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.
2016/02/27 10:10:48
Subject: General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
-Loki- wrote: The others, yes, they're large, but none of them are sexualised.
Obvious tits (and these are meant to be obvious) are always sexualised.
-Loki- wrote: Not saying that CB don't do sexualised females, just arguing your idea that it's the default option.
Its the default for the industry as a whole. There are of course exceptions, Victoria miniatures for example.
The majority of women look much like men in armour as can be seen below.
Women are issued specially fitted Osprey so the bottom picture is in all likelyhood 'female' armour. I have seen hundreds, if not thousands, of women in armour and they look indistinguishable from men (aside from their gait/stance). I don't think I have ever seen anyone in armour with obvious breasts, its hard enough when they are simply in uniform.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/02/27 10:28:19
-Loki- wrote: The others, yes, they're large, but none of them are sexualised.
Obvious tits (and these are meant to be obvious) are always sexualised.
Have to disagree, but I guess that's the point of the thread? They're sexualised if they're overtly sexual - made to look sexy. Simply being big is not that. The model you chose was sexualised - kilt was changed to a short skirt (with additional bare ass on the back), short crop top showing cleavage and bare midriff. It was designed to evoke sexual feelings.
Lumps on the chest of combat armour is badly designed, but it's not designed to look sexy.
-Loki- wrote: Not saying that CB don't do sexualised females, just arguing your idea that it's the default option.
Its the default for the industry as a whole. There are of course exceptions, Victoria miniatures for example.
Would have been nice if you said your comment was about the industy as a whole? Because your whole post read like 'here's a sexualised model by CB. It's the default', which implies your attributing that 'default' to CB.
2016/02/27 10:20:52
Subject: General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
The old style Odalisques are deliberately sexualised, because part of their role supposedly is to seduce enemies (this makes no sense in skirmish combat, of course, but what the hell... Look up the derivation of the word odalisque for background.)
In their background they are mercenary guard force, mostly about guarding "harems" and VIPs their outfit is indeed deliberately sexualised because of their post (sexy bodyguards, status symbol and security force tied in together), in the fluff they do not "seduce" enemies with their looks, they use pheromone chemicals to achieve the disorienting effect they have.
2016/02/27 10:39:33
Subject: General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
Lumps on the chest of combat armour is badly designed, but it's not designed to look sexy.
Even when they are perfectly breast shaped?
Not sure what other shapes they could do if they trying to make them visually female? The idea isn't to make them sexual, it's to simply show that they're female. Again - you can't show a model is female at 28mm scale without making a few exaggerations. Making those exaggerations may be concerning gender, but they aren't inherintly sexual.
What makes them sexual is when you start moving into areas that people find eye catchingly attractive, things designed to evoke sexual feeling - revealing clothes, skin-tight clothes, sexual posing. A woman simply having breasts, even large breasts, is simply a woman having the body shape of a female. Those models had breasts, yes. But they were in complete combat gear, the exact gear the males had. They were in combat poses - reloading guns, firing guns, giving combat hand signals. Nothing about them was designed to make you think of them as sexual objects, just as soldiers who appear to be female.
2016/02/27 10:45:30
Subject: General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
Not sure what other shapes they could do if they trying to make them visually female?
How about basically the same as the men? They already have female heads and are of slighter stature which makes them obviously female, there is no need to go any further.
Quite frankly most women don't have breasts large enough to be seen through anything but the most skintight of armours.
Since you brought the design aesthetics and reality in.
In reality a female in combat gear should be almost the same with a male, armour, combat gear webbing and all other stuff, pose and volume been the only giveaways, in reality again our toy soldiers are incredibly small and meant to be seen from quite far away.
Female miniatures may as well not exist because at this scale such minute differences are almost non existent, miniature companies solve this by stylization and giving emphasis on specific aspects of what differentiate male and female in aesthetics.
Victoria is one of the manufacturers that strive to have decent female models out, even her models have such exaggeration in her recent tanebreg (sp?) guard the female models clearly show they have breasts under a uniform that should make then invisible, is it bad? (or do all the tanebreg females have huge breasts?) no not really, its a design choice.
2016/02/27 11:06:35
Subject: General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
Not sure what other shapes they could do if they trying to make them visually female?
How about basically the same as the men? They already have female heads and are of slighter stature which makes them obviously female, there is no need to go any further.
And then they look like skinny men. Long hair? Guys have that too. My fiancees brother has hair like that female Naffatun. Most people aren't good enough painters to get femininity across without exaggerated aspects on the model itself.
Silent Puffin? wrote: Quite frankly most women don't have breasts large enough to be seen through anything but the most skintight of armours.
Most men don't look like this either. Exaggerations is done in the miniature industry to show things because of the scale. The fact that these guys are on choppers, in leathers, with huge guns is enough to show that they're aggressive. But exaggerating their physicality shows aggression, because otherwise at 28mm they would just look like weedy guys on bikes.
In the same way that, like the above where to highlight aggressiveness the physicality was exaggerated when there was already enough to show they were aggressive, people will, by habit, see a model as male without some exaggerated features to make them visibly female. Hair isn't enough because, especially these days, hair styles are fairly unisex. Some women have buzzcuts, some guys have styled long hair. Skinnier stature is likewise not enough - some guys these days can still shop in the kids section of a clothes store (a friend of mine does and he's 30), some women, even when fit, have a large body type that compares with men. Check the handy charts a page back.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/27 11:08:23
2016/02/27 11:53:09
Subject: General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
Not to get back to the whole 'tone on the internet' thing, but were you trying to prove or disprove his point? In all honesty, other then the unhelmeted one in the front, none of those 'read' as obviously female to me. Certainly not from this angle or picture.
