

Playing the ccgs or rpgs it's a group atmosphere, they vastly prefer games that co-op and where we can engage in joking and conversation while the game plays. The ccg's are perfect for highlighting this as they offer both group play and 1 on 1 tornament styled play. the girls love the casual group play but rarely play in tournaments as they find them rather dull meanwhile all the guys in my group prefer the tournies as it scratches their direct competition itch.

When we play zombicide the figures that are snatched up the quickest by the girls are Dakota, Eve, and Lea, Dakota being the not Pam Anderson super Barbie, Eve being the not Angelina Jolie, and Lea being the girl from zombieland is super short micro skirt. There's plenty of other less sexy female models in the game but they like the cheesecake models even when there are other more normal options. Not saying *all* women prefer the cheesecake, but the girls in my group do. Likewise the guys tend to take the more macho buff male models. It's because we like the fantasy versions of ourselves or characters to be the things that sometimes we aren't in life. I'm not a 6'4 towering hulk of muscle but I get to be when I'm playing make believe. I don't pick the dorky nerd type figure cause I'm already close enough to that guy in real life.

It works the same with women, most of them aren't the uber sexy Amazonian warrior in real life, but when playing make believe they can be. It's not simply a case of sex selling, it's also a mix of how we want to view ourselves within a fantasy context. Nobody plays a game to be Wallflower Joe who works in the company mail room. We want to play the larger than life dynamic hero or heroine with epic bodies and abilities.

 Crimson wrote:

 paulson games wrote:

I see wargaming in much the same situation, even if we restructure the whole foundation of how gaming is run it may not actually result in any measurable change. On the whole females just aren't as drawn to certain hobbies or sports that tend to be male dominated regardless of how equally/fairly the women are treated.

It could be true for wargames but probably isn't. It wasn't true for RPGs and it isn't true for computer games.

You can't really compare (pen and paper) RPGs and Wargaming, though. There is a lot less crossover between the two than you might expect. The two types of games appeal to different aspects of gaming culture. Just for starters, (pen and paper) RPGs tend to be cooperative while Wargames tend to be competitive (as in, one player is attempting to win against the other). In my experience, the number of people who actively both play RPGs and Wargames is a relatively small subset of both groups.

 paulson games wrote:
Most women don't show any serious interest in gaming, those that actually are interested are already playing regardless of what anyone else thinks, so what is the big deal?

Because boobs are evil... apparently?

Always remember:

Woman in a dress = Sexist because it reinforces the stereotype that men where pants, women where dresses.
Woman in pants = Sexist because it's forcing women to conform to a man's attire and not letting her wear where she wants.
Woman showing skin = Sexist because she's being objectified.
Woman not showing skin = Sexist because being forced to cover up by the heteropatriarchy.
Woman being sexy in any way = Sexist because it's making it out that all women are sluts.
Woman not being sexy in any way = Sexist because it robs her of her agency (ie. choice) to be sexy.



Or to put it another way: There is no victory to be had here Paulson. The Social Justice League will always find a way to paint anything as a male power fantasy and there's not a damned thing any of us can do about. And in the end this all started because someone got uppity over an Inquisitor showing off her cleavage, so how seriously should we take this?

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:


Steps are being taken to offer more alternatives to cheesecake models, and I am pleased at the encouragement sculptors like Vic are getting for their forays into this area of miniatures. There is a demand for these other types of models, and the inclusion of more combat appropriate, practically attired female models, will do a lot to ease the negative stereotypes surrounding this hobby and make the entry barriers for women less severe.

Seriously? There are no 'severe' entry barriers for women to get into wargaming. If a woman wants to get in to wargaming but is incapable of doing a little research to find wargames with no cheesecake, then there is something wrong with her, not the hobby/community.

 azreal13 wrote:
Cause I think if I understood what he was trying to say i might be able to leave it, but I just don't get what he is arguing (about the pic) and maybe if I crack that I will be able to turn lead into gold or something.

Did you know that talking about me in third person instead of asking me some questions directly is rude ?
Whinny whinny voice : If you continue like that, I will report you ! You don't respect rule 1 ! Whinny whinny whine !

