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.

 Talizvar wrote:
Raising a couple boys I can say with no reservations that you can try to hide all the violent aspects of life you want and they still pick up some stick and say "bang-bang".
Boggles my mind.

Yep. The Swedes did a study like that. Involved not exposing male children to "war toys" or war movies and even then, boys would pick up sticks and play "bang! You're dead!"

It's how they're wired.

My wife was given trucks to play with as well as dolls. She put the dolls IN the trucks and continued to play.

Well I am Christian..Kristian?I like fantsy, wargames, metal and so but well... they have a point, just look at 40k you can play for maniaks that slauther bilions of humans only for fun or whatever reason they have...Imperials are in other hand religionistic fanatics, thing that is not compatible with common sense...I am adult and can discern reality and fiction/good/evil... but what about childs? There are definitely things and games that do not have fall into the hands of children... But protesting against this games is stupid. Just look around yourself, its just everywhere and you cant hide them.
To kinds that play wars and wargames...person that never encounter or expirienced violence cant understand it and suppressing it in kind is bad coz in the end it will run out of control and that will usually end bad, parents and society have to teach children how to control anger and use it for somethinf usefull.
I hope you guys understand what I mean coz my englist is pretty shity


PS: judge people about what they like or religion or hobies is dullness.

 chromedog wrote:


Yep. The Swedes did a study like that. Involved not exposing male children to "war toys" or war movies and even then, boys would pick up sticks and play "bang! You're dead!"

Pretty much every hippy experiment to keep boys away from war toys or anything else competitive/aggressive results in failure. Give two boys sticks and they immediately become imaginary guns/swords.

The argument that kids can somehow not separate fiction and reality is brought up a lot. There are claims for and against every so often in the media.

"Won't somebody think of the children!"

 LuciusAR wrote:
Never heard of a religious protest outside of a GW before.

I always assumed that Warhammer avoided the sorts of 'satan worship' accusations that D&D suffered because of they where mainly confined to Britain in the 80's and so didn't attract the attention of American evangelical churches. The CofE doesn't tend to go in for that sort of thing.

It also helps that the CoE's motto is pretty much "If it didn't hurt anyone, how bad can it be?".

 Random Dude wrote:
I took a lot of crap in Elementary School for my interest in Wargaming. As far as stereotypes go, I don't fit the standard wargamer stereotype held by many others. I'm a longtime athlete and fitness guru who happens to really enjoy wargaming. It puts me in an awkward position because I can't fully relate to either side.

*edit- I don't see why wargaming and sports/other athletic activities have to be mutually exclusive.

Thank God there are more like me. I have been in running groups, my gym buddies, and biking friends, and when I tell them , "hey I can't do this or that on tuesday" I get the - oh you do that thing that day right?

HOWEVER. I have learned you cannot paint after you run or workout. Your heartrate is up so high your brush shakes in your hand.

Its not like they cant understand it at all, but cant understand it fully, however for that are parents here.

 Random Dude wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

Toofast wrote:
In a couple short weeks I will be drinking beer and watching football (real football, not that pansy foot fairy crap you brits watch) while painting/playing.

I'm curious - given that the players seem to carry or throw the ball most of the time, why do Americans call their Armoured Rugby football? It just seems a very strange name for it. At least in the version the rest of the world calls football (and they have you Yanks somewhat outnumbered) the nomenclature makes sense.

BTW, this query is not from a football fan, but a cricket fan.

When Americans were introduced to the game, it was via rugby... Only with our isolationist policies and "American Spirit" we continually changed the rules and manner in which the game was played. The "death blow" for rugby (temporarily) was when President Teddy Roosevelt said that this game of football was too dangerous, and insisted that something be done to make is safer. This was about the time that we added pads or "armor"... In a rather ironic twist of fate, it's now Rugby Union that is being looked towards as a means of making American Football safer, after the monstrosity it has become has brought us to a point where player safety has become more of a concern again, and rugby is now the "safer" option

I think part of that has to do with hitting vs. tackling. In football, players just run into each other with their helmets leading to injuries. Rugby tackling is more dragging the player down which has less of an impact on the head.

It also has a lot to do with protective equipment. You don't bash your head into someone at full speed if you are just wearing a leather helmet because...it hurts like the dickens. The pain that happens when your head hits things is good at encouraging players to avoid aggressive motions that cause their brains to rattle around inside of their very well-protected skulls.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vertrucio wrote:
She did have a point, but she didn't really present it well.