When Psychotic Storm says "Female miniatures may as well not exist because at this scale such minute differences are almost non existent, miniature companies solve this by stylization and giving emphasis on specific aspects of what differentiate male and female in aesthetics" he is objectively correct.
Someone posted links to tumblers earlier, and one of them had a great example of this phenomenon at living scale: it featured a picture of Captain Phasma from The Force Awakens, and described it as 'a perfect example of female armor done right'. Which is... a little odd, given, well;
Spoiler:
If you didn't know beforehand that Phasma is played by a woman, how would you know until the character started talking? I propose that you would not, and indeed almost could not; in the comparison shot below (which, to be fair, may be of the Hot Toys, but I'm not sure), what's the point of differentiation between the armors?
Spoiler:
That wasn't a trick question, there is a point of differentiation: it's the armored cod piece. Such subtlety is, I would argue, entirely impractical at 28mm (or even higher, frankly). scale.
Both men and women want to buy Female miniatures, often for entirely differing reasons. A strict adherence to 'realism' would mean the functional disappearance of female miniatures.
Buzzsaw wrote: In all honesty, other then the unhelmeted one in the front, none of those 'read' as obviously female to me.
They all do to me, the ones at the back are more ambiguous though.
I'm not against sexualised/over exaggerated female miniatures but only if they fit the context and only if they are 'functional' models i.e. not wearing chainmail bikinis. Anything else just looks childish and cheap.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/27 15:40:17
Buzzsaw wrote: In all honesty, other then the unhelmeted one in the front, none of those 'read' as obviously female to me.
They all do to me, the ones at the back are more ambiguous though.
For me, its pretty much their bare arms that give the strongest impression of female to me. They are slightly slender than what I'd expect male arms to be sculpted. However, having said that in real person proportion, I weigh 160 lbs and have slender arms myself. The only way my arms look male is that they are hairy as feth. But then again, hairy arms, legs, etc is pretty much impossible to sculpt at that scale and requires skill with the paint brush to come across.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/27 16:06:57
See pics of my Orks, Tau, Emperor's Children, Necrons, Space Wolves, and Dark Eldar here:
2016/02/27 16:25:16
Subject: General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
spiralingcadaver wrote: In response to the prodos thing, yeah, I think a lot of it is that there's nothing redeeming. It feels like there was no attempt at anything other than a grab & smash T&A fest, and therefore offensive (besides stupid and lowest common denominator).
I disagree with the Prodos miniatures not having any redeeming qualities. However, the second part of your statement is the only real reason I can see people being offended. I like (some of) the miniatures and I thought that was rather transparent as well.
I meant conceptually redeeming. Yeah, a few of those sculpts are perfectly fine from a technical perspective.
Buzzsaw wrote: In all honesty, other then the unhelmeted one in the front, none of those 'read' as obviously female to me.
They all do to me, the ones at the back are more ambiguous though.
I'm not against sexualised/over exaggerated female miniatures but only if they fit the context and only if they are 'functional' models i.e. not wearing chainmail bikinis. Anything else just looks childish and cheap.
Not to be too confrontational, but your opinion about what is "childish and cheap" and a dollar will get me a cup of coffee. You provided an example to support the idea that everyone can see something and come to the same opinion, that no one could help but see X. But I don't see X, and so your point fails.
Having failed with your point about universal understanding, you're now simply denigrating things that you don't like. Well, that's not an argument. I reiterate: what do I care about your opinion regarding "childish and cheap"?
The problem with your argument, such as it is, is that you are arguing against diversity: you want a veto over products that you don't like, and you justify this veto with the claim that everyone sees things the same way. Well, we don't. Which means that diversity in products is the best option, which in turn means that that the market is going to have products that you don't like, but that other people do.
As an aside, we're arguing about toy soldiers, which one might be tempted to define as an argument about "childish and cheap" things no matter what.
Hmm. I'm kinda loathe to reply because it'll take the slight tangent of yours and veer it further off course again, but I figure this is a run-off from the other thread so probably a bit more tolerant of tangents
Hmm. I'm kinda loathe to reply because it'll take the slight tangent of yours and veer it further off course again, but I figure this is a run-off from the other thread so probably a bit more tolerant of tangents
Aye, I accept while the topic title here is inviting a wider discourse, the content seems somewhat focused on continuation of a discussion in the Prodos thread.
I was not trying to redirect the discussion, but I thought the topic may widen slightly to encompass more areas. I'll accept that may very well be wrong, there.
Unrelated to miniatures, I disagree. I think, in fact, that thinking that way is almost as bad of a problem as the thing you are rightly railing against.
Railing is... quite a strong word. I am tired. I am very very tired.
I'm not speaking on behalf of an imagined slight; it's a thing I have witnessed and often experienced... I can't say that I speak for anyone but my close friends. I certainly don't speak for anyone in a commercial position or creative position.
It becomes a maelstrom of trying to work out which material you give a free pass to, which you avoid, which you could actively invest energy into being personally upset over. You can of course, relax entirely. Forget about all of it and enjoy yourself thoroughly.
But there will be something, be it a figure you'd love to own until you see the helium spheres, an alarmingly graphic comment when you thought we'd been quietly progressing, or an entire product line, that brings back the question of whether we're kidding ourselves.
The physical miniatures are just bits of material, not evil incarnate. But just a tiny piece of a larger thing.
To try and give a sense... Perhaps you're at Salute, cash in hand and someone shoulder checks you away from a stall because "I didn't realise you were here to buy something."
Perhaps your friend joined a painting group, and someone kindly tells them "That's a good effort for a girl."
Or perhaps she's sat at a gaming table mid-game, having painted that army, and a well meaning referee asks her what army her boyfriend plays and when he's coming back to the table.
