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.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
Rather much avoid the PC BS - and just let companies do what they want. Want to try to cater to women? Have at it. Want to run a company called Maidenhead and sell nothing but boobies? Fine with that too.

PC BS tends to be noise - and any change that comes from it isn't real change...just pandering to get the noise to go away.

I agree 100%.

Let people create what they want to create.

'Vote with your wallet'? What, just walk away, without giving any kind of feedback? Is this a community or a status quo echo chamber? I'm an artist by trade, and let me tell you it's so much better to hear from customers what they'd like to see.

'PC BS doesn't effect real change'? Even if we assume that hardly any former blackface performers look back on their acts with contrition, there's a world of difference between art being filled with downward-punching stereotypes and art that listens to and engages with everyone beyond a privileged white male demographic.

---

Here's me thinking all that recent sympathy for feminist critiques of GW's art was something more than a proxy war against Mat Ward.

Cultural insensitivity in wargaming?

Thats a really strange idea....I mean look at Flames of War. You can buy & build Nazi armies. Look at historical games. You can buy Zulu vs Afrikaaner armies. I'm not seeing how a discussion about the depiction of women has branched off into talking about subjectively negative portrayals of indigenous people's in a line of Ogre models. Again, this is odd in light of the fact that folks automatically sign off scales of fantasy violence in this hobby that literally beggar the mind.

And in these sorts of discussions, the "privileged white male" diatribe might as well be "worse than Hitler..."

There is no more discussion to be had - you are wrong by birth.

 lindsay40k wrote:
. Transgender and queer people are presented as daemon spawn.

Interesting point.
It is undeniable that the depictions of anything in the 40k universe that mixes male and female or has the implication (40k rarely states such explicitly) of homosexuality Is almost exclusively tied to the daemonic.
Not something I'd considered before.

 lindsay40k wrote:
Women in 40k are presented as sex objects or anti-nanite aegis waiting to be worn.

They absolutely are not. 40K is about one of the most sex-less universes around, where men and women hold equal positions of authority and poverty. There are really only two institutions where gender is important - The Adeptus Astartes and the Adepta Sororitas - outside of that every Imperial institution from Planetary Governors right down to lowly Guardsmen are shown to include both sexes equally.

 lindsay40k wrote:
Transgender and queer people are presented as daemon spawn.

This is hogwash, and not just because I'm having trouble even remembering the presence of trans/queer people in 40K, let alone their portrayal. And if your response is "Slaaneshi Daemons!", they are hermaphroditic, which isn't the same thing, and is granted as a boon. It isn't something they suffer, it's something they celebrate.

This is just silly. Really, the Sororitas are the only female soldiers I've seen in... well... every fantasy/gothic game I played that are coverd and not in some silly, unrealistic armor. Now you're whining cause they have *OH GOSH* armor breasts!?
You could easily make an important female archon, or a badass canoness or whatever but no, let's complain about GW being misogynist? I mean, I hate GW as much as the next guy, but the first army I played was the Adepta Sororitas because gosh darn it, finally a female centered army that could kick ass! (let's ignore the Khornate Knights incident since they reconnected it too in the new GK codex) My canoness could rip a Chaos Lord a new one in CaC.
It's not "the hobby" or "GW", it's the customer. The guy put strippers on his land rider? Big deal, I don't like it, but whatever, I'd simply say "no thanks mate, I think I'll pass today" and be done with it.

This thread is basically one person saying, "I find something offensive" and then other people getting offended about that and telling them if they're offended not to look and to ignore it.

It's like a ball of melted hypocrisy with some bad logic sprinkled on top for flavour.

"Stop using your right to free speech to discuss someone else's expression of their free speech!"

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 lindsay40k wrote:
Transgender and queer people are presented as daemon spawn.

And if your response is "Slaaneshi Daemons!", they are hermaphroditic, which isn't the same thing, and is granted as a boon. It isn't something they suffer, it's something they celebrate.

I think the point was that they're one of the only depictions of gender not distinctly Male or Female in the 40k universe.

You do make a good point though, that it's something that it is presented as a positive, albeit in a daemonic milieu.

Kind of seeing where this could go either way. Hard to say for sure without any supporting evidence regarding the intent of the 40k authors.

 Eilif wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 lindsay40k wrote:
Transgender and queer people are presented as daemon spawn.

