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.

migooo wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What is the problem?

I am not clear if you mean that the statement from the UN indicates that there is a problem in visual depictions of women, or if you mean that it is a problem that the UN has made that statement. If the latter, then why?

The problem is that while the UN is happy to go against Japan for cartoons or against perceived violence against nasty words on Twitter without more evidence than C:

When actual more violence against women is happening in cologne, Berlin, Calais, to name a few to problems ultimately they caused.

Let alone the problems in Isil or other states where you can hit women quite legally but those countries are on the security council (not isil )and would never ever Say a bad word against them.

The UN has been ignored by the US when it wants too yet. key influential people who champion a form of Feminism that quite honestly is Puritanical. While I now think they can be Correct that there are significant problems within Certain Sections of geek / gaming culture. Destroying it seems stupid.

A recent article from CBR said comics should be scrapped and follow a narrative similar to the recent tv shows ( more specifically Superfeminist... sorry Supergirl) because of a potential buyer base ( key word potential) and if the current buyer base who have distinctly said they would like them separate... can basically go to hell. when the same article mentions when The walking dead readership remained largely unchanged due to the tv show, where as the TV show is loosing viewers.

Look I would like both Cheesecake and More normal figures to exist even if those figures are still going to be exaggerated or there wont be any difference... But if i have to choose Id rather the hoby survives even if its Censored into oblivion.

I guess we're going there. I had hoped someone wouldn't bring in the mess that was gamergate and video game related feminism into this forum. But here it is. I'll preface by saying that a lot of what's behind that is pretty simplistic thinking with a whole lot of strange assumptions, but the other side also has its own share.

Do not, ever, presume to use violence against women elsewhere as an excuse to ignore misrepresentation and marginalizing of women closer to you. That's a very childish straw man, or rather a textbook not-as-bad-as fallacy, "dismissing an argument or complaint due to the existence of more important problems in the world, regardless of whether those problems bear relevance to the initial argument."

You are showing your own callousness by using worse suffering to justify another kind of suffering, which while it may seem small is still a part of a larger whole. That larger whole affects a lot of people everywhere and loops around to contribute to how terribly those people are treated in, "Cologne, Berlin, Calais..." as you say. What you need to realize is that why the worst happens to women there (and everywhere) is because of a global representation of women that starts small, but plants the seed that women are just pretty things to look at and use. Eventually, get exposed to that enough and while most people won't buy into that idea, there are going to be some people who find power in that horrible notion.

So, all this does have every relation to tabletop gaming if the depictions of the vast majority of women that they might face as opponents or happen to control on the tabletop presents them as sexualized play things. And as this topic now descends into the madness of gamergate and people throwing around stupid catch phrases like SJWs as if they knew what that actually meant, just remember that you started this.

On censorship, you frankly know nothing of censorship if you've lived anywhere remotely Westernized. But perhaps this idea might help you understand. You belittle the concept of improving representations of women in media like miniatures, then cite horrifying things as a justification to ignore it. Tell me then, how do you feel about this argument: Your cries of censorship are nothing when you don't even realize the horrific censorship that goes on in so many countries across the globe, where people are jailed or killed for uttering ideas that we take for granted today?

The hobby won't survive or thrive if it doesn't try to expand and be creative to find new markets. The endless stream of more and more naked or oversexualized miniatures isn't helping, because while it may improve sales on the short term, it digs the hobby's grave a A-D cup at a time.

Also, Jim Sterling isn't the best personality to randomly link to anywhere. He's a gaming personality built on attitude and personality, he's not terrible, but he gives off an air about his media that most won't know is an act related to his time spent in the drudgery of game media work. If you don't understand that act, he comes off as really, really, really annoying.

Edit while relevant the above does not have much relation with the tabletop gaming especially wargaming because players in most cases are not controlling a single protagonist as an avatar but many individuals as a commander.

It's still relevant when the vast majority, if not nearly all representations of women miniatures or miniature related media they come across in a majority of games will be in some way sexualized. I've mentioned this one before, but in GW's Grey Knights book, for example they literally have Grey Knight killing Sisters of Battle just so they could coat their weapons and armor in the blood of the pious to defeat a demon. Now sure, there's in fiction reasons that this works, but it's also a good example of the kind of negative towards women mindset that would cause someone to write fiction of that in the first place.

As for miniatures themselves, I do think there could be more males in miniatures of differing body types to appeal to different people. I've had a girlfriend tell me that specifically when looking at my collection. There's a lot of women who aren't interested in the overly muscled male fantasy male miniatures. It's funny that Infinity, while it has its own problems with female miniatures at times, is actually pretty good at having a wider variety of male body types. So that at least is a good sign of progress.

 Vertrucio wrote:
It's still relevant when the vast majority, if not nearly all representations of women miniatures or miniature related media they come across in a majority of games will be in some way sexualized. I've mentioned this one before, but in GW's Grey Knights book, for example they literally have Grey Knight killing Sisters of Battle just so they could coat their weapons and armor in the blood of the pious to defeat a demon. Now sure, there's in fiction reasons that this works, but it's also a good example of the kind of negative towards women mindset that would cause someone to write fiction of that in the first place.

I don't see that as a specific negative mindset toward women, it just shows the callousness of the GK's.

One story of violence against women in a universe of nothing but violence isn't a compelling argument.

