Switch Theme:

General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Mutating Changebringer





Pennsylvania

 Lovejoy wrote:
Spoiler:
 Buzzsaw wrote:
....By way of comparison, the total number of backers for Heroines in Sensible Shoes was 1,030 backers and approximately $50k. Let's be generous and set the proportion of female backers at 50%, so 515 backers contributing $25k. 20% would mean about 200 backers for $10k, 10% correspondingly 100 backers and $5k......

First, even assuming a very lopsided gender split of 80-90% male among the KD/TGG crowd and a very generous split otherwise, there are likely as many women pledging for KD/TGG miniatures as there are for the 'Sensible' female miniatures. This is, in no small part, owed to the much greater size of these campaigns. .....

Second, the amount of spending per backer. It's telling that even though Sensible Shoes had a very respectable number of backers (over 1000 backers total), there is a huge disparity between the per backer spending on that project versus KD/TGG projects. Sensible Shoes averaged about $50 per backer, in contrast KD averaged about $400 per backer, TGG about $250.

Again, we go back to what Dark Severance and I have been saying: it's not about being against diversity, we're both very much for it, but we also live in reality, and not everyone is willing to pay the same for what they want. If Sensible Shoes (and this is no critique of them) had made the kind of money either TGG or KD had made, they would have been well into the range where HIPS would be possible. But they didn't... because the market simply won't support it.

I guess I ought to weigh in on this, seeing as I'm (the male) half of Oathsworn, so have the info on our Sensible Shoes campaign...
You assumed you were being generous setting the proportion of female backers at 50% - but actually you are on the low side. Based on the numbers of backers who have identified as female, or have explicitly said the minis are being bought for a wife/girlfriend/sister, we have around a 65% female demographic for this project.
Obviously I can't comment on KD/TGG male vs female backer numbers, because I have no info on them.
But in terms of amounts pledged, naturally there will be a disparity - KD was a large boxed game project, with lots of elements that you could pledge extra for. TGG was for armies of miniatures. We were only offering 11 minis. While as you pointed out, we averaged $50 per backer, our top pledge level was $50; so the fact that we averaged that is actually a good thing.

As for HIPS, regardless of how much funding we'd received, we wouldn't have gone that route. I just really like single piece metal minis!

In terms of the bigger discussion, I think the reason there are smaller numbers of women in wargaming is less due to the style of the miniatures, and more down to the head-to-head competitive nature of it. Two player games with a definite winner/loser suit the male psyche. Women tend to prefer team games, co-operative games, and more social games generally. The male to female ratios in boardgaming and RPGs are far more evenly split than for tabletop wargaming and two-players CCGs. Naturally this is a gross generalization, and we all know exceptions to it. But I personally think it is broadly correct.

cheers,
Michael



It's delightful to hear from the actual creators, so first let me say, thank you Michael!

It seems that we're basically in agreement, or that there is a distinction without difference between our points: I completely agree with pretty much everything you have in your last paragraph.

I do somewhat kick myself, I had forgotten (until I got a PM invite this morning) about the most recent female miniature campaign: Sheildmaidens from Sheildwolf Miniatures. 565 backers, $82k total, average of $145 pledge.
   
Made in us
Infiltrating Prowler





Portland, OR

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Don't they already have quite a bunch of alternative, interchangeable torso for space marines, without any problems linked to them?
Are they female alternate, interchangeable torso's for space marines?
   
Made in au
Grizzled Space Wolves Great Wolf





 kronk wrote:
GW should put some female cadians in their next cadian boxes.
It depends what you mean by "female Cadians". If you just mean new heads, nah I don't like the look of female heads on the exaggeratedly chunky male Cadian bodies. Maybe if they redesigned the whole Cadian range to have more realistic proportions to begin with, but that would be a huge investment.

Also Cadians tend to wear helmets other than squad leaders, so I'm not sure how useful it would be to have female heads (as in, I'm not sure your be able to tell the difference).

If you mean to include entire female models, I think there's a lot that can potentially go wrong and GW don't have a brilliant track record with female models. You want them sexualised enough to be identifiable as women, but at the same time if you go to far with it IMO it'd ruin the aesthetic and I'd rather just have more male poses than a mix of female poses I don't like.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/23 15:15:41


 
   
Made in gr
Thermo-Optical Spekter





Greece

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
 PsychoticStorm wrote:
in any case, Wyches have indeed pretty equal clothing that does not make them a better representation of females on the tabletop

Sure does when combined with Kabbalites.