And if your response is "Slaaneshi Daemons!", they are hermaphroditic, which isn't the same thing, and is granted as a boon. It isn't something they suffer, it's something they celebrate.

I think the point was that they're one of the only depictions of gender not distinctly Male or Female in the 40k universe.

You do make a good point though, that it's something that it is presented as a positive, albeit in a daemonic milieu.

Kind of seeing where this could go either way. Hard to say for sure without any supporting evidence from the 40k authors.

It's also worth remembering that the commingling of male and female in demonic form can be traced back at least as far as 1856. Yet another idea that GW simply co-opted. The idea that these demons are intended to be a slam at intersex/transgendered people is... well, much in need of support.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
[
It's also worth remembering that the commingling of male and female in demonic form can be traced back at least as far as 1856. Yet another idea that GW simply co-opted. The idea that these demons are intended to be a slam at intersex/transgendered people is... well, much in need of support.

I'm aware of the historical precedent and GW co-opt. There's really nothing new under the grimdark sun.

However, just to play devils advocate here (couldn't resist…) couldn't historical depictions of demons co-mingling the sexes themselves be a slam at inter/trans people? If they are, would the reuse be any less a slam?

 Foo wrote:
This thread is basically one person saying, "I find something offensive" and then other people getting offended about that and telling them if they're offended not to look and to ignore it.

It's like a ball of melted hypocrisy with some bad logic sprinkled on top for flavour.

"Stop using your right to free speech to discuss someone else's expression of their free speech!"

I suppose that no one should tell the OP to look up the Slaaneshi army with the Defiler that has a dildo greenstuffed onto it...


Me personally, I agree with what many here have said: if the "offensive" model fits in with the theme of the army in question, it isn't all that offensive to me. There are of course, a few exceptions (such as the Nazi IG army mentioned and the like) to this rule for me, but generally I don't get offended. Depending on the setting, I may make the suggestion to the owner of the models to be careful, or not bring them to that location. Usually, this is only in times where there are many kids about, especially if said kids have parents with them.

 Eilif wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
[
It's also worth remembering that the commingling of male and female in demonic form can be traced back at least as far as 1856. Yet another idea that GW simply co-opted. The idea that these demons are intended to be a slam at intersex/transgendered people is... well, much in need of support.

I'm aware of the historical precedent and GW co-opt. There's really nothing new under the grimdark sun.

However, just to play devils advocate here (couldn't resist…) couldn't historical depictions of demons co-mingling the sexes themselves be a slam at inter/trans people? If they are, would the reuse be any less a slam?

I would say the problem with calling it a "slam" is... I just don't think that in the 1850s people even thought that trans/intersex people existed, much less should be mocked. I'm sure they would be mocked (like bearded ladies in sideshows), but the origins are, I would venture, much more to do with classic notions of sexual symbolism and its importance in Christian theology.

Specifically, Biblically inclined people would be familiar with the notion "man and women he made them" and recognize that a fusion of man and woman is symbolic of a revolt against the divine order. They also might be aware of the classical pagan character of Hermaphroditus, "where the hermaphrodite nature expressed the idea of a primitive being that united both genders".

Thus, while certainly this idea would be insulting to intersex people, I would venture it safe to say that is an accident.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 lindsay40k wrote:
Women in 40k are presented as sex objects or anti-nanite aegis waiting to be worn.

They absolutely are not. 40K is about one of the most sex-less universes around, where men and women hold equal positions of authority and poverty. There are really only two institutions where gender is important - The Adeptus Astartes and the Adepta Sororitas - outside of that every Imperial institution from Planetary Governors right down to lowly Guardsmen are shown to include both sexes equally.

'Shown'? I think you mean 'written'. I'm trying to remember physical examples of this AM equal inclusion other than a giant-breasted Commissar and a 'Warrior Woman' taking to the field of battle in a boob tube and miniskirt (as you do in a Penal Legion). Oh, wait - there was a Pte. Vasquez-styled 'Rocket Girl' as well. None of these are currently available, of course.

Six female heads on the Cadian sprue. That's all it would have taken. If that's too much, some FW heads; it wouldn't have been much help for a thirteen year old newcomer who wants an entry-level set of these women soldiers she's been told are equal to the male soldiers, but at least it'd be something. Anyone could have done mixed or segregated regiments that exist only in the fluff, in the collections of capable or wealthy convertors, and in collections that aren't allowed in GW stores and events.