As for miniatures themselves, I do think there could be more males in miniatures of differing body types to appeal to different people. I've had a girlfriend tell me that specifically when looking at my collection. There's a lot of women who aren't interested in the overly muscled male fantasy male miniatures. It's funny that Infinity, while it has its own problems with female miniatures at times, is actually pretty good at having a wider variety of male body types. So that at least is a good sign of progress.

The question is then, what is in your collection? There's Elves and Eldar that fit the less muscular form. Space Marines are specifically engineered to be buff. Cadians are just badly hero scaled models, they aren't "overly muscled", they are "excessively broad". Forge World, who typically don't hero-scale their models but rather go for a more true-scale, DKOK aren't overly muscled, in fact you could probably make an argument of a DKOK'er being a female given their more modest proportions.

If you looked through my collection you'd see burly Space Wolves offset by svelte Wood Elves and my chubby Cadians offset by my realistically proportioned DKOK. The rest of my GW armies and the majority of my collection aren't even human or human-like (not including the large chunk of my collection that is historical rather than GW stuff).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vertrucio wrote:
The hobby won't survive or thrive if it doesn't try to expand and be creative to find new markets.

I don't think the market has to "try" and do anything. The market will do what it does, people will sculpt the miniatures they want to sculpt and they think people will buy, gamers will buy the models they want. If the customer's tastes change what they wants and/or people with different tastes get in to model design, the market will shift accordingly.

Censorship is Censorship really

As wikipedia describes it

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.

The difference in the western more "liberal" world are the tactics used to enforce it, you will not be stormed at night and be carried away to an unknown prison and never be seen again for example, but peer pressure or career ruination can and have been used a lot, "self censorship" has been used a lot to hide such pressures and justify such actions as "the author has come to his/ her senses and conforms to the norm" of course there is a huge debate on what subjects need censoring and what do not and for each individual they are different depending on their background, education, country they live, age, ectr, ectr.

I find this extremely personal opinion biased

The hobby won't survive or thrive if it doesn't try to expand and be creative to find new markets. The endless stream of more and more naked or oversexualized miniatures isn't helping, because while it may improve sales on the short term, it digs the hobby's grave a A-D cup at a time.

Diversify does not mean exclude everything else and produce only what is decent, in the vain hopes of attracting an audience that it may not even be there, there is market for everything and companies that have found a formula that works for them why would they change it? why should they change it? if an individual or a company, such as yourself thinks there is a market for a particular aesthetic, go for it and if you succeed, double great for you commercial success and other will imitate you which means your desired aesthetics will be more widespread, market reacts and if success is found it will be steered in that direction.

I said while relevant there is not much relation, so I am not sure why you argue on the relevance part, in any case I think there is an extensive discussion at this point in this thread on why the looks are what they are, on the Grey knights subject while I have not read the book the entire fluff of 40k would support such action, if nothing else grey knights are knowledgeable enouph to know how warp works how soulds and the physical connection with the material world works and sisters are a presumably well focused group that can be exploited for an anti daemon ward and weapon, plus in the grimdark fluff there are no men and women just materials to be exploited for the empire, I guess the author could establish an all male devoted worshipers of the emperor or a mixed group, but sisters as the "zealous emperor worshipers" are already established, familiar with the reader and do not need a new backstory to support them.

I would say its more a failure of the overall fluff to bring back the core of the 40k background, especially the warp and its relation to souls and the minor and major gods than the misogyny (known or unknown) of the author for such a story.

Now for different body types? I would say there has not been much attempt for different ethnicity to be represented in general regardless of gender, body types? sure add those in too, yes, I agree (obviously) that Infinity does well on both subjects for both genders.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
Variable. Some are fine but others have dubious poses or deliberately prominent breasts.



That's a good example. Obviously female but not tits all over the place.



Not so good...

I have to ask: does Rosa (the machine gunner) count as tits all over the place?

 Andrew Rae wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
Variable. Some are fine but others have dubious poses or deliberately prominent breasts.



That's a good example. Obviously female but not tits all over the place.



Not so good...

I have to ask: does Rosa (the machine gunner) count as tits all over the place?

From my point of view, the Commissar is the more sexualised mini than the one based on a feminist icon piece of art - not that I think either are particularly sexualised. Although that may speak to my tastes more than I care to admit

Translation :- your an evil man who does not think of the suffering of women. because video games are so bad you should have no fun. fantasy images are evil and threaten delicate flowers. Gamergate had points. I was forced to choose a side by anti gamergaters.. I was quite happy to remain out of it... oh and Lovecraft is evil because in the 1920s he was a racist i mean flipping hell. Yet the anti Semitic married a Jewish lady so he cant have been that bad a racist right?... nope bnaned



lets address the points where i think the UN should be doing more to protect women as a WHOLE than protect them from WORDS ON A COMPUTER. Europe is dying. and while im sure that the two feminists who went to the UN to cry about nasty words have been affected by them. But maybe if you wanted to make the case 1. choose a better representative than a con artist ( and she is a con artist ) and somebody who sold her own body for better reviews though ill give it is subjective but she has lied, . 2. provide better evidence than :- see C:


about right?

Firstly I know about Censorship tyvm.. I live in a country without free speech you have something called the first amendment. we do not. So please take that sanctimonious bull and deposit it somewhere.. organizations such as the West borough baptist church would be gone here. There members would be in prison.