War glorification was an aspect of wargaming for a long time and it's right to be concerned about it.

However, I'm a grown adult that can see past it. But I'm also able to see that the constant barrage of war related media, whether that's from a miniature game, or from video games, does add up.

Except that there's no established correlation between engaging in play violence and engaging in actual violence. Imaginative play (including imaginatively violent play) actually helps one to learn restraint and self-discipline.

Edit: of course I should have read the rest of the posts before responding as others have made the same point.

Also, as to the 'grimdark' 40K universe, as originally conceived (not this whitewashed hideous, disturbing crap that GW throws around today) 40K was very much a (often tongue-in-cheek) criticism of society. Far from glorifying war and violence, 40K condemns it. 40K is a fethed up, hopeless place that you would never, ever, ever want to live in; a place in which violence ultimately solves no problems and creates an endless cycle of pain, destruction, and death serving only to please the dark forces born of mankind's base emotions.

40K pretty much tells us that violence is never the answer to anything. 40K tells us that we should put aside fear, paranoia, and mistrust. 40K tells us that totalitarianism is born of fear and leads to corruption and societal collapse. The Imperium of Mankind is literally a stagnant society grasping onto the pale reflection of shattered hubris caught in an endless cycle of violence from which there will be no escape. In the grim dark future there is only war because humanity screwed the pooch.

40K is utterly, comically, hopeless. Hopelessness puts the grim in gimdark, and without the grim, the narrative loses all value.

I ain't gonna lie, very few people know that I play 40K. And most would be shocked that I do even though I have $$$$$ in models. I hide them very well when people come over. The thing is, 40K is my only 'nerd' hobby. And its not very high on my list of things I like to do. But I do enjoy building the armies (which is the most expensive part).

I think why people roll their eyes when they find out someone is a wargammer is because they envision people getting into heated arguements about stupid stuff like who would beat who in a fight or getting angry because a director went a different direction with a super hero movie than they would have liked. Also, people think cosplay is pretty silly (unless you are a hot women wearing a skimpy outfit).

I, like most people, have no problem with people that like star wars, comics, star trek, lord of the rings, and such. It's just people that get so wrapped up in it that it becomes a turn off. I think it's the obsession with fiction that really gives gamers a bad name. And adults watching Japanese cartoons, too.

I'm not judging, you should do what makes you happy. But, for the most part, that's what people envision when you say you are a gamer. Video games are more acceptable because they are easy to get into and most kids grow up with them.

Please, dont take it as insult, but people that hiding they hobby that they like are hypocrites.

weeble1000 wrote:

 Random Dude wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

Toofast wrote:
In a couple short weeks I will be drinking beer and watching football (real football, not that pansy foot fairy crap you brits watch) while painting/playing.

I'm curious - given that the players seem to carry or throw the ball most of the time, why do Americans call their Armoured Rugby football? It just seems a very strange name for it. At least in the version the rest of the world calls football (and they have you Yanks somewhat outnumbered) the nomenclature makes sense.

BTW, this query is not from a football fan, but a cricket fan.

When Americans were introduced to the game, it was via rugby... Only with our isolationist policies and "American Spirit" we continually changed the rules and manner in which the game was played. The "death blow" for rugby (temporarily) was when President Teddy Roosevelt said that this game of football was too dangerous, and insisted that something be done to make is safer. This was about the time that we added pads or "armor"... In a rather ironic twist of fate, it's now Rugby Union that is being looked towards as a means of making American Football safer, after the monstrosity it has become has brought us to a point where player safety has become more of a concern again, and rugby is now the "safer" option

I think part of that has to do with hitting vs. tackling. In football, players just run into each other with their helmets leading to injuries. Rugby tackling is more dragging the player down which has less of an impact on the head.

It also has a lot to do with protective equipment. You don't bash your head into someone at full speed if you are just wearing a leather helmet because...it hurts like the dickens. The pain that happens when your head hits things is good at encouraging players to avoid aggressive motions that cause their brains to rattle around inside of their very well-protected skulls.