A handful of non-caucasian heads would have been nice, as well, but let's not go crazy. When GW did the Cadians, I believe this was still available:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 lindsay40k wrote:
Transgender and queer people are presented as daemon spawn.

This is hogwash, and not just because I'm having trouble even remembering the presence of trans/queer people in 40K, let alone their portrayal. And if your response is "Slaaneshi Daemons!", they are hermaphroditic, which isn't the same thing, and is granted as a boon. It isn't something they suffer, it's something they celebrate.

I'll be fair and concede that this was more Citadel Journal era stuff, that I guess informed the atmosphere in which hobbyists - including GW staff - told me that my transgender Chaplain conversion seemed 'more of a Slaaneshi thing'.

 Foo wrote:
This thread is basically one person saying, "I find something offensive" and then other people getting offended about that and telling them if they're offended not to look and to ignore it.

It's like a ball of melted hypocrisy with some bad logic sprinkled on top for flavour.

"Stop using your right to free speech to discuss someone else's expression of their free speech!"

Actually goes well beyond that...

The OP said:

I'm honestly disturbed by it. I imagine some slimy dude jacking off as he paints the breasts. People like this are bad for the whole community.

That goes well beyond saying they find something offensive. Not only do they find it offensive, they also insult anyone who does those sorts of models (personally) and then proceeds to make a plea to ostracize them. There is a big difference between me saying "I don't like Hip Hop" and me saying "I don't like Hip Hop and anyone who does like Hip Hop is obviously a criminal who everyone should avoid at all costs or else you might be considered a criminal too".

blaktoof wrote:
Should put naked men in the cages and see what the response is.

I feel like women are already discouraged to join this hobby...

...but regardless adding sexuality to the game generally doesn't help get people interested as the game isn't about sex, its about toy models made from plastic/resin/metal/etc firing pretend missiles at people shooting brain bullets at them.

Much like adding politics or real world nonsense, like israeli army IG or nazi army IG, or taliban IG, no one wants to see that.

I don't care, if somebody wants to model fabio butt naked riding on top of a tank barrel..then so be it, their choice and it does not effect my life at all. If somebody wants to paint swastikas on their leman russes, whatever..i'm not going to go home and lose my mind, yes its kind of sad but when people get worked up over this..then your just feeding the urge for these people to continue with what "offends" people

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 Eilif wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
[
It's also worth remembering that the commingling of male and female in demonic form can be traced back at least as far as 1856. Yet another idea that GW simply co-opted. The idea that these demons are intended to be a slam at intersex/transgendered people is... well, much in need of support.

I'm aware of the historical precedent and GW co-opt. There's really nothing new under the grimdark sun.

However, just to play devils advocate here (couldn't resist…) couldn't historical depictions of demons co-mingling the sexes themselves be a slam at inter/trans people? If they are, would the reuse be any less a slam?

I would say the problem with calling it a "slam" is... I just don't think that in the 1850s people even thought that trans/intersex people existed, much less should be mocked. I'm sure they would be mocked (like bearded ladies in sideshows), but the origins are, I would venture, much more to do with classic notions of sexual symbolism and its importance in Christian theology.

Specifically, Biblically inclined people would be familiar with the notion "man and women he made them" and recognize that a fusion of man and woman is symbolic of a revolt against the divine order. They also might be aware of the classical pagan character of Hermaphroditus, "where the hermaphrodite nature expressed the idea of a primitive being that united both genders".

Thus, while certainly this idea would be insulting to intersex people, I would venture it safe to say that is an accident.

Within a Western context, yes, LGBT people were viciously oppressed by the Inquisitorial culture that developed. 40K and Warhammer being pastiches of that history, non-Western gender variance & sexuality can be set aside (at least, until Ind and Nippon get army books).

The thing is, when LGBT people are at best only represented through the lens of a culture that is a pastiche of the worst elements of European Christianity, you're playing a very tricky game as a writer. And with the lens that GW have given themselves to work with, LGBT people of the Empire and Imperium are possibly safer unseen than out in the open and being talked about by characters for whom 'exterminate the xenos/deviant filth' is Plan A.