Yet people from a different religion are allowed to spout hate and have marches wanting to end democracy.

You.Know.Nothing .Of. Censorship. I've not always lived in this part of the UK and honestly that is not something i want to relive.. Gun battles, Sectarianism... and people pretending like its not going on, the papers printing half truths. And worst of all people know who's responsible yet pretend its a dam mystery.


The hobby will survive actually. People come in to it every single year. show me a correlation where feminist influence has made a boon to the said niche hobby ( no short term blips actual continuous Increase, When Thor was rebooted that did okay thats the only one. yet those sales dropped like a stone) . Because if you do Ill apologize and leave the topic... let me save you the time you wont. I have Contacts in Gaming, Comics, Mini Games, and last but not least Pen and Paper rpg games all have said that things are far worse now.

And I'll even go one better I work for a small gaming company trying to put out a new RPG.. some person comes to us and demands , not asks, but demands to be taken on as a consultant for more than even the person in charge is getting. If we say no this person has said they will destroy the game in the press for claims of Sexism and such ( I'm not aware of the complete threat just basics) We are terrified. so tell me mr/ms/mrs/mx no censorship what should we do?... we have to capitulate because that is where third wave social justice has forced us into.


when somebody can threaten a aaa game studio for 20 grand with a bad review and get it and when I object say I don't understand her suffering... she cant suffer so much if she gets money from intel and 343 because of her continuous victim complex.

You really have no idea....

i cant believe how angry you made me... seriously..

Feminism has had a positive effect on near every aspect of our society. It has given us women's votes, women in politics, women as CEOs, women in jobs they had "no business" being in, shining a spotlight on spousal abuse, rape, outdated patriarchal double-standards that were taken for granted, and much more. Feminism is responsible for an astonishing amount of societal progress for the betterment of everyone, and without it we would live in a horrible world. Sadly this does not mean that all these problems are gone (see Gamergate for a perfect example of a flimsy excuse, indeed an outright lie about a woman who supposedly slept with a reviewer of her game, when in fact said reviewer never reviewed her game at all, used to propagate rampant misogyny, horrible abuse that led several women to flee their homes and fear for their lives, and showcase every abominable aspect of human behavior), but they are at least being looked at.

 Mymearan wrote:
Feminism has had a positive effect on near every aspect of our society. It has given us women's votes, women in politics, women as CEOs, women in jobs they had "no business" being in, shining a spotlight on spousal abuse, rape, outdated patriarchal double-standards that were taken for granted, and much more. Feminism is responsible for an astonishing amount of societal progress for the betterment of everyone, and without it we would live in a horrible world. Sadly this does not mean that all these problems are gone (see Gamergate for a perfect example of a flimsy excuse, indeed an outright lie about a woman who supposedly slept with a reviewer of her game, when in fact said reviewer never reviewed her game at all, used to propagate rampant misogyny, horrible abuse that led several women to flee their homes and fear for their lives, and showcase every abominable aspect of human behavior), but they are at least being looked at.

Are we doing this? okay fine lets do this.

First and Second wave feminism have made valuable additions to our society. that ill give you.Modern third wave is HEAVILY inspired by Bell Hooks,Valerie Solanas, and other radical Feminists such as Julie Bindel. again i ask how Social justice third wave feminism when it bullies its way into everything has had a positive effect....????

During my GCSE i read the female eunuch. and it was eye opening. I think every young man should read it. yet now this book is not radical enough. they want men in camps, modern feminists want to kill all men, yet i bet you if the reverse was uttered by a student union rep they would be instantly arrested not wait months and months and certainly they would get more than a slap on the wrist especially in the UK.



Gamergate does kind of have a dodgy excuse on that person I even admitted as such. However if you google that person. The only results are BBC saying how she was hounded, or wired, or buzzfead . nothing on the gamergate side on the first page. You cant tell me somebody making a game knowing the reporters on a personal level does not have a effect on it. I refuse to believe it. for the record what she did with those people i care nothing for. the fact the reporters did not say hey i met this person they made this cool little game you should try it out. No they did not. And please dont give me the oh gaming journalism isnt real journalism so we do not need that.

gamergate was started because of that incident but its like saying its a sparks fault that all these other independent fires exist, that have no connection with that spark. What can we have huh? what ? can people enjoy anything anymore? no it has to be monitored and censored and have quotas until nope no fun. oops slight bit of skin that is a nono when did the ultra-x puritanical no nudity allowed conservatives become leftists?.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

Diversify does not mean exclude everything else and produce only what is decent, in the vain hopes of attracting an audience that it may not even be there, there is market for everything and companies that have found a formula that works for them why would they change it? why should they change it? if an individual or a company, such as yourself thinks there is a market for a particular aesthetic, go for it and if you succeed, double great for you commercial success and other will imitate you which means your desired aesthetics will be more widespread, market reacts and if success is found it will be steered in that direction.

There's a lot of talk about markets, but markets are not a moral force. You know what else markets love? Child labour. "The markets love this" is not something that can tell us if it improves people's lives or makes them worse.

So when I say: "I would like to see miniatures that represent women that are not first passed through a filter of 'will dudes find this hot'" I am making an argument for what I think is right, for what would make me and others enjoy miniature wargaming as a hobby more, for what will make people's lives that much better, not for what I think will ship the most units.