America hasn't been isolationist in anything since 1917. And American Football, when it was first played at a Rutgers University vs Princeton University in 1869, was a combination of Rugby and soccer. So feet were used a lot inititally and that's why its called Football. It then became more rugby like in the late 1800's. In 1905 Walter camp set it on the path to what it is today by adding a line of scrimmage, downs, and the foward pass. We just never changed the name.

As a life time American Football fan, and someone that has played some rugby (and must practice tomorrow night in the texas heat) I appreciate the differences in both sports. They truly are different sports and I think that the world is a better place because of that. Also, not only do rugby rules prohibit a lot of the hits you see in the NFL, rugby is a social sport. You drink with your teammates after practice and you drink with your opponents after games. American Football is not like that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Naberiel wrote:
Please, dont take it as insult, but people that hiding they hobby that they like are hypocrites.

How does that make me a hypocrite? Did I insult the hobby? I just pointed out what outsiders see about the hobby that turns them off. I also don't tell people that I love certain scandalous acts in the bedroom cause it's none of their business. Does that make me a hypocrite as well? I enjoy building the models and creating armies (and sometimes painting them). I like playing, to a lesser extent. But hate the fluff and pay it no mind. I actually wish that they'd stop making the fluff and focus on models and rules so my codexes and rulebooks could be cheaper.

Just dont tell somebody something its one thing, but you sayd you are hiding it, for me its big difference

Well, elderly people are quite ignorant of current culture, and they seem to think that playing with pan lids and pretending to drive a car is still "in".

lliu wrote:
Well, elderly people are quite ignorant of current culture, and they seem to think that playing with pan lids and pretending to drive a car is still "in".

I know a lady who still thinks that the internet is "sad" and only for "nerds"...

 Josey4u wrote:

 Random Dude wrote:
I took a lot of crap in Elementary School for my interest in Wargaming. As far as stereotypes go, I don't fit the standard wargamer stereotype held by many others. I'm a longtime athlete and fitness guru who happens to really enjoy wargaming. It puts me in an awkward position because I can't fully relate to either side.

*edit- I don't see why wargaming and sports/other athletic activities have to be mutually exclusive.

Thank God there are more like me. I have been in running groups, my gym buddies, and biking friends, and when I tell them , "hey I can't do this or that on tuesday" I get the - oh you do that thing that day right?

HOWEVER. I have learned you cannot paint after you run or workout. Your heartrate is up so high your brush shakes in your hand.

This is very true. Our FLGS has a bunch of people who are quite athletic. The owner and several regulars are part of multiple different teams on an indoor soccer league. Several regulars at the store play on a club rugby team. Several members and even an employee are "Crossfitters." There was an employee who played on a local college varsity lacrosse team. Several people played football in high school. An employee and several regulars are active in martial arts (everything from krav maga, to juijitsu, to kendo). Myself, I played competitive volleyball for 20 years before my vertical all went away.

While there are a lot of the stereotypical un-athletic types at the store, there are lots of people who enjoy athletic competition, as well.

 Selym wrote:

lliu wrote:
Well, elderly people are quite ignorant of current culture, and they seem to think that playing with pan lids and pretending to drive a car is still "in".

I know a lady who still thinks that the internet is "sad" and only for "nerds"...

GW should hire her right away.

 Josey4u wrote:

 Random Dude wrote:
I took a lot of crap in Elementary School for my interest in Wargaming. As far as stereotypes go, I don't fit the standard wargamer stereotype held by many others. I'm a longtime athlete and fitness guru who happens to really enjoy wargaming. It puts me in an awkward position because I can't fully relate to either side.

*edit- I don't see why wargaming and sports/other athletic activities have to be mutually exclusive.

Thank God there are more like me. I have been in running groups, my gym buddies, and biking friends, and when I tell them , "hey I can't do this or that on tuesday" I get the - oh you do that thing that day right?

HOWEVER. I have learned you cannot paint after you run or workout. Your heartrate is up so high your brush shakes in your hand.

Same here josey - just swap biking for boxing. There's a few guys in work that are the same.

Best thing I ever did was get out of 'pure' gamer culture. It's a nice place, but can get very bitchy and incestuous. It's better to have a foot planted firmly in the 'sports and athletics' section too. Healthier too.

Which would you rather do? A ten mile run, or paint a space marine?