There's this continual background awareness that women are indeed playing in someone else's garden. And you cannot unload both barrels into any one of these things.
None of them are singularly to blame. None of them are malicious. Likewise a miniature sculptor isn't aiming to hurt anyone with boobplate.
This makes you query the validity of your own sadness. Voicing sadness hurts other people, puts them on the defensive about what they quite rightly enjoy.
If you aren't an outspoken person who wants to be heard, or aggressive... You seemingly have the choice of accepting tits happen, or putting yourself in a bubble where you are brought painfully down to earth on occasion.
A good part of you is conflicted, and just wants to play.
I don't want to take people's toys away, I'm not judging those who like them. But things sometimes make me on a level, very uncomfortable, and I am no longer remotely sure what a viable, constructive response is.
On a single figure, the answer is likely to look away. But how frequently, and how many people need to feel that way before it is something worth discussing? Collective discomfort vs one person's "butthurt"...
I don't find anything wrong with sexuality being used as a sales tool, female or male. I think that thinking of women as 'just' their sexuality is a problem, but simply thinking of and even using sexuality to sell something shouldn't be an issue. It's part of life, it's perfectly normal.
Yes. Sex is a tool, and has been even before we knew commercially how to use it as such. To stifle that is censorship and not something I am in favour of. There is beauty and message in sex. There is humour. There's sometimes just raw imagery.
But I do regard it as a lazy tool at certain times. That many places will slip into a habit and use it in place of talent or creative thought. and that's where I would raise objection.
I don't think, "Oh no! A boob!"
I quite often think, "Why is that boob here at the moment?" Maybe I want to know about the content of the thing it is selling me. In certain cases, it is not clear.
To bring it back to miniatures, this is almost exactly why I argue concept not 'how undressed is the mini'. We absolutely use existing concepts such as topless amazon warriors and naked greek fighters etc. to inject some sexuality into some miniatures. We use it in the same way we use power for the male miniatures. And in lesser cases we swap that, we have naked male figures (possibly more than any non-historical company) and we have muscled female miniatures. The reason that the first two categories outnumber the second two is, I think, the source of our disagreement? You don't like that, and I actively think it's ok.
I am unsure, honestly. I feel that it's fair possibly, that I just didn't provide you with enough information.
Perhaps because I can't. I hope that my rather unwieldy explanation above gives some insight that it's not a case of "All nudity in the hobby is bad", but that "I have lost scope of what nudity even bothers me at this point." because I am adrift in a sea of tits and rights and wrongs.
I don't want to hurt people. If we took "nude minis" out if the sentence and replaced it with "taste" then telling people they are right or wrong for enjoying or selling them is abhorrent.
But I do feel most naked figures passively contribute to a larger whole that makes me deeply uncertain. I'm not looking for personal validity in my hobby (a beam of light is not going to hit my army case and light up a quest marker telling me I've arrived). I'm looking for signs that it's a place to invest time into on an equal basis for myself and all of my friends.
Removal of nudity in minis isn't going to grant that. Clothing boobs isn't going to stop anything. Nor is it right.
But I have no idea personally, what will.
I'm genuinely sorry for the length and diversionary manner of that post. I attempted to clarify rather than snapshoot.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/27 17:06:05
...Railing is... quite a strong word. I am tired. I am very very tired.
I'm not speaking on behalf of an imagined slight; it's a thing I have witnessed and often experienced... I can't say that I speak for anyone but my close friends. I certainly don't speak for anyone in a commercial position or creative position.
It becomes a maelstrom of trying to work out which material you give a free pass to, which you avoid, which you could actively invest energy into being personally upset over. You can of course, relax entirely. Forget about all of it and enjoy yourself thoroughly.
But there will be something, be it a figure you'd love to own until you see the helium spheres, an alarmingly graphic comment when you thought we'd been quietly progressing, or an entire product line, that brings back the question of whether we're kidding ourselves.
The physical miniatures are just bits of material, not evil incarnate. But just a tiny piece of a larger thing.
To try and give a sense... Perhaps you're at Salute, cash in hand and someone shoulder checks you away from a stall because "I didn't realise you were here to buy something."
Perhaps your friend joined a painting group, and someone kindly tells them "That's a good effort for a girl."
Or perhaps she's sat at a gaming table mid-game, having painted that army, and a well meaning referee asks her what army her boyfriend plays and when he's coming back to the table.
There's this continual background awareness that women are indeed playing in someone else's garden. And you cannot unload both barrels into any one of these things.
None of them are singularly to blame. None of them are malicious. Likewise a miniature sculptor isn't aiming to hurt anyone with boobplate.
I want you to understand what I am going to say in the spirit in which it is offered: I'm not trying to patronize or diminish you, but to present a different perspective, one that I think you will find helpful.
You should not be sad about these things. There is a saying in Hasidic thought, 'No one can make you angry, only you can make yourself angry'. This sentiment is sometimes expressed as 'the head is the master of the heart'. This is a philosophy that I have attempted to embrace, and it imposes a very different perspective, and one that I think you will find very valuable.
Valuable because, when you look at the examples you listed, you should be made happy, not sad. Happy because (with one exception) each of these is a situation born of ignorance, rather then malice. This is a critical point: ignorance is no sin, it is not a failing. We are all born ignorant and spend our lives attempting to rectify the situation.
At the end of your time at Salute, each of the people you mention (save the one) is made better for the interaction: the painter now knows that women can paint, and perhaps even was informed that some of the most famous miniature painters are women (Jen Haley and Anne Foerster, for example). The referee is not going to make that mistake again.