Want your morality in the market support the companies that conform your morality, if you can (sometimes it is admittedly impossible, for example finding any tech company that does not directly or indirectly have components that are products of child labor), there are none out there make your own and make your stand.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Want your morality in the market support the companies that conform your morality, if you can, there are none out there make your own and make your stand.

the wind does not respect the fool.

migooo, while I do not know on what project you work and do not want to know, I can understand your frustration we live as always in a grey pit where shades are many and such stories as is yours are not uncommon unfortunately, some always find a way to muster the peoples feelings towards something for their own use at present is the "protection of women" and the accusations for sexism, misogyny ectr, while some cases may be true and do some good others are used as an extortion tool from individuals who just profit from the whole situation, at the expense of everybody else.

I would like to advice you to calm down a bit though, I see how this thread has affected you and its not good to be such agitated.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

Diversify does not mean exclude everything else and produce only what is decent, in the vain hopes of attracting an audience that it may not even be there, there is market for everything and companies that have found a formula that works for them why would they change it? why should they change it? if an individual or a company, such as yourself thinks there is a market for a particular aesthetic, go for it and if you succeed, double great for you commercial success and other will imitate you which means your desired aesthetics will be more widespread, market reacts and if success is found it will be steered in that direction.

There's a lot of talk about markets, but markets are not a moral force. You know what else markets love? Child labour. "The markets love this" is not something that can tell us if it improves people's lives or makes them worse.

So when I say: "I would like to see miniatures that represent women that are not first passed through a filter of 'will dudes find this hot'" I am making an argument for what I think is right, for what would make me and others enjoy miniature wargaming as a hobby more, for what will make people's lives that much better, not for what I think will ship the most units.

There are two problems with this line of thinking:

1. Markets and the companies don't owe you anything. They are businesses at the end of the day and they make products that sell. As businesses, they are there to make of profit to pay their workers and turn a profit for their owner(s). Businesses that make entertainment products are not propagandists. Saying that these companies should do what you want because "its the right thing to do" is very convenient argument to make as someone who has no skin in the game. You don't have stakeholders whose livelihoods depend on your business's success.

2. Not everyone agrees that there is something wrong with sexuality in art or entertainment. There is a whole group of feminists that call themselves sex positive feminists that think this is not only not a problem but can be a positive thing. These are the sort of feminists that embrace porn, love characters like bayonetta, and want to legalize prostitution. Personally I have no issues with sexualized miniatures and yet to see any proof that convinces me that sexuality in entertainment is harmful to young men. I have seen evidence that shows that sexual repression is harmful however.

Markets and companies owe their existence to society.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Want your morality in the market support the companies that conform your morality, if you can (sometimes it is admittedly impossible, for example finding any tech company that does not directly or indirectly have components that are products of child labor), there are none out there make your own and make your stand.

Sorry, I'm not sure how you think that's a helpful comment? Obviously I buy things I think are good for whatever reason, subject to the tradeoffs I have to make as someone playing tabletop wargames. While I do that, I am also able to talk about how I think miniatures can be better and why those things make for a better miniature. And of course, I try to apply those same principles to my own art. But buying things I like is not a replacement for discussing how things can be done better.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Markets and companies owe their existence to society.

No they owe their existence to people who create them and work for them.

 Blood Hawk wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

Diversify does not mean exclude everything else and produce only what is decent, in the vain hopes of attracting an audience that it may not even be there, there is market for everything and companies that have found a formula that works for them why would they change it? why should they change it? if an individual or a company, such as yourself thinks there is a market for a particular aesthetic, go for it and if you succeed, double great for you commercial success and other will imitate you which means your desired aesthetics will be more widespread, market reacts and if success is found it will be steered in that direction.

There's a lot of talk about markets, but markets are not a moral force. You know what else markets love? Child labour. "The markets love this" is not something that can tell us if it improves people's lives or makes them worse.

So when I say: "I would like to see miniatures that represent women that are not first passed through a filter of 'will dudes find this hot'" I am making an argument for what I think is right, for what would make me and others enjoy miniature wargaming as a hobby more, for what will make people's lives that much better, not for what I think will ship the most units.

There are two problems with this line of thinking:

1. Markets and the companies don't owe you anything. They are businesses at the end of the day and they make products that sell. As businesses, they are there to make of profit to pay their workers and turn a profit for their owner(s). Businesses that make entertainment products are not propagandists. Saying that these companies should do what you want because "its the right thing to do" is very convenient argument to make as someone who has no skin in the game. You don't have stakeholders whose livelihoods depend on your business's success.

It's pretty funny to suggest women have "no skin in the game" of women's representation. But yes, we do live in a capitalist society and it does pervert things, and people have to make decisions based on that. At the same time, I don't think representing women well is corporate suicide. It's just that I find the money argument a bit on the nose, because money =/= ethics. I think people should represent women well because it's the right thing to do. If that effort is helped by the fact that it can be an economic positive then that's great, but it shouldn't be the core of the argument.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

2. Not everyone agrees that there is something wrong with sexuality in art or entertainment. There is a whole group of feminists that call themselves sex positive feminists that think this is not only not a problem but can be a positive thing. These are the sort of feminists that embrace porn, love characters like bayonetta, and want to legalize prostitution. Personally I have no issues with sexualized miniatures and yet to see any proof that convinces me that sexuality in entertainment is harmful to young men. I have seen evidence that shows that sexual repression is harmful however.