Whatever you may or may do with kitbashing is irrelevant in my book.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Sisters may be armoured but are a fetish in miniature form

You misspelled Slaanesh .


No, I have not.
   
Made in fr
Hallowed Canoness





 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Whatever you may or may do with kitbashing is irrelevant in my book.

What kitbashing? Those two kits both have male and female unit members that are dressed in the same fashion and doing the same things. Seems perfect to me.

"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1 
   
Made in us
Mutating Changebringer





Pennsylvania

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
 PsychoticStorm wrote:
in any case, Wyches have indeed pretty equal clothing that does not make them a better representation of females on the tabletop

Sure does when combined with Kabbalites.


Whatever you may or may do with kitbashing is irrelevant in my book.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Sisters may be armoured but are a fetish in miniature form

You misspelled Slaanesh .


No, I have not.


Heh, this is a good example of the phenomenon I previously addressed*; the tendancy to confuse a large desire for different female miniatures with a desire for the female miniatures a particular person wants.

It's worth pointing out that not only are (Dark) Eldar 'female' models particularly characteristic of the 'slap some boobs on 'em' model of female model, but that their aesthetics are particularly inapplicable to other ranges. Eldar, being simply elves in space, are slim hipped and boy legged, with androgynous faces and arms. Compare that to, for example, the KD backers that were overjoyed to see wide-hipped female models, models that weren't simply a set of boobs on a male frame.

*Also why I put Hybrid on ignore ages ago, but I digress.

   
Made in us
Infiltrating Prowler





Portland, OR

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Those two kits both have male and female unit members that are dressed in the same fashion and doing the same things. Seems perfect to me.
I have to admit I lumped your opinion and point of view with Ashiraya, since your responses came in response to responses directed towards Ash. However it seems like you are asking for something else entirely different than what Ash had asked.

When this discussion had shifted to talk about realistic female armor in comparison to male armor, it was brought up that... "The majority of women look much like men in armour as can be seen below. I have seen hundreds, if not thousands, of women in armour and they look indistinguishable from men". In essence really then all you need to do is swap the head and you have a realistic female representation.
Spoiler:
However head swaps wasn't what Ash wanted which was:
The sculptors of today can make insanely detailed miniatures but apparently making a female model without inexplicably thin armour, smacked-on T&A or big gaps is an insurmountable challenge.

A female version of the latter, with slightly shifted proportions (leg-torso length ratio, hip-shoulder ratio, head size, smooother jaw, etc) would look great!
To create the slightly shifted proportions it isn't simply a head swap and/or torso swap. You have to redesign the legs and arms otherwise the torso don't swap out properly together or look correct. You might be able to get away with Cadians because of their legs are different than say a Space Marine.

The reason that alternate heads and torsos work fine with GW is because they go together with all the other pieces. An alternate torso fits with the other legs, arms, heads without alterations or making them look strange (other than they already do). To create different shifted proportions, hips, waist, arms requires more than just an alternate torso. It means new legs and arms, which also means those altered pieces only work with that torso.

It is probably easier to ask, what you are looking for or rather discussing as you what you want to see in terms of miniatures that would satisfy your preference... that way discussions aren't misunderstood by what you are asking for vs me lumping you with Ash because what you are both asking for appears to be two different things.
   
Made in se
Glorious Lord of Chaos






The burning pits of Hades, also known as Sweden in summer

The sculptors of today can make insanely detailed miniatures but apparently making a female model without inexplicably thin armour, smacked-on T&A or big gaps is an insurmountable challenge.

A female version of the latter, with slightly shifted proportions (leg-torso length ratio, hip-shoulder ratio, head size, smooother jaw, etc) would look great!


I am mostly trying to stay out of this circlejerk right now but I would like to quickly chime in on your argument here, Severance.

I am aware that realistic body differences may be too large to make easily interchangeable parts while simultaneously being too small to be worth the effort for two versions.

All I am hoping is that designers, when faced with that choice and deciding to disregard/being unable to make two versions and instead focusing on a single, will then pick to make a woman more often than they do now (which is very rarely indeed).

And yes, this is just my opinion, of course (though that kind of goes for everyone, so is that not redundant to add?)