I have never encountered any problems due to my wargaming, but I usually explain it in a humurous way that shows that I am selfaware that it is playing with toy soliders or joke that it is Märklin train sets for people born in the '80s. I have never encountered anyone not understanding that it is a game. It might be because we use different words for playing (spela in swedish) a game and playing (leka in swedish) like children do.

The reason that there are so few women in the nerdy hobbies is not only because of the prejudice against it, it is also because some gamers and games seem hell bent of keeping women out, with both content of games and the behaviour of the gamers.

 chromedog wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
Raising a couple boys I can say with no reservations that you can try to hide all the violent aspects of life you want and they still pick up some stick and say "bang-bang".
Boggles my mind.

Yep. The Swedes did a study like that. Involved not exposing male children to "war toys" or war movies and even then, boys would pick up sticks and play "bang! You're dead!"

It's how they're wired.

My wife was given trucks to play with as well as dolls. She put the dolls IN the trucks and continued to play.

Your wife is probably the best example here. I have never heard of the study you refer to. I have only seen Swedish studies that show that kids are very influenced by societal pressure, but provided toys that are gendered both "boy" and "girl" from the start, children will play with both regardless of their sex. So there is nothing that says that boys in particular are wired to play war. There are however a lot of things that point to that there is a drive in children to play games that involve some degee of physical struggle with each other, and this is regardless if they are boys or girls.

She did have a point, but she didn't really present it well.

War glorification was an aspect of wargaming for a long time and it's right to be concerned about it.

However, I'm a grown adult that can see past it. But I'm also able to see that the constant barrage of war related media, whether that's from a miniature game, or from video games, does add up.

Others have responded to this in a thoughtful way, and it is a very interesting topic. I personally would have a hard time to play games set in WWI and WWII, even though I have a huge interest in history. Simply because they are to close and too horrible. Too real. I prefer either fictional universes or historicals that are way back in history.

 jorny wrote:
Your wife is probably the best example here. I have never heard of the study you refer to. I have only seen Swedish studies that show that kids are very influenced by societal pressure, but provided toys that are gendered both "boy" and "girl" from the start, children will play with both regardless of their sex. So there is nothing that says that boys in particular are wired to play war. There are however a lot of things that point to that there is a drive in children to play games that involve some degee of physical struggle with each other, and this is regardless if they are boys or girls.

Do you have children?

I haven't met many parents who don't think nature is easily the dominant factor over nuture. And I trust those observations -- even if they may be biased -- over the limited kind of observations that a study can conduct.

 gorgon wrote:

 jorny wrote:
Your wife is probably the best example here. I have never heard of the study you refer to. I have only seen Swedish studies that show that kids are very influenced by societal pressure, but provided toys that are gendered both "boy" and "girl" from the start, children will play with both regardless of their sex. So there is nothing that says that boys in particular are wired to play war. There are however a lot of things that point to that there is a drive in children to play games that involve some degee of physical struggle with each other, and this is regardless if they are boys or girls.

Do you have children?

I haven't met many parents who don't think nature is easily the dominant factor over nuture. And I trust those observations -- even if they may be biased -- over the limited kind of observations that a study can conduct.

Well, I don't have children. But I have enough friends with children who would not agree with you. I have talked often enough about how their children are influenced to lay off toys that have been their favorites, because they have heard that they "are for boys/girls" to trust those observations. I can also well as my own upbringing where me and my brothers had dolls and toy kitchens as well as toy swords and toy cars. And tons of LEGO of course! We played with it all.

Honestly though, I am not very interested in discussing this right here. The other topics in this thread are far to interesting to get in to a discussion which probably will lead nowhere, and go waaay OT...

 gorgon wrote:

 jorny wrote:
Your wife is probably the best example here. I have never heard of the study you refer to. I have only seen Swedish studies that show that kids are very influenced by societal pressure, but provided toys that are gendered both "boy" and "girl" from the start, children will play with both regardless of their sex. So there is nothing that says that boys in particular are wired to play war. There are however a lot of things that point to that there is a drive in children to play games that involve some degee of physical struggle with each other, and this is regardless if they are boys or girls.

Do you have children?

I haven't met many parents who don't think nature is easily the dominant factor over nuture. And I trust those observations -- even if they may be biased -- over the limited kind of observations that a study can conduct.

Of course you haven't. Every parent wants to believe they have a greater influence on how their child comes out than genetics. That doesn't make it true.