I'm probably what you'd describe as a sex-positive feminist. The thing is, sex-positive doesn't actually mean "women should be sexualised all the time, everywhere!" Like I said earlier, I don't really have a beef with the Prodos miniatures on this score. I think they know what they want to be (ridiculous, sexy miniatures) and they're doing it. It's when companies who aren't making miniatures in that style are still making men they want to be and women they want to have sex with that I think there's a problem.

Kilkrazy wrote:Markets and companies owe their existence to society.

Agreed, if they produce something society does not want or finds it objectionable, they will cease to exist or diminish in size to irrelevance, if what they produce makes them grow it means society as a whole wants it and rewards them for what they do.

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Sorry, I'm not sure how you think that's a helpful comment? Obviously I buy things I think are good for whatever reason, subject to the tradeoffs I have to make as someone playing tabletop wargames. While I do that, I am also able to talk about how I think miniatures can be better and why those things make for a better miniature. And of course, I try to apply those same principles to my own art. But buying things I like is not a replacement for discussing how things can be done better.

For you, in your own opinion, in your own ideas, beliefs and experiences, which are entirely subjective and non authoritative, what says your better is not actually quite bad for many more and why should a company take the risk of your better, when their better works quite well indeed.

If nothing else the only company brave enouph to admit it, reaper, did the experiment in creating modest sculpt variants and the market did not reward them, explain me why they should take the risk with their money, their employs, their fortune, for something you want.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

It's pretty funny to suggest women have "no skin in the game" of women's representation. But yes, we do live in a capitalist society and it does pervert things, and people have to make decisions based on that. At the same time, I don't think representing women well is corporate suicide. It's just that I find the money argument a bit on the nose, because money =/= ethics. I think people should represent women well because it's the right thing to do. If that effort is helped by the fact that it can be an economic positive then that's great, but it shouldn't be the core of the argument.

I wasn't referring to "women" with that comment. I was referring to people with no stake in the company in question trying sideline quarterback companies on what the company should or shouldn't do. It is an easy argument to make online in forum when we don't know the specifics. It is entirely possible that sexualized minis of women sell better. I have heard as much before.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

It's when companies who aren't making miniatures in that style are still making men they want to be and women they want to have sex with that I think there's a problem.

The problem is that things are not that simple. Many things that you would say are a male power fantasy are also female sexual fantasies. And vice versa.

 Blood Hawk wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

It's when companies who aren't making miniatures in that style are still making men they want to be and women they want to have sex with that I think there's a problem.

The problem is that things are not that simple. Many things that you would say are a male power fantasy are also female sexual fantasies. And vice versa.

I'll agree with this. Many women enjoy looking at other pretty women. One of the biggest example of this that I can think of is the Feminine Hygiene Product commercial. Here is a product that has zero interest to the male audience. We have no use for it, none what so ever, the only people these products are aimed at are women. And yet, the spokespersons or actors used in these commercials are of the more attractive and physically healthy specimens of the female human. You would never see Summers Eve pulling a person from the "people of walmart series" and giving them a commercial spot. Yet these people do exist, and in fairly great numbers too. Yet it only the pretty people that are speaking for these products, because its what people, even females, want to listen too.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Markets and companies owe their existence to society.

Agreed, if they produce something society does not want or finds it objectionable, they will cease to exist or diminish in size to irrelevance, if what they produce makes them grow it means society as a whole wants it and rewards them for what they do.

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Sorry, I'm not sure how you think that's a helpful comment? Obviously I buy things I think are good for whatever reason, subject to the tradeoffs I have to make as someone playing tabletop wargames. While I do that, I am also able to talk about how I think miniatures can be better and why those things make for a better miniature. And of course, I try to apply those same principles to my own art. But buying things I like is not a replacement for discussing how things can be done better.

For you, in your own opinion, in your own ideas, beliefs and experiences, which are entirely subjective and non authoritative, what says your better is not actually quite bad for many more and why should a company take the risk of your better, when their better works quite well indeed.

Well, generally the way it works is I make an assertion and then you can decide whether that assertion makes sense to you. So for example, I will posit that:

1. there are positive psychological benefits to seeing people who are "like you" on some axis doing awesome things. We can probably broadly call this a "power fantasy"
1a. this "power fantasy" is a large draw of fantasy in general, including miniatures games
1b. representation of women in wargaming is often not in line with this power fantasy. Instead, it is commonly along the lines of "what is attractive to men."
1c. women in the wargaming space would be better served by representations that are primarily made as "cool things women would like to be" rather than primarily being "cool things men would like to possess" with appealing to women being secondary

2. art and culture help shape how we see the world and its occupants
2a. positive, powerful representations of people of all types in art broaden our ideas of what people can do and be in the real world
2b. all people would, therefore, benefit from a more inclusive wargaming environment (miniatures and the settings and stories they exist in of course being art)

3. art sends implicit messages to people not just in what it depicts, but what it doesn't depict
3a. when all the women included in a setting are designed to appeal to men primarily and to be sexually attractive to men, it implicitly sends a message that men should expect women to primarily be sexually attractive to men
3b. as we probably don't want a world where men think that women should be appealing to men at all times, we should by default offer a diverse range of representation of women.
3c. note on 3b. that as this is about culture and no one work of art makes culture, this does not mean that all works of art must conform to this view, it just means it should be the default rather than the other way around.

So see, there are some things I think. Now you and other people here can read them and maybe they'll make sense to you. They're more or less the basis of my position? So maybe if they make sense to you, some of them might inform your world view in future and the art you choose to support and make yourself.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
<snip>
Well, generally the way it works is I make an assertion and then you can decide whether that assertion makes sense to you. So for example, I will posit that:

1. there are positive psychological benefits to seeing people who are "like you" on some axis doing awesome things. We can probably broadly call this a "power fantasy"
1a. this "power fantasy" is a large draw of fantasy in general, including miniatures games
1b. representation of women in wargaming is often not in line with this power fantasy. Instead, it is commonly along the lines of "what is attractive to men."
1c. women in the wargaming space would be better served by representations that are primarily made as "cool things women would like to be" rather than primarily being "cool things men would like to possess" with appealing to women being secondary

2. art and culture help shape how we see the world and its occupants
2a. positive, powerful representations of people of all types in art broaden our ideas of what people can do and be in the real world
2b. all people would, therefore, benefit from a more inclusive wargaming environment (miniatures and the settings and stories they exist in of course being art)

3. art sends implicit messages to people not just in what it depicts, but what it doesn't depict
3a. when all the women included in a setting are designed to appeal to men primarily and to be sexually attractive to men, it implicitly sends a message that men should expect women to primarily be sexually attractive to men
3b. as we probably don't want a world where men think that women should be appealing to men at all times, we should by default offer a diverse range of representation of women.
3c. note on 3b. that as this is about culture and no one work of art makes culture, this does not mean that all works of art must conform to this view, it just means it should be the default rather than the other way around.

So see, there are some things I think. Now you and other people here can read them and maybe they'll make sense to you. They're more or less the basis of my position? So maybe if they make sense to you, some of them might inform your world view in future and the art you choose to support and make yourself.

I have a longer post I'm working on, but I just wanted to drop in and make a point about this reasoning, which is very much at the heart of what I would call the 'Social Justice' argument. What is so important is this;

These points are not based in empiric fact, but rather in dogma.

I don't mean this as an attack on you personally, I merely wish to point out that each of the points you make above (that comprise a factual claim) are either of dubious truth or, in many cases, flatly contradicted by available social science. That is not to say there is no evidence whatsoever, merely that such evidence tends to being equivocal and contradictory.

Rather, it's important to point out that these claims, which again form much of the basis of the social justice critique, are rather more like Religious Doctrine then anything else: they are philosophical assertions, and as such are entitled to the same courtesy as any other idiosyncratic belief. Which is considerable, but not ultimately a matter of moral imperative: that is, just as a Christian Scientist may believe that blood transfusions go against the will of God and endanger the body, or that the Dalai Lama contains the reincarnated soul of his predecessors, so too the above claims.

It is entirely principled to respect that some people receive moral satisfaction from owning or creating some particular miniatures. It is not, however, incumbent on those that do not share your faith to accept your moral assertions based on that faith.

Forgive me, I had been meaning to reply to this post from earlier in the thread and it simply got away from me. Perhaps some principled objections will drag the conversation back from the brink.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I'm going to reply here to a post there.

 Buzzsaw wrote:

I think its important to point out, I fundamentally disagree that it is appropriate to use the terms 'sexism' or 'bigotry' with regards to models.

In what way? Are you making a semantics argument? I think it's pretty clear that when we call a miniature sexist we do not mean that the inanimate object itself holds sexist opinions, but rather that the sculptor's work was in some way informed by a sexist intent or internalized prejudice. For example, the early RH minis were all knock-kneed and pigeon toed because the sculptor considered that an inherent quality in how a woman stands or poses. I'm not sure how you can look at something like that and not see the expression of a sexist perspective.

Are you saying you don't even find any sexist qualities in Brother Vinnie's Eastern European sex slave minis? I'm confused about your meaning

This is a good question, and I'm happy to expand on my point. Of course, we can all agree that an inanimate object cannot hold bigoted views. Your point is therefore that an object, or any other work of creativity, is intrinsically marked by the attitude of the creator, and that this mark carries with it their bigotry, yes? As an aside, I think it's clear we should be using the term bigotry, as sexism is simply a sub-type of bigotry, and it makes it a bit clearer what we are talking about.

Now, assuming I have correctly understood your point, I must state that I fundamentally disagree: I do not and cannot agree to the idea that an artistic work must be interpreted, or indeed should be interpreted or appreciated, by the characteristics of its creator. This is, of course, not to say that one cannot recognize the individual style of a given artist, given genre or artistic tradition. Rather I am saying that a work stands on its own: it is improper to either impute to a work the sexism of its creator, or conversely to impute to a creator a bigotry on the basis of objection to his work.

What, after all, is the alternative? Consider, for example, a song intended to stir the blood of the faithful, a martial melody that exhorts the listener "Arise, children of our Nation," and "Let an impure blood Soak our fields!", can such a song be anything more then crass nationalism? Can it ever stir the heart of someone who is not "of our Nation", or rally against tyranny?


But perhaps one is not convinced. Instead one feels that bigotry leaves a mark on artistic works, as a boot leaves an impression on mud. I must argue again against this idea, this sort of homeopathic interpretation of artistic creation. What do I mean by that? Springtime for Hitler!



The above is, for those not familiar, a clip from the movie The Producers, and it rather wonderfully illustrates my point. For those not familiar with The Producers, it is a comedy that springs from precisely the idea that there is an absolute interpretation of an artistic work, and that it ultimately flows from the creator.

After all, in The Producers, three groups of people are trying to make three very different things, and all (to one degree or another) completely fail;
-Bialystok and Bloom are attempting to create the worst, most crass disaster of a Broadway show.
-Franz Leibkind writes a play intending to rehabilitate the image of Adolf Hitler (because he is a genuine Nazi).
-Roger Debris (the director), wants to stage a fantastic, lush spectacle and a serious drama.

In the end they produce... none of these things (well, it is a musical, so Debris is happy at least), but I won't spoil the rest.

Similarly, I must confess: I do not speak Italian. Yet that does not inhibit my enjoyment of Italian opera, and in specific a piece I heard recently;


This is Nessun Dorma, from Puccini's opera Turanadot. I bring this up because I don't understand a word of it, yet I find it a work of magnificent beauty. In fact, perhaps my ignorance increases my appreciation: if you go to the link above and read what the translation of the libretto, the story of Turandot and this aria in particular are not... well, not the greatest of stroytelling, shall we say. Yet for all that, Turandot is not merely an immensely popular opera, but a great example of the soaring power of opera at its best. Marred, as one might imagine, by the death of the author before he finished.

Now, of course, one may object: the above are works that involve collaboration by definition, the author's work necessarily subject to the interpretation of actors, singers and so on. What, the objection goes, about the product of a single individual, a durable object that requires no intervening medium?

To answer that, let's look at two miniatures that have been singled out. The first, Kingdom Death's Preacher Pinup, was specifically called out by a feminist critic as an example of the "pointedly sexist artistic content" of Kingdom Death: Monster.

The other miniature is Brother Vinni's "Ukrainian Slavegirl";

Now, both of these have been specifically accused of being examples of 'sexist art', though for different reasons. But let's stay with the idea that sexism in the art flows from sexism in the artist: it would seem then clearly innapropriate to so designate the Preacher Pinup. That is because the Preacher Pinup was sculpted by the awesomely talented Jon Troy Nickel... which would not normally, of course, disallow the possibility that he is a secret bigot. Except that he has actually addressed the issue himself, and with remarkable clarity;

Spoiler:

Yeah. I try to make beautiful 3D women.
Journal Entry: Thu Nov 29, 2012, 3:35 AM
Regarding all the stuff that has come up in the last year about women in games, and tropes in videogames etc etc unequality and all that. I wrote this over at polycount but sharing it here.

I'm not sorry at all that I am in the pursuit of beauty in my work.

I'm not going to stop for anyone. I do what I do, because I enjoy it.

For years all I built was big space marines and ww2 soldiers, no one ever once told me back then I should 'diversify' and 'do something else' no one ever hassled me either it's just pretty much accepted. Pretty girls though?

fething taboo.

Well you know what, I call bs.

If you look at my work and all you see is a sex-doll, that's your business not mine.
I never intended any of my girls to be this way. None. If you ask me about any of them, instead of taking them at face value like so many people do, you would discover that they all have intricate back stories, and all mean a great deal to me personally due to what was going on at the time in life etc.

I've spent years honing specific lines and shapes just of female torsos and faces, in an attempt to try and refine my skill. I still feel nowhere remotely close to getting where I want to be, and I will continue to pursue it until this facet of the craft is no longer appealing to me. I certainly will not be stopping because people have misinterpreted my intentions, nor do I care if people cannot forgive me for falling into the stereotypical trap due to not being a good enough artist to hit my intended goals yet. You can rally against me and boo me off stage all you like.

I only share a fraction of my work online, and yet I have had people express their concerns at polycount and here at deviantart via PM about it, I've had people tell me I objectify women, I've had people tell me I'm a pervert who likes to jack off to my own art, I've had people call me disgusting, revolting, I've had people say that I should be banned from entering comps if I make females, the list really goes on and on. Working on RIFT I even had people tell me I should be shot.

The bottom line is, you won't catch me groping women in the workplace, you won't catch me making sexist remarks or lewd comments, nor will you find me discriminating against any person regardless of their sexual orientation, beliefs, gender or race when I've been in a position to hire, because tbh when it comes down to it, I JUST DON'T CARE if your gay, lesbian, transgender, male, female or what color your skin is, or what you believe in, whether you are in a minority or a majority. Your art, and your passion for your craft , is the thing that tells me all I need to know about you.

If making pretty girls in my spare time, to you, lumps me into the same category as these kinds of discriminatory men, then so be it. Im very proud to be doing what im doing, and again. NOONE will stop me.

Simply put, to say that Jon Troy Nickel makes 'sexist art' is to say he makes bigoted art, which is to accuse he himself of bigotry. I cannot but say that this is wrong, not simply as a factual matter, but that it is immoral. To say that a an artist is morally reprehensible for making something beautiful that is innocently enjoyed by others is slanderous.

Yet a respectable feminist so labeled him, how can we reconcile this? Is it simply the case that feminist critics know little and think less? Perhaps, but rather perhaps they believe in this wrong idea I have been attacking: the idea that a thing can be, itself, bigoted. Let us ponder that as we consider the second miniature I mentioned above, Brother Vinni's "Ukrainian Slavegirl".

Here we cannot mount the defense of Vinni that we previously. I won't go into it, but I have developed an (perhaps mistaken) impression of Vinni's professional relations that is not complimentary. Similarly, at the time of it's initial release, I myself specifically said that naming this particular model "Ukrainian" was in bad taste. However, even at the time I pointed out that it was the name, rather then the art, that created the offense.

To those that aren't interested in reading the old thread, I'll sum up the matter: the heart of the issue is that Vinni is (to my understanding) rather a strong Russian patriot, and at the time Russia was just begining to be engaged in the affairs of Ukraine. Moreover, the second head bears a striking resemblance, especially regarding the hairstyle, to the former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko. Thus, the extra head converts the model from a generic "Ukrainian Slavegirl" to a rather specific individual that the artist found politically objectionable. But, does that make the art itself inherently sexist?

Pop culture, it would seem, has intervened as if to say "No." If a person were to have that figure in hand, knowing nothing about it (the name, the maker and his political affiliations), does it naturally lend itself to no other interpretation then as an attack on a (obscure to Americans) political figure? Not exactly;

Yup. Until I looked at it today, I had not realized that Tymoshenko's hairstyle is a near dead ringer for the hairstyle of Elsa from Frozen. Which, in turn, means that the "Ukrainian Slavegirl" extra head now reads a lot less like a political attack, and a lot more like a parody of a certain overexposed (pun intended!) Disney Princess.

In fact, I kinda want one of those heads right now, precisely to put it on a Black Widow.

My parodic use aside, it does rather mean that, as a simple, seemingly inescapable point, something cannot be inherent to a sculpt if you have to be specifically and intentionally informed about, and when there is another, far more common use to it. For all his misbehavior, Vinni's art stands on its own.

So, now we have seem to have built a fairly strong case that bigotry and such is not a stain that leaches into art when it is made, nor can one reasonably impute the intentions or moral character of the artist from their work. But let's expand on this: recal that I said we ought to be using the term 'bigotry' rather then sexism, and that's for a specific reason: I think that we can all recognize that bigotry is not simply treating people differently, it is invidiously doing so, without just rationale or reason. Let's put it another way: can a thing seem sexist without being sexist? Again, if sexism is bigotry, rather then simply treating men and women as being different, is a mechitzah an expression of sexism, or an apprpriate recognition of the real differnces between men and women?


This touches on an even longer discussion, about the differences between men and women, which I'm not getting into now. Just a little end cap to the above discussion.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:

That said, I must point out that my feelings are not the basis of my point: those "people [that] can't differentiate degrees" are feminists,

I'm talking to you and everyone else here about our opinions, not about the kinds of irrational edge cases we can all find on the internet. I'm not interested in the kinds of uncompromising idealists who end up taking the hard road to "Firefly is a TV show about rape normalization."

I've known plenty of feminists who can understand the difference between degrees--it is often necessary in order to make progress instead of sabotaging progress because it isn't total victory.

I just wanted to address this by providing an excerpt from a speaker I have come to find fascinating.


The problem with saying "why are you addressing the extremes, instead of the reasonable people in the center" is... well, they are the ones making all the trouble. The 'reasonable feminists' aren't no-platforming speakers, aren't smearing themselves in (fake) blood to protest talks, aren't barricading speakers so they need to be escorted out by police, aren't burning books.

EDIT: My apologies, I posted this before it was actually complete, thus the many edits.

Thank you Buzzsaw for saying so eloquently what many of us are thinking.

 Blood Hawk wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Markets and companies owe their existence to society.

No they owe their existence to people who create them and work for them.

Companies and markets owe their existence to the laws that sustain and govern them, such as limited liability and contract. These are created and upheld by society.

Buzzsaw, this most likely is one of the best posts ever on Dakka. Well-written, straight on point and there's actual facts in there. Just amazing. I'd post the "manwithmoustachestandsupandclapswithsternface" animated gif, but that could trigger the mods.

I, personally, especially love your post because I am married with an /actual/ feminist, who works off the stage, as you put it, targeting /actual/ sexism where it really matters - circumsion of women for example, which still happens in huge parts of the world.

Yes, "actual" feminism, because both she and I are disgusted by people calling themselves "feminists" because they only worry about small plastic miniatures. Pathetic.

What in the name of christ happened to this thread?

I liked this wargaming forum more before it told me that my activism efforts for equality - that I have spent countless hours on - is 'cancer'.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Blood Hawk wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Markets and companies owe their existence to society.

No they owe their existence to people who create them and work for them.

Companies and markets owe their existence to the laws that sustain and govern them, such as limited liability and contract. These are created and upheld by society.

Incorrect. Companies owe their existence to people not society. Did America society create microsoft or did Bill Gates and Paul Allen? Markets on the other hand are loose concept used to describe a gathering of people to sell/trade. They are just a gathering of people nothing else.

 Ashiraya wrote:
I liked this wargaming forum more before it told me that my activism efforts for equality - that I have spent countless hours on - is 'cancer'.

I searched through this thread but I can't find reference to "cancer". I am unfortunately not sure or have reference to what this statement refers too.

I will say that actual activism which involves actual picketing, talking to people face to face, rallies and other things that involve actual are never wasted. However if we're talking about blogging and discussions on forums, that isn't actual activism because there is no connection with a person behind a screen. There is a difference between the two. You can never truly reach an accord with a faceless mass behind a screen.