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/03/23 21:24:34


Currently ongoing projects:
Horus Heresy Alpha Legion
Tyranids  
   
Made in at
Mighty Kithkar





 Ashiraya wrote:


I am mostly trying to stay out of this circlejerk right now but I would like to quickly chime in on your argument here, Severance.



I do wonder why threads about this topic always have to be dragged down to this level.
Not to mention that this doesn't qualify as a "cirklejerk" in the least, considering there are several dissenting viewpoints here.



All I am hoping is that designers, when faced with that choice and deciding to disregard/being unable to make two versions and instead focusing on a single, will then pick to make a woman more often than they do now (which is very rarely indeed).


I'd love to see more fighting women miniatures, but I can't really fault designers either for picking the choice that seems more intuitive and is probably ALSO easier to sculpt.
Most female miniatures unfortunately look pretty horrific. The things some people do with bust-forms and clothes, even or especially WHEN they want to properly equip the character in question...
   
Made in us
Infiltrating Prowler





Portland, OR

 Ashiraya wrote:
I am aware that realistic body differences may be too large to make easily interchangeable parts while simultaneously being too small to be worth the effort for two versions.

All I am hoping is that designers, when faced with that choice and deciding to disregard/being unable to make two versions and instead focusing on a single, will then pick to make a woman more often than they do now (which is very rarely indeed).
Honestly if someone could make two versions for the price of one, I doubt no one would say no. I know that I wouldn't because I like to have both options. I do agree that designers should always, at the very least, ask if this design can be a woman.

For newer products, miniatures and games there is definitely a higher amount of female miniatures that are present. I however doubt that current existing 'larger' games would consider changing their designs to incorporate them more though. It is probably part due to cost but I would gather more due to the lore/fluff that a lot of those games are men being the soldiers instead of women. There are more game backgrounds and lore tend to try to incorporate women compared to ten years ago, at least in terms of miniatures games.

If I didn't have to outsource the sculpting, working in-house then those costs can be reduced but in most cases contract work tends to be high. In terms of sculpting they can sculpt the male version, then copy and duplicate it and make modifications to a female part. Unfortunately the cost, at least what I have had to pay, for sculpting is mostly in the cutting of the miniature. The sculpting cost between A and B could be as little as $100-200, while the cuts could cost up to $200 per cut. With one miniature if you are doing separate legs, torso, arms, head then then those four cuts could cost an additional $800. That is providing you don't have any complex designs like a sword on a back hilt or backpack that needs to be cut or hands need to cut to separate hand/weapons. Now you have to do that with the female, so now its additional $800 and we haven't even got into costs for separate molds. So the question then comes into mind do you create one product or two different ones.

I am constantly looking at ways to try to accomplish a more modular miniature that allows swapping out the least amount of components (ie: head/torso) to create an alternate one. We came up with a generic design but there was some issues with the current 3d sculpts we did for another faction and had to make adjustments. We still have decide if we'll utilize this design or do something else. It was one of our earlier designs that was created to try to incorporate women more into the miniatures.
Spoiler:

We didn't do boob-plate but it does utilize a uni-chest plate which makes it similar to the males. The only real difference between the two is the waist. The legs, arms and head are basically the same size. It would allow someone to swap out the head for a unhelmeted female head if they wanted to make it more noticeable. On the table unfortunately there would be no way to tell the difference without actually looking at the model, unless they were painted differently or had a unhelmeted head. Unfortunately it would still require the same cuts and cost but production could be cheaper in terms of moulds, because we would only need to cast the chest instead of new arms and legs.

Spoiler:

We also created alternate thinner design. In an effort to try to make the women more noticeable than the male but we couldn't get the legs/arms to look right without redoing the whole thing. So now we have to decide do we just use the bulkier one, settle that they are bulkier but have lower production costs or try a mix, then have higher costs across the board. Do we do invest that much into one fireteam, instead of looking at creating another set of completely different miniatures providing more options?
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




Statuesque Asylum

I'd hope you'd alter the crotch as well!