In fact, the main use of LGBT-related language I can think of is Orc/ks referring to Elves/Eldar as 'poncey pointy earz'. Seems to have petered off in recent years, though.

Crimson Heretic wrote:


I don't care, if somebody wants to model fabio butt naked riding on top of a tank barrel..then so be it, their choice and it does not effect my life at all. If somebody wants to paint swastikas on their leman russes, whatever..i'm not going to go home and lose my mind, yes its kind of sad but when people get worked up over this..then your just feeding the urge for these people to continue with what "offends" people

Agreed... But personally, there is quite a difference between an SS "theme" with swastika, and "lol, bewbs" or "lol, wiener" (and not wienerdog..... Frazz). I don't get worked up over painted miniatures, but if I see an army that is NOT a historical army (as in Flames of War, etc) painted with swastikas, it is going to put my guard up, because I really dislike racist people, so I'm going to keep a closer eye on that person, and listen to what they say, etc. and if it turns out they painted their Nazi themed force because they really are quite a bit racist, then I'm probably going to stop talking/dealing with them. I'm not going to raise bloody hell over minis or that the person is less than agreeable, I just won't have associations or dealings with them in the future.

It really is kind of context for me though. If I'm heading to a FoW game, and I see a swastika tank, well, it'd better be an appropriate vehicle (as in, I'd better not see a Sherman tank with swastikas on it, except as kill markings) because I'm expecting some level of historical accuracy in the game. But if I'm going to an MTG game, and my opponent's card sleeves all look like Nazi party flags (the red, with white circle and swastika), or are playboy pinups (and not the censored, 1940s GI type from WW2) I might make a mention of it, due to location of the game, and that if some "concerned parent" or little timmy who's too young for certain subjects sees that, I don't really want to be lumped in with *that guy* who has that stuff; But again, I'm not freaking out about it, I'm merely a messenger/informant type letting the person know that his/her possessions may have a subject matter that some would consider inappropriate and he/she should think about changing it, or playing elsewhere.

The thing is, if someone put naked men in cages... there would be no response, no one would give a crap enough to post about it on the internet. You might get a few comments in person about it, just like you get a few comments about anything, but I doubt anyone would be enraged enough to take to the general discussion forum of a wargaming forum except maybe the most conservative people you could find.

I also tend to think there's less people who would actually find the desire to model a naked man grinding on an executioner's axe in a cage.

every human on earth is racist and they have pre-decided opinions of other people based off of appearence..whether they go with it or set it aside is they variable in this formula..but yes i agree with most for statement..but in the end if somebody wants a pair of milk cans or a man missile on their tank..whatever

I'm not bothered by the concept of seeing nudity.

The only instance of nudity in miniatures that was ever even relevant to me are Games Workshop's Daemonette models. They used to look seductive, but they had nipples. It didn't even register as pornographic to me because it was done tastefully, but since England is a christian nation and Games Workshop is trying to market their product to kids they had to change it to those uglier models with no nipples. So I guess I want more acceptance of sexually explicit models because otherwise we get crap daemonettes. Which are basically the only daemons of slaanesh Games Workshop has even made since the change. I didn't even realize that until now. Wow.

I'm going to throw my hat into the ring with this model here.



This is my defiler. Yes, it has two damonettes chained to it. But then again, the whole model has been chained. I have never had anyone ever even bat an eye and in fact have only ever gotten encouraging comments on the army.

Now maybe this falls into the Slannesh vs Khorne debate at what is fluffy or not. Or maybe its because the chained up girls are daemons and not actually depictions of human women. Or maybe its because the army has 18 more of those exact same damonettes running around butchering everything under the sun. So we have both enpowered and enslaved action being represented by the same models. But for what ever the case, I wonder if this negativity is a reaction of anonymity of the internet or having to tell someone to their face that their art offends them.

Or maybe when looked at as a theme, some of the shock goes away.

Here is my Deamon Prince


and my lord on bike


The girls are Vect slave girls. Actual GW models, however the only chains on them are those that were sculpted on them, also maybe the argument that the girls don't appear to be there against their will might have something to do with it. However, a slave girl is still a slave girl.

And yet again, maybe its because I'm an equal opportunity enslaver and we have this poor DA marine here. Please pardon my earlier conversion attempts. I'd like to think I'm better skilled now.