I did say there was one exception: "you're at Salute, cash in hand and someone shoulder checks you away from a stall because...", see, the 'because' doesn't matter, because this isn't an expression of ignorance. This is, under the law, a battery. This is not something plausibly explained by ignorance, or even by misogyny: this is someone doing something objectively wrong (and note that it is so regardless of the sex of the person being hit) and offering a silly justification. That's the kind of behavior that should be punished... and would be, under the law.
That specific example aside, you should take heart: in every one of those interactions the world is a better place. People who were ignorant are now better informed, and won't make the same mistakes born of ignorance.
Choose to be happy, not sad. You have every right to happiness, you've made the world and your community a better place. Choose also not to be bothered by what other people enjoy: after all, if we were so very concerned about what other people thought of out hobby, who would be in it?
Since someone mentioned cCorvus Beli and decided to cherry pick certain models - allow me to show you what a good range of female models should encompass
Some are put into sexual poses:
And most are not:
Now to answer the op's question - I do not mind nudity. Would I buy a model that is nude - nah - because t doesn't fit my style of play. I can see why certain people might get upset if miniatures are posed sexually but it seems like they are just upset to be upset. Who cares is a miniature is posed sexually or nude - it's someone's cup of tea so don't muck it. I could also understand how some may scoff and push their glasses closer to their face and say "but that type of armour is impractical" - DUH - that is the point.
At the end of the day mileage may vary - and what you may seem "offensive or distasteful" might be someone else awesome.
Maybe I'm just fed up with PC culture and what not but who really cares.
Now if you are talking about the actual sculpts being awful a well then that's a different story
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/27 18:42:08
2016/02/27 18:41:54
Subject: General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
Buzzsaw wrote: In all honesty, other then the unhelmeted one in the front, none of those 'read' as obviously female to me.
They all do to me, the ones at the back are more ambiguous though.
I'm not against sexualised/over exaggerated female miniatures but only if they fit the context and only if they are 'functional' models i.e. not wearing chainmail bikinis. Anything else just looks childish and cheap.
They read more as female because they don't read as men. They do have a slightly cinched waist , which is something that it is unlikely a female soldier would. so they do already have a nod towards non-realism, but mostly they aren't musclebound which is the male miniature equivalent of boobs,
If you put those back 2 on a table and talked about them as if they were male minis I wouldn't bat an eyelid. Front three it's the slighter stature and headgear.
Spoiler:
This mini is perceived as female mostly because it's not the normal exaggerated male. Nothing overtly marks it as female, it could be a slender male with soft features but at such a small scale you would naturally just assume it's a woman for small reasons, one of which is 'he's not a big bulky male'.
2016/02/27 18:47:18
Subject: Re:General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
weeble1000 wrote: The Space Crusade models and artwork that we are discussing are sexually objectifying. I do not think it is an issue of aesthetics. You can have a 'good' and a 'bad' drawing of sexually objectified female. The execution is immaterial.
The Space Crusade models are not objectifying, they are objects. They are tiny little sculptures of imaginary people from an imaginary place in an imaginary army. As long as you respect the barrier between fiction and reality, you might as well be declaring anyone who buys Space Marines endorses eugenics and murderous theocratic dictatorships.
Are the eugenics and theocracy depicted in the minis? Not in an associational sense, accessible only to someone with in-universe knowledge, but visually? Arguing that visually recognizable depictions of females are somehow devoid of meaning or association because of the fact that they're inert is incredibly disingenuous. Is child pornography inert as an unliving image?
Kabal of the Slit Throat ~2000pts
Elect of the Plaguefather 4500pts
2016/02/27 19:05:37
Subject: Re:General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
Hmm. I'm kinda loathe to reply because it'll take the slight tangent of yours and veer it further off course again, but I figure this is a run-off from the other thread so probably a bit more tolerant of tangents
Hmm. I'm kinda loathe to reply because it'll take the slight tangent of yours and veer it further off course again, but I figure this is a run-off from the other thread so probably a bit more tolerant of tangents
Aye, I accept while the topic title here is inviting a wider discourse, the content seems somewhat focused on continuation of a discussion in the Prodos thread.
I was not trying to redirect the discussion, but I thought the topic may widen slightly to encompass more areas. I'll accept that may very well be wrong, there.
Unrelated to miniatures, I disagree. I think, in fact, that thinking that way is almost as bad of a problem as the thing you are rightly railing against.
Railing is... quite a strong word. I am tired. I am very very tired.
I'm not speaking on behalf of an imagined slight; it's a thing I have witnessed and often experienced... I can't say that I speak for anyone but my close friends. I certainly don't speak for anyone in a commercial position or creative position.
It becomes a maelstrom of trying to work out which material you give a free pass to, which you avoid, which you could actively invest energy into being personally upset over. You can of course, relax entirely. Forget about all of it and enjoy yourself thoroughly.
But there will be something, be it a figure you'd love to own until you see the helium spheres, an alarmingly graphic comment when you thought we'd been quietly progressing, or an entire product line, that brings back the question of whether we're kidding ourselves.
The physical miniatures are just bits of material, not evil incarnate. But just a tiny piece of a larger thing.
To try and give a sense... Perhaps you're at Salute, cash in hand and someone shoulder checks you away from a stall because "I didn't realise you were here to buy something."
Perhaps your friend joined a painting group, and someone kindly tells them "That's a good effort for a girl."
Or perhaps she's sat at a gaming table mid-game, having painted that army, and a well meaning referee asks her what army her boyfriend plays and when he's coming back to the table.
There's this continual background awareness that women are indeed playing in someone else's garden. And you cannot unload both barrels into any one of these things.
None of them are singularly to blame. None of them are malicious. Likewise a miniature sculptor isn't aiming to hurt anyone with boobplate.
This makes you query the validity of your own sadness. Voicing sadness hurts other people, puts them on the defensive about what they quite rightly enjoy.