I have a daughter, and of course she's already picking up gender roles. While it might not be perfect, I think it's a reality of our society that will take generations to change. My goal is to raise her in a manner where I can break gender roles and social stereotypes where it's feasible, but more importantly to raise her to be thoughtful and tolerant, so that hopefully when she raises her kids and they raise theirs, the evolution can continue and they can continue to break down social inequalities.

And.... one of my ways of doing that will be to expose her to wargaming (and nerd culture in general). Maybe she'll like it, maybe she won't, but she most likely won't be intolerant of it because she's been exposed to it. That's how we evolve as a society.

 gorgon wrote:

 jorny wrote:
Your wife is probably the best example here. I have never heard of the study you refer to. I have only seen Swedish studies that show that kids are very influenced by societal pressure, but provided toys that are gendered both "boy" and "girl" from the start, children will play with both regardless of their sex. So there is nothing that says that boys in particular are wired to play war. There are however a lot of things that point to that there is a drive in children to play games that involve some degee of physical struggle with each other, and this is regardless if they are boys or girls.

Do you have children?

I haven't met many parents who don't think nature is easily the dominant factor over nuture. And I trust those observations -- even if they may be biased -- over the limited kind of observations that a study can conduct.

I am a parent, and you can add me to your list that place nurture in at least equal measure with nature. You can feth a kid up...badly. And as a parent, you don't, and can't, control everything your child is exposed to. Your children are being socialized by the society around you. They are being taught about gender norms by just about everything they see around them, and they soak that gak up like a damn sponge.

You can't dictate everything that your children will see, and hear, and experience. But as a parent you can provide guidance and context to help them become the kind of person (broadly speaking) that you earnestly hope they will be. Talizvar's post is an excellent example. Edit: and Slowthar's post above.

 Talizvar wrote:
Raising a couple boys I can say with no reservations that you can try to hide all the violent aspects of life you want and they still pick up some stick and say "bang-bang".
Boggles my mind.

The tactic of coupling respect for a given subject and not cherry picking aspects of it I feel is important.
We have gone to war museums, discussed the heavy cost, the atrocities, the actual causes of war and how they end.
The difficulties people faced and the people employed to try to end the carnage become an interesting topic.
I would rather get into the real world, demonstrable cost of violence and the various ways it was applied before I have to explain Wolverine from X-men.

Saldiven wrote:

This is very true. Our FLGS has a bunch of people who are quite athletic. Several regulars at the store play on a club rugby team.

Please tell me where you live, so that I may make pilgrimage to this holy site!!! (I'm probably the only hooker on this site, or at least the only one to admit to such ) I know rugby is big in my area (well, as bit as rugby in the US can really be, we did just have the US National Club 7s Championships up here), but I've yet to see a gaming store that houses multiple athletic types


Automatically Appended Next Post:

weeble1000 wrote:

It also has a lot to do with protective equipment. You don't bash your head into someone at full speed if you are just wearing a leather helmet because...it hurts like the dickens. The pain that happens when your head hits things is good at encouraging players to avoid aggressive motions that cause their brains to rattle around inside of their very well-protected skulls.

Louisiana. So back woods they still use leather helmets for football

Deadnight wrote:

 Josey4u wrote:

 Random Dude wrote:
I took a lot of crap in Elementary School for my interest in Wargaming. As far as stereotypes go, I don't fit the standard wargamer stereotype held by many others. I'm a longtime athlete and fitness guru who happens to really enjoy wargaming. It puts me in an awkward position because I can't fully relate to either side.

*edit- I don't see why wargaming and sports/other athletic activities have to be mutually exclusive.

Thank God there are more like me. I have been in running groups, my gym buddies, and biking friends, and when I tell them , "hey I can't do this or that on tuesday" I get the - oh you do that thing that day right?

HOWEVER. I have learned you cannot paint after you run or workout. Your heartrate is up so high your brush shakes in your hand.

Same here josey - just swap biking for boxing. There's a few guys in work that are the same.

Best thing I ever did was get out of 'pure' gamer culture. It's a nice place, but can get very bitchy and incestuous. It's better to have a foot planted firmly in the 'sports and athletics' section too. Healthier too.

Which would you rather do? A ten mile run, or paint a space marine?

Amen. You are my kind of people. RUN.