So maybe the original Landraider in the original OP is only viewed as offensive because it is a model that has been singled out, and the context of the army as a whole has been lost on us who only have the one single picture to go off of and the original artist intent has been lost some how.

I think the Slaanesh vs Khorne debate is pointless. Since when is GW fluff sacrosanct? It's ok to have boobies if you play Slaanesh but not if you play Khorne because g-dubs says so? Slaanesh vs Khorne comes under the same line of thinking as I painted my Space Wolves blue instead of blue-grey. If you want boobies you want boobies, it doesn't really matter what army it is IMO as long as it fulfils your personal vision.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Foo wrote:
This thread is basically one person saying, "I find something offensive" and then other people getting offended about that and telling them if they're offended not to look and to ignore it.

It's like a ball of melted hypocrisy with some bad logic sprinkled on top for flavour.

"Stop using your right to free speech to discuss someone else's expression of their free speech!"

I suppose that no one should tell the OP to look up the Slaaneshi army with the Defiler that has a dildo greenstuffed onto it...

Nice try. I tried to look it up and I think it's been taken down. Curiosity be damned!

No matter where you take this conversation, its worth noting that EVERYONE participating in it is totally cool with fantasy genocide in the 40k universe.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I think the Slaanesh vs Khorne debate is pointless. Since when is GW fluff sacrosanct? It's ok to have boobies if you play Slaanesh but not if you play Khorne because g-dubs says so? Slaanesh vs Khorne comes under the same line of thinking as I painted my Space Wolves blue instead of blue-grey. If you want boobies you want boobies, it doesn't really matter what army it is IMO as long as it fulfils your personal vision.

My friend, you miss the point! We're not here to talk about useful things, but to witness the moral preenings of our "betters" (there really aren't enough ""s for that).

That's a little toungue-in-cheek, but take a moment to look over the thread, especially the people that are most offended by the models in question: what's fascinating is the personalizing, and moral character of their objections. This is started off nicely in the OP with "I imagine some slimy dude jacking off as he paints the breasts". Notice how it's not enough that there is disagreement; the OP imagines that someone that likes something he doesn't like is a pervert and physically loathsome.

It's also particulalry telling that in the quote the OP supplies, you have this exchange;

Other: A lady in summer-ish beachwear and a girl with naked boobies and a chainsaw do not scream slavery to me to be honest..., I think you reaction to this particular model is a bit overreacted. I agree that the depiction of women in art etc is maybe not always as nice, but don't go crazy on this guy because of that, it's just not fair. I am a woman too and I just had to laugh a bit because of this model, I don't feel offended by this at all. I laughed my ass of because of the red river-thingy, because it maybe depicts the fear guys have of women's periods XD

Me: What do you mean not enslaved, in the Land Raider picture, they are literally in cages. The half naked men you speak of are not in sexualized poses, but your women are.

Anyway, just because the men and the women are both scantily clad does not make you an advocate of equality, because there is not a history of men being oppressed due to sexuality and sexual roles the way there is for women (disclaimer: not to say that it doesn't exist but it exists mostly non-hetero men and in far less numbers than it does for women).

Regardless of all the above, you are still creating a bad impression for the wargaming and modeling community, and discouraging new people, especially women, from taking part in this great hobby.

The OP is here flat out ignoring an actual woman that plays 40K, in favor of a hypothetical woman's sensibilities. A woman tells him he is overreacting, and he deigns to define who is and who is not an advocate for equality.

This is not a rational conversation: this is narcissism, of the most toxic type, a type sadly becoming more and more common. Heck, last week Alan Dershowitz, emeritus professor of Harvard Law and liberal champion of free speech (a man with whom I have a number of disagreements) pointed out on Fox's Red Eye program very pointedly that the place in the US where free speech is most under assault is the college campus.

 lindsay40k wrote:
'Shown'? I think you mean 'written'. I'm trying to remember physical examples of this AM equal inclusion other than a giant-breasted Commissar and a 'Warrior Woman' taking to the field of battle in a boob tube and miniskirt (as you do in a Penal Legion). Oh, wait - there was a Pte. Vasquez-styled 'Rocket Girl' as well. None of these are currently available, of course.