If you aren't an outspoken person who wants to be heard, or aggressive... You seemingly have the choice of accepting tits happen, or putting yourself in a bubble where you are brought painfully down to earth on occasion.
A good part of you is conflicted, and just wants to play.
I don't want to take people's toys away, I'm not judging those who like them. But things sometimes make me on a level, very uncomfortable, and I am no longer remotely sure what a viable, constructive response is.
On a single figure, the answer is likely to look away. But how frequently, and how many people need to feel that way before it is something worth discussing? Collective discomfort vs one person's "butthurt"...
I don't find anything wrong with sexuality being used as a sales tool, female or male. I think that thinking of women as 'just' their sexuality is a problem, but simply thinking of and even using sexuality to sell something shouldn't be an issue. It's part of life, it's perfectly normal.
Yes. Sex is a tool, and has been even before we knew commercially how to use it as such. To stifle that is censorship and not something I am in favour of. There is beauty and message in sex. There is humour. There's sometimes just raw imagery.
But I do regard it as a lazy tool at certain times. That many places will slip into a habit and use it in place of talent or creative thought. and that's where I would raise objection.
I don't think, "Oh no! A boob!"
I quite often think, "Why is that boob here at the moment?" Maybe I want to know about the content of the thing it is selling me. In certain cases, it is not clear.
To bring it back to miniatures, this is almost exactly why I argue concept not 'how undressed is the mini'. We absolutely use existing concepts such as topless amazon warriors and naked greek fighters etc. to inject some sexuality into some miniatures. We use it in the same way we use power for the male miniatures. And in lesser cases we swap that, we have naked male figures (possibly more than any non-historical company) and we have muscled female miniatures. The reason that the first two categories outnumber the second two is, I think, the source of our disagreement? You don't like that, and I actively think it's ok.
I am unsure, honestly. I feel that it's fair possibly, that I just didn't provide you with enough information.
Perhaps because I can't. I hope that my rather unwieldy explanation above gives some insight that it's not a case of "All nudity in the hobby is bad", but that "I have lost scope of what nudity even bothers me at this point." because I am adrift in a sea of tits and rights and wrongs.
I don't want to hurt people. If we took "nude minis" out if the sentence and replaced it with "taste" then telling people they are right or wrong for enjoying or selling them is abhorrent.
But I do feel most naked figures passively contribute to a larger whole that makes me deeply uncertain. I'm not looking for personal validity in my hobby (a beam of light is not going to hit my army case and light up a quest marker telling me I've arrived). I'm looking for signs that it's a place to invest time into on an equal basis for myself and all of my friends.
Removal of nudity in minis isn't going to grant that. Clothing boobs isn't going to stop anything. Nor is it right.
But I have no idea personally, what will.
I'm genuinely sorry for the length and diversionary manner of that post. I attempted to clarify rather than snapshoot.
It's fine.
I think the thing not to forget it, no matter whether it was previously fair or not, women 'are' currently playing in someone else's garden, as you say.
This is what happens when things start to change, it's neither realistic or, I think, fair to expect everyone to go from A to Z in one fell swoop. I don't believe that wargamers are any more or less sexist or misogynistic than society in general. 'Maybe' a little, as we are one of the hobbies, I believe, that tend to draw the more socially awkward members of society but not enough to be so notable.
It is perfectly fine to express surprise that someone is a woman on a forum and sometimes that'll come out in an awkward manner. It is obviously not ok to say to a woman in person 'that's good for a woman', I mean that's not ok about 'anything' It's also 'kind of' fine to assume that when a couple walks up to you at a trade show the man is the one interested and the woman is the one being dragged about because 9 times out of 10 that's true and again, sometimes that can come across as rude during that 1 time out of 10 you're wrong. So obviously the correct choice is not o do that, but it's an 'understandable' thing to make the mistake.
That kind of thing will change by itself. The more women who come into the hobby via the various way they are, the more people won't make that mistake naturally, without being forced or told to. When you have a go at someone for that it's a natural tendency for lots of people to dig in, and the extreme of that is like the guy in the other thread wibbling about Social Jusice Warriors.
I'm lucky enough to be quite young for someone in my position, I mean I'm still 40 so I'm no spring chicken, but the average age of men running wargaming businesses is almost certainly higher than that. I've also spent a lot of my life running an actual shop and actively trying to change, in a personal way, how the hobby is seen. I treated children more like adults, I never made jokes about wargaming or treated it like a nerdy hobby of people in basements etc, the kids who came into the shop didn't need that and the odd girl who came in 'definitely' didn't need that. That's not the case for everyone. When you've spent 30 years selling to 99% males (or playing games with 100% males) you can probably be afford some leeway for a bit while, hopefully, the hobby continues to become more inclusive
Our FB fans, trade show customers and customers in general, I think, skew younger and more female than most companies. And I think our attitude towards minis and what we say in public etc. help that 'but' it's still a sausage fest
It'll change, slowly but surely.
2016/02/27 19:27:17
Subject: Re:General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
I think the thing not to forget it, no matter whether it was previously fair or not, women 'are' currently playing in someone else's garden, as you say.
*snip*
It'll change, slowly but surely.
I think perhaps the point of the other side of the argument is precisely that one is unable to forget that females are outsiders in the contexts described. Arguing that it is unrealistic and unfair to expect people to treat each other equally because "that's the way things are" seems like a cop out. Attitudes certainly don't change "by themselves" but only within relation to change in the greater context in which they are formed.
Kabal of the Slit Throat ~2000pts
Elect of the Plaguefather 4500pts
2016/02/27 19:59:48
Subject: Re:General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
I think the thing not to forget it, no matter whether it was previously fair or not, women 'are' currently playing in someone else's garden, as you say.