Oh, sorry. I forgot to focus on what you said instead of how you said it. Wait, you didn't say anything worthwhile ! Oh my, I'm so surprised ! I hope that doesn't sound like sarcastic, I wouldn't want to hurt your feelings, just like you wouldn't want to hurt mine .
Troll.

Deadnight wrote:
1. Straw man. Melanin. That's the only difference. Black skin has a higher concentration of the pigment melanin than white skin.

Analogy is not straw man. Black skin isn't the only difference between black people and white people. You are confused.
Damn, did you never watch any episode of all those “scientific police” series ? It ain't no secret that different race have different bones, and that any good forensic can determine race, age and gender from a skeleton !
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19048179
And seriously, even without that, ever saw any natural blond black guy around ? Even without any specific scientific knowledge, seems pretty obvious to me that the skin color isn't the only difference.

Deadnight wrote:
2. You'd be surprised. That intrinsic difference does exist.

They don't have the same skeleton. That's an intrinsic difference. But as far as treatment of information goes, I'm not convinced.

Deadnight wrote:
Old nazi pseudo science

I ain't talking about no nazi science, I could give you some good old American examples too ! And some that goes quite late.
Even right now, in our modern and “finally scientifically enlightened era” I can get a nice list of American scientists arguing for difference on intelligence between races on Wikipedia :
“Contemporary researchers include Arthur Jensen (The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability); J. Philippe Rushton, president of the Pioneer Fund (Race, Evolution, and Behavior); Chris Brand (The g Factor: General Intelligence and Its Implications); Richard Lynn (IQ and the Wealth of Nations); Charles Murray; and Richard Herrnstein (The Bell Curve), among others.”

Deadnight wrote:
You want her to evoke awesome. I think she does that.

I want her to invoke Inquisitor awesome. Boob windows aren't Inquisitor awesome for me. Other kind of awesome could totally include cleavage. I already mentioned the “stripper with a machinegun for a leg” kind of awesome, for instance :

Spoiler:

That is awesome ! Maybe I just find her awesome because I think like a brain addled teenager, but I don't care, I still find her awesome.
But awesome as a stripper from a Rodriguez movie. She would be very very lame for a 40k Inquisitor. Can't just take something awesome in one context, put it in a totally different context, and still expect it to be awesome. That would be too easy .

 Crimson wrote:
'Separate but equal' is bs.

No, it's not. It's a totally sensible legislative principle in the US. Way to embarrass yourself, United States !
Now, who wants to advocate this “separate but equal” so nice principle ?

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Spoiler:

He-Man is obviously a ploy to turn our children gay !
Seriously, pink, skintight cloth, a big phallic sword, and finally the he-man costume ! It's a freaking caricature ! It's gayface !

 mattyrm wrote:
Funny thing, every single girl I know (and I brought this thread up in the pub last night because It seemed a good topic for bar conversation in front of my missus, my mate and his wife, and two lesbians who are married, this is California!) says the same!

Well, not a good argument in itself. I mean, seriously, are women never sexists ? I trust you had a few occasion to discuss whether or not some specific religions were sexist with practitioners of that specific religion, and whether or not it's a bad thing. Some of said practitioners being female. Hence, you ought to know women can be pretty sexist too .

 mattyrm wrote:
Conceding that women are physically weaker, and are generally less interested in pursuits like hunting and shooting and making war than men, doesn't make you sexist, it makes you a correctly operating human being with a functioning brain that sees things logically.

Yeah, but that's not why Crimson said azreal13 was sexist. Just saying.

 MetalOxide wrote:
This thread needs to be locked.

No, it doesn't. It needs to stay open, so that next time some sexy or dubious female miniature, or some escher girl illustration comes out, people won't flood the rumor thread, and will come over here to discuss, hereby leaving those that do not care about this discussion (quite possibly including you) not to be bothered by it. On the other hand, I strongly suggest you not to come here if it's unpleasant to you.

 Agamemnon2 wrote:
The MRA/PUA community has a lot to answer for in the final tally

What is that ?

-Shrike- wrote:

Crimson wrote:Also, it is one thing to accept than on average women like aerobics more and quite other to conclude that because of that it is okay to cater only to females when advertising them.

The quotation above has been modified slightly, but now who disagrees with the latter part?

I agree aerobics should be open and inviting for everyone. I have no idea if there is any problem about that though, because I never took any aerobics class.