So you can think of three miniatures. That's nice. Really has little to do with anything, especially given the way women are portrayed in 40K as being no different from men. They hold the same positions as men (low and high), they fight in the same wars, they use the same equipment and the only place they are singled out are the Adepta Sororitas (just as men are in the Adeptus Astartes). Even the Callidus Temple sometimes isn't always female, occasionally using male assassins. And you want to point out three miniatures. Well that's great, but I tend to disagree with the assertions you're making. And you forgot the Tannith minaiture.

 lindsay40k wrote:
Six female heads on the Cadian sprue. That's all it would have taken. If that's too much, some FW heads; it wouldn't have been much help for a thirteen year old newcomer who wants an entry-level set of these women soldiers she's been told are equal to the male soldiers, but at least it'd be something. Anyone could have done mixed or segregated regiments that exist only in the fluff, in the collections of capable or wealthy convertors, and in collections that aren't allowed in GW stores and events.

So they would have wildly out-of-proportion bodies? Cadians have enough problems with their giant hands, now you want to throw even more wonky proportions into it?

 lindsay40k wrote:
A handful of non-caucasian heads would have been nice, as well, but let's not go crazy. When GW did the Cadians, I believe this was still available:

Spoiler:

What's stopping you from painting them up as non-Caucasians?

Crimson Heretic wrote:
every human on earth is racist and they have pre-decided opinions of other people based off of appearence..whether they go with it or set it aside is they variable in this formula..but yes i agree with most for statement..but in the end if somebody wants a pair of milk cans or a man missile on their tank..whatever

That's bigotry and prejudice. Not racism.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 lindsay40k wrote:
Six female heads on the Cadian sprue. That's all it would have taken. If that's too much, some FW heads; it wouldn't have been much help for a thirteen year old newcomer who wants an entry-level set of these women soldiers she's been told are equal to the male soldiers, but at least it'd be something. Anyone could have done mixed or segregated regiments that exist only in the fluff, in the collections of capable or wealthy convertors, and in collections that aren't allowed in GW stores and events.

So they would have wildly out-of-proportion bodies? Cadians have enough problems with their giant hands, now you want to throw even more wonky proportions into it?

Yeah, it would take a lot more than female heads to make female looking Cadians. They already have massively thick proportions for men, let alone women. Even have both female torsos and heads would look quite strange with the current legs and arms.

GW don't so much portray women in a sexist manner as they fail to portray them with miniatures at all, and when they do, they tend to look like dudes with boobs It's not so much objectifying women as it is failing at portraying them at all (at least in the miniatures more so than the fluff).

I'm honestly disturbed by it. I imagine some slimy dude jacking off as he paints the breasts. People like this are bad for the whole community.

You need to get off your high horse. There's nothing directly wrong about this model other than the fact it you may say it doesn't really fit with Khorne. (Although, maybe it does, but since we only see one model here, we can't be sure - maybe the army is themed well via a heavy metal band as he hints with electric guitar wielding noise marines and such).
Anything you imagine is YOUR problem....hmm actually I just recalled a video I saw a lil while back that totally applies here. It's about a comic book cover but the points apply completely here to this topic as well:

 lindsay40k wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 lindsay40k wrote:
Women in 40k are presented as sex objects or anti-nanite aegis waiting to be worn.

They absolutely are not. 40K is about one of the most sex-less universes around, where men and women hold equal positions of authority and poverty. There are really only two institutions where gender is important - The Adeptus Astartes and the Adepta Sororitas - outside of that every Imperial institution from Planetary Governors right down to lowly Guardsmen are shown to include both sexes equally.

'Shown'? I think you mean 'written'. I'm trying to remember physical examples of this AM equal inclusion other than a giant-breasted Commissar and a 'Warrior Woman' taking to the field of battle in a boob tube and miniskirt (as you do in a Penal Legion). Oh, wait - there was a Pte. Vasquez-styled 'Rocket Girl' as well. None of these are currently available, of course.

Six female heads on the Cadian sprue. That's all it would have taken. If that's too much, some FW heads; it wouldn't have been much help for a thirteen year old newcomer who wants an entry-level set of these women soldiers she's been told are equal to the male soldiers, but at least it'd be something. Anyone could have done mixed or segregated regiments that exist only in the fluff, in the collections of capable or wealthy convertors, and in collections that aren't allowed in GW stores and events.