*snip*
It'll change, slowly but surely.
I think perhaps the point of the other side of the argument is precisely that one is unable to forget that females are outsiders in the contexts described. Arguing that it is unrealistic and unfair to expect people to treat each other equally because "that's the way things are" seems like a cop out. Attitudes certainly don't change "by themselves" but only within relation to change in the greater context in which they are formed.
I didn't say what you said, I said it's unrealstic to expect things to change overnight. Some people will move faster than others, some people didn't need to move at all I think overly complaining that some guy who has spent 30yrs watching dragged-along wives roll their eyes or pull their husbands sleeve to suddenly lose all of that habit 'is' unfair. He'll lose it as the situation dictates, he'll be wrong once, then again, then more often and then he'll, hopefully, change his behaviour naturally.
Having a go at him because he ignored the woman the first couple of times, or said something that came across but wasn't meant to be condescending to her, is just pointless and far more likely to lead to a worse result. People really don't learn lessons well that are shouted at them.
2016/02/27 20:25:32
Subject: Re:General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
...Railing is... quite a strong word. I am tired. I am very very tired.
I'm not speaking on behalf of an imagined slight; it's a thing I have witnessed and often experienced... I can't say that I speak for anyone but my close friends. I certainly don't speak for anyone in a commercial position or creative position.
It becomes a maelstrom of trying to work out which material you give a free pass to, which you avoid, which you could actively invest energy into being personally upset over. You can of course, relax entirely. Forget about all of it and enjoy yourself thoroughly.
But there will be something, be it a figure you'd love to own until you see the helium spheres, an alarmingly graphic comment when you thought we'd been quietly progressing, or an entire product line, that brings back the question of whether we're kidding ourselves.
The physical miniatures are just bits of material, not evil incarnate. But just a tiny piece of a larger thing.
To try and give a sense... Perhaps you're at Salute, cash in hand and someone shoulder checks you away from a stall because "I didn't realise you were here to buy something."
Perhaps your friend joined a painting group, and someone kindly tells them "That's a good effort for a girl."
Or perhaps she's sat at a gaming table mid-game, having painted that army, and a well meaning referee asks her what army her boyfriend plays and when he's coming back to the table.
There's this continual background awareness that women are indeed playing in someone else's garden. And you cannot unload both barrels into any one of these things.
None of them are singularly to blame. None of them are malicious. Likewise a miniature sculptor isn't aiming to hurt anyone with boobplate.
I want you to understand what I am going to say in the spirit in which it is offered: I'm not trying to patronize or diminish you, but to present a different perspective, one that I think you will find helpful.
You should not be sad about these things. There is a saying in Hasidic thought, 'No one can make you angry, only you can make yourself angry'. This sentiment is sometimes expressed as 'the head is the master of the heart'. This is a philosophy that I have attempted to embrace, and it imposes a very different perspective, and one that I think you will find very valuable.
Valuable because, when you look at the examples you listed, you should be made happy, not sad. Happy because (with one exception) each of these is a situation born of ignorance, rather then malice. This is a critical point: ignorance is no sin, it is not a failing. We are all born ignorant and spend our lives attempting to rectify the situation.
At the end of your time at Salute, each of the people you mention (save the one) is made better for the interaction: the painter now knows that women can paint, and perhaps even was informed that some of the most famous miniature painters are women (Jen Haley and Anne Foerster, for example). The referee is not going to make that mistake again.
I did say there was one exception: "you're at Salute, cash in hand and someone shoulder checks you away from a stall because...", see, the 'because' doesn't matter, because this isn't an expression of ignorance. This is, under the law, a battery. This is not something plausibly explained by ignorance, or even by misogyny: this is someone doing something objectively wrong (and note that it is so regardless of the sex of the person being hit) and offering a silly justification. That's the kind of behavior that should be punished... and would be, under the law.
That specific example aside, you should take heart: in every one of those interactions the world is a better place. People who were ignorant are now better informed, and won't make the same mistakes born of ignorance.
Choose to be happy, not sad. You have every right to happiness, you've made the world and your community a better place. Choose also not to be bothered by what other people enjoy: after all, if we were so very concerned about what other people thought of out hobby, who would be in it?
Have an exalt, good sir. Well said.
Shadowkeepers (4000 points)
3rd Company (3000 points)
2016/02/27 20:30:44
Subject: Re:General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
I didn't say what you said, I said it's unrealstic to expect things to change overnight.
That is certainly literally true, but outside of semantics I'm not sure what the significance of this sentiment is. People's opinions, biases, and reactions often don't change in the course of 24 hours, of course. I just don't think anyone is arguing that the timetable for change is the particular issue.
Some people will move faster than others, some people didn't need to move at all I think overly complaining that some guy who has spent 30yrs watching dragged-along wives roll their eyes or pull their husbands sleeve to suddenly lose all of that habit 'is' unfair. He'll lose it as the situation dictates, he'll be wrong once, then again, then more often and then he'll, hopefully, change his behaviour naturally.
Having a go at him because he ignored the woman the first couple of times, or said something that came across but wasn't meant to be condescending to her, is just pointless and far more likely to lead to a worse result. People really don't learn lessons well that are shouted at them.
You describe a prejudice based on learned experience. Prejudice in and of itself is, as you illustrate here, normal and in many senses adaptive. I only argue that in this (hypothetical? I've lost track) situation where someone's learned prejudicial response turns out to be in error, it isn't incumbent on the other party to modify their own response. Telling the prejudiced party that they are in error is not "having a go" unless the fact of the held prejudice is somehow injurious or insulting to the holder. If that is true, then it follows that they themselves realize that said prejudice is problematic.