My next half marathon is in october so training is already in progress. But with midwest winters, gaming is where I go. And you are spot on, it keeps you mentally firm and healthy buddy

 Josey4u wrote:

Deadnight wrote:


Which would you rather do? A ten mile run, or paint a space marine?

Amen. You are my kind of people. RUN.

My next half marathon is in october so training is already in progress. But with midwest winters, gaming is where I go. And you are spot on, it keeps you mentally firm and healthy buddy

Yeah, I'd honestly rather play rugby all day (and drink afterwards) than paint a space marine.... That's not to say that sunday after a brutal match I'll rather play rugby (because getting that beat up, I'll sit my happy ass down and paint, just so long as I dont move and have those "car wreck" feelings)

 Shandara wrote:
The argument that kids can somehow not separate fiction and reality is brought up a lot. There are claims for and against every so often in the media.

"Won't somebody think of the children!"

I often wonder if religious crusaders let their children read the old testament , hell, even the new testament with Herod and Revelations.

 Bullockist wrote:

 Shandara wrote:
The argument that kids can somehow not separate fiction and reality is brought up a lot. There are claims for and against every so often in the media.

"Won't somebody think of the children!"

I often wonder if religious crusaders let their children read the old testament , hell, even the new testament with Herod and Revelations.

TBH I doubt most religous crusaders read the bible either, just google "bible qoutes against..."

weeble1000 wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

 jorny wrote:
Your wife is probably the best example here. I have never heard of the study you refer to. I have only seen Swedish studies that show that kids are very influenced by societal pressure, but provided toys that are gendered both "boy" and "girl" from the start, children will play with both regardless of their sex. So there is nothing that says that boys in particular are wired to play war. There are however a lot of things that point to that there is a drive in children to play games that involve some degee of physical struggle with each other, and this is regardless if they are boys or girls.

Do you have children?

I haven't met many parents who don't think nature is easily the dominant factor over nuture. And I trust those observations -- even if they may be biased -- over the limited kind of observations that a study can conduct.

I am a parent, and you can add me to your list that place nurture in at least equal measure with nature. You can feth a kid up...badly. And as a parent, you don't, and can't, control everything your child is exposed to. Your children are being socialized by the society around you. They are being taught about gender norms by just about everything they see around them, and they soak that gak up like a damn sponge.

You can't dictate everything that your children will see, and hear, and experience. But as a parent you can provide guidance and context to help them become the kind of person (broadly speaking) that you earnestly hope they will be. Talizvar's post is an excellent example. Edit: and Slowthar's post above.

I'm not sure that you're properly responding to my point. My point is the same as Talizvar's...that boys and girls are wired differently, and will gravitate toward different toys and interests regardless of what pressure you place on them. That's the struggle that some transgendered people go through, right? That they just can't identify with a given gender no matter how much parental and societal pressure has been placed on them throughout their lives.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding jorny's explanation of those studies he's referring to, but it sure sounds like they're claiming some kind of gender neutrality in the absence of these pressures. Which I simply don't buy.

Of course you can teach them things, like the gravity of war.

 gorgon wrote:

I'm not sure that you're properly responding to my point. My point is the same as Talizvar's...that boys and girls are wired differently, and will gravitate toward different toys and interests regardless of what pressure you place on them. That's the struggle that some transgendered people go through, right? That they just can't identify with a given gender no matter how much parental and societal pressure has been placed on them throughout their lives.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding jorny's explanation of those studies he's referring to, but it sure sounds like they're claiming some kind of gender neutrality in the absence of these pressures. Which I simply don't buy.

Of course you can teach them things, like the gravity of war.

I'd definitely agree with this... my kids are 4 and 2 (one of each gender) and I gotta say that they each have no problem playing with hot wheels, legos, dolls, etc... My daughter tends to play with the "boy toys" in a more gentle, nurturing sort of way, whereas the boy, even when grabbing/playing with his sisters' doll, basically destroys it (it flies, gets body slammed, crushed, etc) and generally plays with it as if it were any GI Joe toy.

Interesting, how are those people that believe that table top war games glorify war think about more abstract games like;

Chess could be considered a war-game, Igo is definitely a battle for area control. How about board games? Some of those could be thought of as glorifying violence, lying, backstabbing, deceiving etcetera.