A handful of non-caucasian heads would have been nice, as well, but let's not go crazy.

Yea, It's written, but not shown by GW official models, but that's just another in a long list of errors they've made. It's not like there isn't any demand either since Raging Heroes, for example has become quite successful doing a solely female model range and is planning another kickstarter.

Apple fox wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Eilif wrote:
Is LEGO supposed to ignore what it's customers want?

A measured look at LEGO's process and product shows that they achieved an admirable balance between giving the customer what they want and aiming for a meaningful play experience.

It's not going to please everyone. There's always going to be a contingent that is uncomfortable with any sets that are gender-tailored in color or subject matter, but short of abandoning a potentially huge portion of customers, there's really no way of pleasing those customers. Let's not forget that there are already dozens of gender neutral sets for those folks already.

And more importantly, is LEGO just supposed to ignore consumer demographics.

I tend to get quite annoyed when people complain that the girl's isle at the toy store is pink, and that it should be changed because it enforces out-dated stereotypical societal roles that don't apply to modern culture and blah blah blah. Well... most of the girl's I know (and when I was a kid as well), they liked pink things. Even my mother likes things that are pink. Drives me nuts.

Lego realy deserves the position they are in when they directly marketed towards boys at an exclusion of a female audience that they had.
At one stage female Lego bits was hard to get here as they under stocked and stores would get picked clean where I was off them.
That changed as Lego become a boys toy within culture more, posibly due to there own marketing over a extended period of time.
Now they may be selling Lego to girls since it is branded and parents are getting them for there girls, and gifts for birthdays.
Which can also reinforce the culture that these are for girls. Which does ad to the issue people bring up with the girls isle.
Pink was never the issue, not what is complained about.

As to the model that started it all. It's crude and sexist but who cares about it.
The issues are more within the culture and the marketing.

In the end, marketing is probably the big evil, simplifying there market. With culture and the way we raise children playing a huge role for both girls and boys.

Davor GW is giving what it chosen market wants, weather that's the right market who knows. It's certainly getting more specific .

Just wanted to comment on this, with a scenario that happened last month with my niece & nephew going to the Lego Store. Decades ago all lego was just lego, but after years of marketing focused on boys, they have taken a sledgehammer approach to getting girls back by making "girl lego". Anyway they go in and she's checking out the train and later some of the star wars stuff, wereupon the nephew tells her that she's on the boys side and should go over to the girl lego section. She said "there's no such thing, legos is legos" which sparked a cute (they're 6 & 8), but sad argument which my sister & I had to intervene in. She was nearly in tears trying to come to terms with the fact that what he was saying seemed to be true, 'star wars legos were just for boys'. We made sure to let them know she was right, "Legos IS Legos".

 lindsay40k wrote:

We've moved on from the time when prospective Black wargamers might have browsed a catalogue and, seeing the pygmy mini, said ' this racist ' and walked out. We're still at the 'Salamanders, stone age Orcs, and Himalayan Ogres' phase of representing non-White people and cultures, which is well short of proper inclusion but still a step forwards.[/spoiler]

Really? Because the "stone age orcs" have a celtic culture transplanted onto them. The wearing of woad isn't a non-white aspersion. The skin colour of the Salamanders is a ridiculous retcon, though I see no reason IG or even SMs should not all be heterogeneous anyway - and my own are painted as such. The only justification for that is in some limited situations where perhaps all of their initiates come from a small region of "planet viking", etc (Space Wolves).

I don't see such an issue with the Ogres, Chaos Dwarves, Lizardmen etc. But then, I'm not looking for things to be offended by. I think the addition of human cultural traits to non-human races is fine, and creates a bit more depth. My own ancestors are neither rats nor mutated worshippers of chaos, and I take no offence at either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Buzzsaw wrote:

That's a little toungue-in-cheek, but take a moment to look over the thread, especially the people that are most offended by the models in question: what's fascinating is the personalizing, and moral character of their objections. This is started off nicely in the OP with "I imagine some slimy dude jacking off as he paints the breasts". Notice how it's not enough that there is disagreement; the OP imagines that someone that likes something he doesn't like is a pervert and physically loathsome.

I tried it. It wasn't so good. Took too long, for one thing. I think regular pornography is better.