 Dark Severance wrote:
If I didn't have to outsource the sculpting, working in-house then those costs can be reduced but in most cases contract work tends to be high. In terms of sculpting they can sculpt the male version, then copy and duplicate it and make modifications to a female part. Unfortunately the cost, at least what I have had to pay, for sculpting is mostly in the cutting of the miniature. The sculpting cost between A and B could be as little as $100-200, while the cuts could cost up to $200 per cut. With one miniature if you are doing separate legs, torso, arms, head then then those four cuts could cost an additional $800. That is providing you don't have any complex designs like a sword on a back hilt or backpack that needs to be cut or hands need to cut to separate hand/weapons. Now you have to do that with the female, so now its additional $800 and we haven't even got into costs for separate molds. So the question then comes into mind do you create one product or two different ones.


I have to admit I know nothing of what freelancers charge or how they operate, but as a digital sculptor I can't fathom why you're being charged extra to make a figure that is suitable for production - that's kinda the whole point and should surely be included in the original quote.

   
Made in us
Infiltrating Prowler





Portland, OR

 Andrew Rae wrote:
I'd hope you'd alter the crotch as well!
Touche! Yes it would be less ambiguous. ^_^

 Andrew Rae wrote:
I have to admit I know nothing of what freelancers charge or how they operate, but as a digital sculptor I can't fathom why you're being charged extra to make a figure that is suitable for production - that's kinda the whole point and should surely be included in the original quote.
The costs are included in the original quote, those are just the breakdown of what the total cost is. It really depends on the 3d sculptor some may charge more for sculpting, but less for cuts or vice versa. There isn't really a standard for it that I have seen, it just really depends on where the sculptor puts more value on their work or predict how the person will want to make adjustments later. If they say cuts are too low, then someone asks for more cuts but overall ends up being more work than the sculpting then they short themselves. If they quote too low of the cost on the modeling, then someone can reduce the cuts and add more models but overall end up costing the sculptor more effort than they are paid.

Now there is nothing from stopping a freelancer from simply someone saying they want X, then them giving a quote for Y and offer no breakdown of the costs. I would recommend against that though. If you don't understand how they are pricing you, then when asking for stuff above what was originally asked or reducing the work load, you can't accurately determine if you are being fleeced.

For example: If I received a $2000 quote, they would want 30% down up front and then 70% due at the end of the final work, once satisfied with what I received. That would also include if there has to be any other fixes due to 3d printing, adjustments, issues to casting, etc. The terms are usually laid out in front on what would be covered. Then there would be a breakdown of what the $2000 covers in case you have to make modifications, so you know how the quote could possibly become more or less.

Modeling: 3 male posed miniatures (regular head, no helmet), 2 female posed miniatures (regular head, no helmet), 1 helmet head - 5 models * $250 = $1250
Cuts: 5 model multi-pose pieces (1 head, 1 torso, 1 pelvis with legs posed, 1 helmet head, 4 arms interchangeable) - 5 piece sets * $150 = $750

I have also had it reversed where the cleanup, cuts were more because they have experience with casting and they are working on reducing mold lines, taking in consideration how it would be cast or even placed when 3d printing the master to get better results.
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




Statuesque Asylum

So glad I'm out of commission sculpting because that all just sounds painful. It were so different in my day.

 Dark Severance wrote:
I have also had it reversed where the cleanup, cuts were more because they have experience with casting and they are working on reducing mold lines, taking in consideration how it would be cast or even placed when 3d printing the master to get better results.


Every miniatures sculptor should consider those things, though I don't see why that means the act of cutting the figure costs more than the act of sculpting. Just seems an odd way of pricing things as you have to consider cuts/parts/connections from the very beginning. Cutting a figure like this is not a long or difficult process if the sculptor knew it was to be done from the start. But perhaps you're providing a fluid design spec (changing number of parts etc) so that's why they're pricing you the way they are.

Edit: I should say, it doesn't seem like you're being over-charged by the total, I was just puzzled by the pricing. Interesting to read though, thanks.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/24 00:53:58


   
Made in us
Infiltrating Prowler





Portland, OR

 Andrew Rae wrote:
Every miniatures sculptor should consider those things, though I don't see why that means the act of cutting the figure costs more than the act of sculpting. Just seems an odd way of pricing things as you have to consider cuts/parts/connections from the very beginning. Cutting a figure like this is not a long or difficult process if the sculptor knew it was to be done from the start. But perhaps you're providing a fluid design spec (changing number of parts etc) so that's why they're pricing you the way they are.
It was definitely a new experience dealing with 3d sculptors vs traditional sculpting. I'm not sure if that is how they all deal with it the same way, since I've dealt with about 4-6 different sculptors so mileage will vary.