 Agamemnon2 wrote:
And since you invoked the name of Christ, ask yourself what he would rather we do?

Multiply models ! Walk on water ! Lots of magic tricks !
And maybe something about how stoning can only be done by the Virgin Mary, and no other human.

 master of ordinance wrote:
And as for the point on Female Fantasy Armour..... Ill just leave this here:

Spoiler:

I like College Humor version better.



Sorry for the long reply. I put the interesting part in bold and red. You can skip all the rest.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 paulson games wrote:
The social elements of rpgs and video games (with group chat) will attract more females than wargames, because women tend to be much more social as a group.

Seriously, video game with group chat being more social than wargames ? I totally disagree. Console games where you play in the same room, shouting at each other, maybe (and even then, not much). But games where you are alone in your room ? Goddam no !

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Subject: Hyperbolic lands ahead!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 paulson games wrote:
Most women don't show any serious interest in gaming, those that actually are interested are already playing regardless of what anyone else thinks, so what is the big deal?

Because boobs are evil... apparently?

Or to put it another way: There is no victory to be had here Paulson. The Social Justice League will always find a way to paint anything as a male power fantasy and there's not a damned thing any of us can do about. And in the end this all started because someone got uppity over an Inquisitor showing off her cleavage, so how seriously should we take this?

Boobs are obviously evil, which is likely why they are so full of cancer.

Like I'd said back on page 2 this thread is always coming up and every time it does it leads absolutely nowhere. But I never miss a good opportunity to throw a bit of gas on the fire and mock people. Even if the mods were to step in and lock this (like it deserves) it'll only pop back up in a couple weeks with all the same arguments.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Seriously, video game with group chat being more social than wargames ? I totally disagree. Console games where you play in the same room, shouting at each other, maybe (and even then, not much). But games where you are alone in your room ? Goddam no !

We don't have a group of 12 year old xbox players screaming obscenities and raging. When you have a team of 8-12 players we BS and hold conversations just as much or more than when we're gaming in person. The game is just a meeting point, we may as well be doing a group voice chat on Skype or whatever as the game is just a background. Of course not everyone's experience will match ours and it's more like the xbox halo fan fare, but that's why we don't use public servers much like why we don't play at the LGS because most of those gamers are full of the metally 12 year old xbox types.

Online gaming is what you make of it, if you're a social type then it can be very engaging social environment. But most tend to treat it as a dumping ground for anti social terrible behavior. Normally when we play on an open server we have private chat enabled so we don't have to deal with the annoying types.

 MetalOxide wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:


Steps are being taken to offer more alternatives to cheesecake models, and I am pleased at the encouragement sculptors like Vic are getting for their forays into this area of miniatures. There is a demand for these other types of models, and the inclusion of more combat appropriate, practically attired female models, will do a lot to ease the negative stereotypes surrounding this hobby and make the entry barriers for women less severe.

Seriously? There are no 'severe' entry barriers for women to get into wargaming. If a woman wants to get in to wargaming but is incapable of doing a little research to find wargames with no cheesecake, then there is something wrong with her, not the hobby/community.

I disagree with that statement and so do others on here, as do men and women I have discussed this matter with.

To name a few barriers brought up in this thread:
There is the barrier of social stigma for playing a "guys game" and straying from established gender norms. I bet that female wrestler that Paulson Games mentioned didn't get any flak for being the only girl on a guy's wrestling team, right?
There is the barrier of sexism (real or perceived) that occurs when women engage in gaming, which brings the representations of women in gaming artwork and miniatures into sharp focus.

Quite simply, there are barriers. So much of the discussion over the last few pages has focused on how few women want to play miniatures games and not enough focus has been placed on why they choose not to play--other than the rather unsatisfactory circular argument that women don't play these games because they aren't interested. There is more to it than that, surely, since some women (despite the crap that is put in front of them for entering the hobby) do find their way into the hobby and do enjoy the games. So, either those few women are bizarre outliers, or they are equipped in some way to deal with the barriers better than "most" women. But, that does not mean those barriers do not exist, nor does it mean we should ignore (and embrace?) those barriers.

I feel that it is more likely that women who like wargaming are outliers to the norm, just like guys who like scrapbooking are outliers to the norm.

There's nothing wrong with people being different.