Kabal of the Slit Throat ~2000pts
Elect of the Plaguefather 4500pts
2016/02/27 20:53:54
Subject: Re:General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
I didn't say what you said, I said it's unrealstic to expect things to change overnight.
That is certainly literally true, but outside of semantics I'm not sure what the significance of this sentiment is. People's opinions, biases, and reactions often don't change in the course of 24 hours, of course. I just don't think anyone is arguing that the timetable for change is the particular issue.
The semantical difference is that learned behaviour, whether we now consider it wrong or not, is not easy to change and the longer it's been learned the harder it is. It's basically the reason we make joke about old people being racist. (This is just an example, my nan's passed on). I might not 'like' that my grandmother says stuff like 'darkie' or expreses an opinion that mixed race marriages shouldn't happen, and I will certainly say something to her about it each time 'but' I will treat her differently than a 25yr old saying the same thing. Their formative years were at a different time and they don't have 50yrs of habit to lose.
It's not a great deal of help to someone who's suffering from it 'now' but an overrreaction can lead to a worse result, you can ingrain prejudice or create an 'anti' group etc.
Some people will move faster than others, some people didn't need to move at all I think overly complaining that some guy who has spent 30yrs watching dragged-along wives roll their eyes or pull their husbands sleeve to suddenly lose all of that habit 'is' unfair. He'll lose it as the situation dictates, he'll be wrong once, then again, then more often and then he'll, hopefully, change his behaviour naturally.
Having a go at him because he ignored the woman the first couple of times, or said something that came across but wasn't meant to be condescending to her, is just pointless and far more likely to lead to a worse result. People really don't learn lessons well that are shouted at them.
You describe a prejudice based on learned experience. Prejudice in and of itself is, as you illustrate here, normal and in many senses adaptive. I only argue that in this (hypothetical? I've lost track) situation where someone's learned prejudicial response turns out to be in error, it isn't incumbent on the other party to modify their own response. Telling the prejudiced party that they are in error is not "having a go" unless the fact of the held prejudice is somehow injurious or insulting to the holder. If that is true, then it follows that they themselves realize that said prejudice is problematic.
But we're not always talking about the aggrieved party, I think in most cases the aggrieved party isn't the one making the biggest stink. And that's when you get arguments blowing up int complaints of SJWs and the like. A woman into wargaming is a) probably completely used to it by now and b) has eyes, she probably is fully aware that she's not the normal situation these people encounter. It's perfectly easy to politely explain that no, it's you that's actually interested
If I went to a fabrics market with my wife I don't go ranting online because everyone talks to her even though I'm the one looking for some lace or whatever. I just politely handle each situation by directly speaking to the person at hand about my request and making it obvious that it's me who's interested. If the stall holder is of a certain age it's likely I'll have to put up with a joke of some kind, just one of those things.
You can, quite easily, compartmentalise such things from the wider issue of sexism. And I believe doing so is more helpful to your cause than me starting a FB thread ranting that 'Yes I have a penis and yes I like lace, fething look at me when you're talking old woman!'.
And to bring it full circle to the original post, in this case I mean that there's no need to tie the fact that there are nude minis and that minis represent society into the wider argument. The mini industry simply isn't important enough, it's not a trendsetter in any way. It will follow societal trends, more women come in to the hobby all the time, mostly due to boardgames I believe, and therefore the hobby will correct itself from the inside out to more represent the world around. The world around will likely use sex and sexuality to sell things for quite some time into the future, hopefully it's not going to use sex'ism' to sell things too much longer
2016/02/27 21:10:49
Subject: General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
...Railing is... quite a strong word. I am tired. I am very very tired.
I'm not speaking on behalf of an imagined slight; it's a thing I have witnessed and often experienced... I can't say that I speak for anyone but my close friends. I certainly don't speak for anyone in a commercial position or creative position.
It becomes a maelstrom of trying to work out which material you give a free pass to, which you avoid, which you could actively invest energy into being personally upset over. You can of course, relax entirely. Forget about all of it and enjoy yourself thoroughly.
But there will be something, be it a figure you'd love to own until you see the helium spheres, an alarmingly graphic comment when you thought we'd been quietly progressing, or an entire product line, that brings back the question of whether we're kidding ourselves.
The physical miniatures are just bits of material, not evil incarnate. But just a tiny piece of a larger thing.
To try and give a sense... Perhaps you're at Salute, cash in hand and someone shoulder checks you away from a stall because "I didn't realise you were here to buy something."
Perhaps your friend joined a painting group, and someone kindly tells them "That's a good effort for a girl."
Or perhaps she's sat at a gaming table mid-game, having painted that army, and a well meaning referee asks her what army her boyfriend plays and when he's coming back to the table.
There's this continual background awareness that women are indeed playing in someone else's garden. And you cannot unload both barrels into any one of these things.
None of them are singularly to blame. None of them are malicious. Likewise a miniature sculptor isn't aiming to hurt anyone with boobplate.
Spoiler:
I want you to understand what I am going to say in the spirit in which it is offered: I'm not trying to patronize or diminish you, but to present a different perspective, one that I think you will find helpful.
You should not be sad about these things. There is a saying in Hasidic thought, 'No one can make you angry, only you can make yourself angry'. This sentiment is sometimes expressed as 'the head is the master of the heart'. This is a philosophy that I have attempted to embrace, and it imposes a very different perspective, and one that I think you will find very valuable.
Valuable because, when you look at the examples you listed, you should be made happy, not sad. Happy because (with one exception) each of these is a situation born of ignorance, rather then malice. This is a critical point: ignorance is no sin, it is not a failing. We are all born ignorant and spend our lives attempting to rectify the situation.
At the end of your time at Salute, each of the people you mention (save the one) is made better for the interaction: the painter now knows that women can paint, and perhaps even was informed that some of the most famous miniature painters are women (Jen Haley and Anne Foerster, for example). The referee is not going to make that mistake again.
I did say there was one exception: "you're at Salute, cash in hand and someone shoulder checks you away from a stall because...", see, the 'because' doesn't matter, because this isn't an expression of ignorance. This is, under the law, a battery. This is not something plausibly explained by ignorance, or even by misogyny: this is someone doing something objectively wrong (and note that it is so regardless of the sex of the person being hit) and offering a silly justification. That's the kind of behavior that should be punished... and would be, under the law.
That specific example aside, you should take heart: in every one of those interactions the world is a better place. People who were ignorant are now better informed, and won't make the same mistakes born of ignorance.
Choose to be happy, not sad. You have every right to happiness, you've made the world and your community a better place. Choose also not to be bothered by what other people enjoy: after all, if we were so very concerned about what other people thought of out hobby, who would be in it?
I do like this approach. But it does require an amount of control and detachment that with the best will in the world, not everybody is capable of immediately.
It's been touched upon in other topics: Why do people (seemingly) allow themselves to be put in uncomfortable or distressing positions when blindsided? It's not something you can train for. Learn from and anticipate... yes. Always be on the ball and react appropriately? I wish so.
I'd like to hope it's clear (and if not, here I am) that I'm uncertain and receptive to giving things a fair thought. I list those examples because they were gender specific, not because those are the stand out memories.
I also listed unintentional slights. Not one of those things was intended to hurt someone.
Arty, guys, my point wasn't to shame someone treating another person in that way, or to ask anyone to justify/explain it. It was to put yourself in the boots of someone knocked out of a happy moment by that experience. I didn't mean to cause an issue.
If I may re-use an example, albeit a clumsy one:
Imagine if you alone joined a baking class, and it was made up of nothing but veteran, retired mothers and their kids, who smiled and nodded sympathetically and kept taking your bowl off you to stir it for you.
If you complain, they'll tell you to stop fussing and ruining it for everyone else. If you don't, you have to put up with the feeling of being barely tolerated and smiled at.
That's not a foolproof example by any means. I'm trying to demonstrate being out of depth, not make a wider point.
But we're not always talking about the aggrieved party, I think in most cases the aggrieved party isn't the one making the biggest stink. And that's when you get arguments blowing up int complaints of SJWs and the like. A woman into wargaming is a) probably completely used to it by now and b) has eyes, she probably is fully aware that she's not the normal situation these people encounter. It's perfectly easy to politely explain that no, it's you that's actually interested
Somehow we now find ourselves examining the hypothetical female who's quite used to "it" and doesn't make a fuss. We then imagine that anyone who might take issue with the status quo does not in fact see eye to eye with this saintly and enduring female who is content to "rise above" the prejudices of those around her. A noble vision, to be sure, but in the face of actual females stating that those prejudices do affect them and are a problem (not too terrible many posts ago) it seems perhaps mildly suspect with regards to its veracity or usefulness. I don't doubt at all that such people exist, but if one (or ten, or a hundred) black people stood up and said "I don't care to make a stink about racial prejudice", would that somehow change racial prejudice from wrong to right?
If I went to a fabrics market with my wife I don't go ranting online because everyone talks to her even though I'm the one looking for some lace or whatever. I just politely handle each situation by directly speaking to the person at hand about my request and making it obvious that it's me who's interested. If the stall holder is of a certain age it's likely I'll have to put up with a joke of some kind, just one of those things.
You can, quite easily, compartmentalise such things from the wider issue of sexism. And I believe doing so is more helpful to your cause than me starting a FB thread ranting that 'Yes I have a penis and yes I like lace, fething look at me when you're talking old woman!'.
Has it occurred to you that a possible reason for the fact that such instances of prejudice directed against you don't particularly upset you is that you are faced with proportionally fewer of them than our hypothetical female? I think it is very much to the point that you can quite easily compartmentalize such things precisely because you are far less directly impacted. In a vaccum, your instance of buying lace is indeed analogous to a female's buying minis, but the point is that these things do not happen in a vaccum.
And to bring it full circle to the original post, in this case I mean that there's no need to tie the fact that there are nude minis and that minis represent society into the wider argument. The mini industry simply isn't important enough, it's not a trendsetter in any way. It will follow societal trends, more women come in to the hobby all the time, mostly due to boardgames I believe, and therefore the hobby will correct itself from the inside out to more represent the world around. The world around will likely use sex and sexuality to sell things for quite some time into the future, hopefully it's not going to use sex'ism' to sell things too much longer
A trend is an expression of many individual decisions. Saying that there is no need to examine prejudicial or sexist content in gaming because it represents a social backwater seems like a pointless inversion. It becomes a "chicken and egg" situation. Is it marginal because its prejudiced, or is it prejudiced because its marginal? Either way, saying "it will follow" as opposed to "it can lead" and using that as some sort of excuse for owning the issue doesn't give much credit to the individuals who make up the community.
Kabal of the Slit Throat ~2000pts
Elect of the Plaguefather 4500pts
2016/02/27 21:42:44
Subject: General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
I can relate to an extend, when I joined wargaming at the age of 10 I was the odd thing in a sea of adults who didn't really liked me to be there but I gave them no excuse to not be there.
I feel we carve our path some easier, some more difficult, but we do change the world and those around us as slowly but surely, there are many stereotypes, misconceptions and tunnel vision that each of us individually can change by willpower and persistence.
Kabal of the Slit Throat ~2000pts
Elect of the Plaguefather 4500pts
Shadowkeepers (4000 points)
3rd Company (3000 points)