When I had a traditional sculptor create miniatures there was an average cost per mm, then one cost for cuts on the miniature. Another sculptor just did one cost which included all the cuts. Overall the price is roughly the same so it probably boils down to how they want to define what they want, in case they are planning for changes in parts. I can imagine sometimes when dealing with someone for the first time that can be confusing to a contractee.

When I priced out various 3d sculptors, both experienced and new, almost all of them came back the same so I'm assuming it was a standard. There was the quote cost, then a break down of components and cuts. I think it was mostly due to if I was adding a new weapon, or a different pose, do new arms but keep the same feet, etc that it would make it easier to gauge out additional parts. A couple of them also have experience dealing with companies doing 1/6 scaled garage kits which can have a lot of cuts so there could be that.

Edit: Also in my case we were trying to maximize designs, while having a lower cost overall with quite a few different options. There is validity because of the fluid design spec. I was trying to turn 5 base designs into 10-15 different looking miniatures depending on how you swapped arms, weapons, legs around without having to sculpt, repose and cut 15 different poses as well.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/03/24 01:07:56


 
   
Made in gr
Thermo-Optical Spekter





Greece

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Whatever you may or may do with kitbashing is irrelevant in my book.

What kitbashing? Those two kits both have male and female unit members that are dressed in the same fashion and doing the same things. Seems perfect to me.


Regardless of what GW may say and what "design" choices they have to make you buy different kits to make what you really want, if the elements come from different commercial products it is kitbashing.
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran



Derbyshire, UK

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

Regardless of what GW may say and what "design" choices they have to make you buy different kits to make what you really want, if the elements come from different commercial products it is kitbashing.


I don't think Hybrid meant combining the Wyches and Kabalites physically in terms of kitbashing. I think he meant that if you take the Dark eldar range as a whole - wyches and kabalites combined - males and females are treated equally.

Warriors wear similar armour regardless of sex, while Wyches, who are gladiators rather than soldiers, wear similarly skimpy costumes regardless of sex.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




St. George, UT

pgmason wrote:
 PsychoticStorm wrote:

Regardless of what GW may say and what "design" choices they have to make you buy different kits to make what you really want, if the elements come from different commercial products it is kitbashing.


I don't think Hybrid meant combining the Wyches and Kabalites physically in terms of kitbashing. I think he meant that if you take the Dark eldar range as a whole - wyches and kabalites combined - males and females are treated equally.

Warriors wear similar armour regardless of sex, while Wyches, who are gladiators rather than soldiers, wear similarly skimpy costumes regardless of sex.


Thats the way I read it too. Its pretty much split 50/50 on wyches and warriors genders. I'm pretty sure its even that way on scourges. I think the only actual male dominated kit in the DE range is the Incubus and possibly wracks.

See pics of my Orks, Tau, Emperor's Children, Necrons, Space Wolves, and Dark Eldar here:


 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





TN/AL/MS state line.

 Jayden63 wrote:
pgmason wrote:
 PsychoticStorm wrote:

Regardless of what GW may say and what "design" choices they have to make you buy different kits to make what you really want, if the elements come from different commercial products it is kitbashing.


I don't think Hybrid meant combining the Wyches and Kabalites physically in terms of kitbashing. I think he meant that if you take the Dark eldar range as a whole - wyches and kabalites combined - males and females are treated equally.

Warriors wear similar armour regardless of sex, while Wyches, who are gladiators rather than soldiers, wear similarly skimpy costumes regardless of sex.


Thats the way I read it too. Its pretty much split 50/50 on wyches and warriors genders. I'm pretty sure its even that way on scourges. I think the only actual male dominated kit in the DE range is the Incubus and possibly wracks.

Kabalite Warriors are 6 male/4 female, and scourges are 3 male/2 female I'm pretty sure. Wyches I think are 5/5, but it's been awhile since I've built those. I believe Reavers are 2 male/1 female too.

Black Bases and Grey Plastic Forever:My quaint little hobby blog.

40k- The Kumunga Swarm (more)
Count Mortimer’s Private Security Force/Excavation Team (building)
Kabal of the Grieving Widow (less)

Plus other games- miniature and cardboard both. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






New Orleans, LA

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
 kronk wrote:
GW should put some female cadians in their next cadian boxes.
It depends what you mean by "female Cadians". If you just mean new heads, nah I don't like the look of female heads on the exaggeratedly chunky male Cadian bodies. Maybe if they redesigned the whole Cadian range to have more realistic proportions to begin with, but that would be a huge investment.

Also Cadians tend to wear helmets other than squad leaders, so I'm not sure how useful it would be to have female heads (as in, I'm not sure your be able to tell the difference).

If you mean to include entire female models, I think there's a lot that can potentially go wrong and GW don't have a brilliant track record with female models. You want them sexualised enough to be identifiable as women, but at the same time if you go to far with it IMO it'd ruin the aesthetic and I'd rather just have more male poses than a mix of female poses I don't like.
.

With all do respect, you can keep your silly opinions. I want female Cadian minis from GW.

You can go be a sexist in another thread.

DA:70S+G+M+B++I++Pw40k08+D++A++/fWD-R+T(M)DM+
 
   
Made in fr
Hallowed Canoness





pgmason wrote:
I don't think Hybrid meant combining the Wyches and Kabalites physically in terms of kitbashing. I think he meant that if you take the Dark eldar range as a whole - wyches and kabalites combined - males and females are treated equally.

Warriors wear similar armour regardless of sex, while Wyches, who are gladiators rather than soldiers, wear similarly skimpy costumes regardless of sex.

Thanks for explaining . That is exactly what I meant.

"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1 
   
Made in us
Infiltrating Prowler





Portland, OR

pgmason wrote:
I think he meant that if you take the Dark eldar range as a whole - wyches and kabalites combined - males and females are treated equally.

Warriors wear similar armour regardless of sex, while Wyches, who are gladiators rather than soldiers, wear similarly skimpy costumes regardless of sex.
Doesn't that have more to do with the lore/history of that faction vs representation?
   
Made in fr
Hallowed Canoness





I don't get how those two are in any way mutually exclusive.

"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

Friendly reminder here - blankly calling each other sexist is not conducive to polite conversation. If you call a post out for alleged sexism, please have the courtesy to sustain the accusation with some evidence/explanation. Otherwise, I'm going to suspend your account for being rude. Please PM me with any questions. Thanks!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/24 21:51:09


   
Made in us
Mutating Changebringer





Pennsylvania

 Dark Severance wrote:
pgmason wrote:
I think he meant that if you take the Dark eldar range as a whole - wyches and kabalites combined - males and females are treated equally.

Warriors wear similar armour regardless of sex, while Wyches, who are gladiators rather than soldiers, wear similarly skimpy costumes regardless of sex.
Doesn't that have more to do with the lore/history of that faction vs representation?


It also ties into the non-transferable reality that Eldar (of all types) are a race characterized by androgyny: having kits where the only difference between male and female is a set of boobs only works were the underlying aesthetics support it. Not to mention (again) that this is a particular method of sex differentiation that is not popular with a number of other posters even just in this thread.

Ironically, as someone pointed out earlier, Kingdom Death's plastic kits are pretty ideal examples of male/female figures done right: heads, arms, legs and torsos are (I am let to understand) all different and the kits are mixed 1:1 male:female. Now, this heavy representation of women is justified by it being a survival situation, not an army. Never the less, KD's method (if not their results) seem to be what we would all want emulated, not GW's system of simply throwing in some feminine torsos.

   
Made in au
Grizzled Space Wolves Great Wolf





 kronk wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
 kronk wrote:
GW should put some female cadians in their next cadian boxes.
It depends what you mean by "female Cadians". If you just mean new heads, nah I don't like the look of female heads on the exaggeratedly chunky male Cadian bodies. Maybe if they redesigned the whole Cadian range to have more realistic proportions to begin with, but that would be a huge investment.

Also Cadians tend to wear helmets other than squad leaders, so I'm not sure how useful it would be to have female heads (as in, I'm not sure your be able to tell the difference).

If you mean to include entire female models, I think there's a lot that can potentially go wrong and GW don't have a brilliant track record with female models. You want them sexualised enough to be identifiable as women, but at the same time if you go to far with it IMO it'd ruin the aesthetic and I'd rather just have more male poses than a mix of female poses I don't like.
.

With all do respect, you can keep your silly opinions. I want female Cadian minis from GW.

You can go be a sexist in another thread.
With all due respect, what a useless pathetic post. You can take your ignorant vitriolic tripe to another thread. Actually, just take it away completely please.

It's not sexist to notice GW don't typically do a terribly good job when it comes to female models and that the current Cadian aesthetic (comically bulky) is less appropriate for female models.

It's not sexist to have my little plastic toy soldiers to be men rather than women any more than it's ageist to not have any elderly or under age people in my army, just like it's not speciest that my Lizardmen army is only made up of Cold Blooded reptiles.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/03/25 02:56:32


 
   
Made in gr
Thermo-Optical Spekter





Greece

And now we can go back on topic.

Can somebody explain me how the existence of kabalites in the DA army lessens the fact or makes it better that witches look like mild bdsm rejects? and how that makes portrayal of female/ woman better than any other case?
   
Made in fr
Hallowed Canoness





Dude, the problem was never about having mild BDSM rejects in the game. The problem was about the differences in treatment for male and female characters in models. I.e., sexism.
Nobody is trying to make mild BDSM rejects a taboo subject. I mean, we all know we need this to be true to one of the main sources of inspiration for the DE.


"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1 
   
Made in gr
Thermo-Optical Spekter





Greece

So for the duration of the whole thread you are on an entirely different page maybe even book from the rest of us?

The heart of the topic is how having females/ women in such an outfit may or may not deter female gamers and it has evolved (after it has been established that such miniatures are in no way a widespread phenomenon) debating whether a realistic but indistinguishable from the male model outfit or a sexualised and distinguished from the male models outfit is better.

And you are about modes having a different outfit all-together? for example the Dozers in Infinity?

Sure I don't like that too, but it was not discussed here yet.
   
Made in us
Infiltrating Prowler





Portland, OR

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I don't get how those two are in any way mutually exclusive.

The problem was about the differences in treatment for male and female characters in models. I.e., sexism.
Here is an example of what I'm trying to say.

If I created a game based on the units of the Queen's Guard (King's Guard) in 1990. During that time women were not permitted to serve in combat units, the Guard entirely consisted of men. Someone comes along and says, "I should be able to play as a female Guard because it is sexist otherwise. Why doesn't this game company make alternate women sculpts.". It would go against the lore/history to create an alternate female soldier because someone feels that is sexist, despite it being the actual history/lore of that unit.

Then the example given is Canada's armed services which at the time in 1990, women and men were able to serve in all combat roles. Their units in the game have equal treatment, in terms that there are 6 males, 4 females in each squad. Since they have women representation in their units then the Queen's Guard should also have the same treatment. Nevermind that in the history/lore of those units, that was how it actually was.

Another example is a game I'm working on. One of the fireteams is a front line combat unit and as such men are commonly employed in that role based on the lore created for that faction. That doesn't mean there won't be female characters in that faction, but they'll be in more support units than actual front line combat. I wouldn't be making alternate female for the front line unit, because women do not serve in that role at all. Now another faction has both men and women in the front line units. Those units will have both in them, because that is what is written in their lore/history. Another faction is mostly male based as they are caste society that are genetically altered and created essentially in test tubes. The only genes taken into their genepool are those of males, women are set for other roles.

They aren't written that way because of sexism, they are written that way to create conflict, strife and represent a difference of opinions and views that exist. It is a fantasy environment and world, not meant to be a moral battleground to represent equality between men and women. It is a game and that is the way it was written.
   
Made in se
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan






Sweden

The difference between historical and fictional games is that there is an objective argument in historical games: as you noted, women were literally not allowed to be part of the Queen's Guard in 1990. The "lore", as it were, of that part of your game is based in historical reality. A fictional scenario without the same grounding in history would not have the same argument.

 Dark Severance wrote:
They aren't written that way because of sexism, they are written that way to create conflict, strife and represent a difference of opinions and views that exist. It is a fantasy environment and world, not meant to be a moral battleground to represent equality between men and women. It is a game and that is the way it was written.


I don't think anyone's arguing that people are sitting down and being deliberately sexist like a moustache-twirling villain. One can still do sexist things without being sexist, however, just like one can slip on a frozen puddle in winter without doing so on purpose.

For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. 
   
 
Forum Index » Dakka Discussions
Go to: