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.

Men and women are biologically different. We are a sexually dimorphic species. There are overall differences between the sexes both physiologically and psychologically which have a biological component. Therefore, any somewhat realistic portrayal of men and women is going to include portrayals of those differences, which is only sexualized in the sense that men and women are sexualized.

There is definitely a line to be crossed into what is sexual, especially if it's exploitative, fetishistic or fantastical. This particular example doesn't appear to be any of those.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
The pose emphasizes her quality of being a woman over her quality of being a sniper.

I can see that from that perspective. In another discussion, it was mentioned that the "weapon seemed like an after-thought" which seems to be accurate. I believe that is why the modified version of her with the binoculars seems like less of an issue and more acceptable.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
She is not lining up a shot, spotting a target, or even sneaking to a good vantage point. The pose says that her being a woman is at least as important for the viewer to notice as her being a sniper. Whether this is a bad thing or not is likely up to each individual beholder. For me, I hate every sculpt of a person with a gun in a combat zone who is not in some way ready to shoot or participate in combat.

This brings a question to mind. Should all miniatures in miniatures games always or have to be ready to shoot or participate in combat? Does that limit the types of poses that are available making choices dull and too generic in some cases?

 Dark Severance wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
She is not lining up a shot, spotting a target, or even sneaking to a good vantage point. The pose says that her being a woman is at least as important for the viewer to notice as her being a sniper. Whether this is a bad thing or not is likely up to each individual beholder. For me, I hate every sculpt of a person with a gun in a combat zone who is not in some way ready to shoot or participate in combat.

This brings a question to mind. Should all miniatures in miniatures games always or have to be ready to shoot or participate in combat? Does that limit the types of poses that are available making choices dull and too generic in some cases?

I think there's such a breadth of different posing options that can be worked out as 'combat adjacent' that some of the wilder/weirder poses shouldn't really be for anything beyond display models.

If you see penises and stripper poles everywhere you go, maybe the problem isn't that penises and stripper poles are everywhere, but rather the problem might just be that they're always on your mind.

Often times artists will exaggerate and accentuate masculine or feminine features in order to create a more lively, or easily identifiable silhouette. Nothing wrong with that or inherently sexually exploitative, it's a matter of aesthetic.

 Red Harvest wrote:
This mini has no combat heels. Many other Infinity minis have them though.

Nurglitch wrote:
Love me some snu-snu...

Dude, careful. it'll be the death of you.

One can hope, right?

 Fafnir wrote:
If you see penises and stripper poles everywhere you go, maybe the problem isn't that penises and stripper poles are everywhere, but rather the problem might just be that they're always on your mind.

Justified dealing out some life lessons. (a bit of cursing)

Nurglitch wrote:

 Red Harvest wrote:
This mini has no combat heels. Many other Infinity minis have them though.

Nurglitch wrote:
Love me some snu-snu...

Dude, careful. it'll be the death of you.

One can hope, right?

Im scaroused

Its funny i feel like this thread is some sort of Rorschach test.

op you aren't psychoanalyzing us are you?

The pose is basically a mirror image of Michelangelo's David. He doesn't have his right hand on his hip, although the angle of his pelvis is very similar. It's a common sculpture pose, relaxed yet alert, called "contrapposto".

When I saw the statue, our guide pointed out a couple of people in the crowd who were in similar stances.

Hand on hip stereotyped? Maybe, I dunno. Plenty of guys do it too.

 Dark Severance wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
The pose emphasizes her quality of being a woman over her quality of being a sniper.

I can see that from that perspective. In another discussion, it was mentioned that the "weapon seemed like an after-thought" which seems to be accurate. I believe that is why the modified version of her with the binoculars seems like less of an issue and more acceptable.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
She is not lining up a shot, spotting a target, or even sneaking to a good vantage point. The pose says that her being a woman is at least as important for the viewer to notice as her being a sniper. Whether this is a bad thing or not is likely up to each individual beholder. For me, I hate every sculpt of a person with a gun in a combat zone who is not in some way ready to shoot or participate in combat.

This brings a question to mind. Should all miniatures in miniatures games always or have to be ready to shoot or participate in combat? Does that limit the types of poses that are available making choices dull and too generic in some cases?

By no means. I am speaking for myself and my own tastes. There are a lot of brilliant miniatures that are not in combat-ready poses; I am just not interested in them. However, it is my belief that a soldier or other combat-centric miniature that is not in a combat pose should have a reason for it, some sort of personality-defining purpose to the pose.

 Dark Severance wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
She is not lining up a shot, spotting a target, or even sneaking to a good vantage point. The pose says that her being a woman is at least as important for the viewer to notice as her being a sniper. Whether this is a bad thing or not is likely up to each individual beholder. For me, I hate every sculpt of a person with a gun in a combat zone who is not in some way ready to shoot or participate in combat.

This brings a question to mind. Should all miniatures in miniatures games always or have to be ready to shoot or participate in combat? Does that limit the types of poses that are available making choices dull and too generic in some cases?

Depends on the market you aim for, combat ready poses are great for realism, bad for painting, if you aim to sell only to players of your wargame, then it does not matter, if you aim to sell to people who play your wargame and to miniature painters there is a whole other layer of considerations you need to think for the poses of your range.

That been said, combat poses, in general, obscure the form and make identification of what the model represents (as troop type and weapons) difficult (or we go to a set of few blunt poses) that is another layer of considerations for the poses.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nurglitch wrote:
It might be worth comparing to some other models. I think the Feminist 40k Facebook group has some great examples of what's exploitative and what's not; similarly Victoria Miniatures would be a good comparison for what's not sexist.

I find it hard to believe anything good comes from this group, but colour me intrigued, I usually avoid closed groups who require "ideological pledge" to let you join on what is supposed to be a public discussion.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:
It might be worth comparing to some other models. I think the Feminist 40k Facebook group has some great examples of what's exploitative and what's not; similarly Victoria Miniatures would be a good comparison for what's not sexist.

I find it hard to believe anything good comes from this group, but colour me intrigued, I usually avoid closed groups who require "ideological pledge" to let you join on what is supposed to be a public discussion.

Not to mention the fact that they are around 80% straight white males, which should give anyone pause when they claim to speak for women as a group.

 Luciferian wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:
It might be worth comparing to some other models. I think the Feminist 40k Facebook group has some great examples of what's exploitative and what's not; similarly Victoria Miniatures would be a good comparison for what's not sexist.

I find it hard to believe anything good comes from this group, but colour me intrigued, I usually avoid closed groups who require "ideological pledge" to let you join on what is supposed to be a public discussion.

Not to mention the fact that they are around 80% straight white males, which should give anyone pause when they claim to speak for women as a group.

If you read their FAQ; it's downright scary. They sound like a cult, a very scary cult, where only they know what's the truth.

On topic: I find the model not to be sexist, only "playful", giving a very feminine vibe but that's it. She's still a badass sniper with the weapon to prove it. I like these models that aren't in combat, they are fun.

The thing that I dislike about the sculpt is that she has her hand over the muzzle of her weapon. But that would be annoying whether it was a male or female model.

 Luciferian wrote:
The thing that I dislike about the sculpt is that she has her hand over the muzzle of her weapon. But that would be annoying whether it was a male or female model.

Well that and she probably should cut her hair.

it might get caught in something.

True, that haircut is definitely out of regs.

 Luciferian wrote:
True, that haircut is definitely out of regs.

Yeah, but this is a case of "Rule of Cool". Every model with long hair doesn't make sense in a combat miniature since an enemy can grab it and if I'm not mistaken, hygiene is also a valid reason to crop it, but I'll be damned if it wouldn't be boring if everything was short hair.

Or maybe it's just me, but I love to paint long flowy hair

To be fair the same could be said of the male model that accompanies her. Frosted, anime spike hair is not by any means a practical haircut for a professional soldier. But it looks cool and it gives you something to paint.

The thing with the hair on both of them is the same reason we have walking manned robot suits, girls with rabbit ears, women with bare midriffs and wearing high heels into combat zones. Despite how much people want to deny it, Infinity is rooted in an anime aesthetic. It's gradually gotten more 'hard sci fi' over the years but that influence has always, and will always be there.

 Luciferian wrote:
Men and women are biologically different. We are a sexually dimorphic species. There are overall differences between the sexes both physiologically and psychologically which have a biological component. Therefore, any somewhat realistic portrayal of men and women is going to include portrayals of those differences, which is only sexualized in the sense that men and women are sexualized.

There is definitely a line to be crossed into what is sexual, especially if it's exploitative, fetishistic or fantastical. This particular example doesn't appear to be any of those.

Yeah, it's worth remembering that "impressive" or even "attractive" doesn't have to equate to being sexualised.

One thing I find interesting is that portrayals of men are almost never criticised for being sexualised--they have to be exaggerated to the point of comedy before the word comes to anyone's lips. I think it's one of those things that when you examine where the assumptions come from, you realise just how much cultural conditioning we all carry round with us about what men and women "should" present themselves as.

 Fafnir wrote:
If you see penises and stripper poles everywhere you go, maybe the problem isn't that penises and stripper poles are everywhere, but rather the problem might just be that they're always on your mind.

Often times artists will exaggerate and accentuate masculine or feminine features in order to create a more lively, or easily identifiable silhouette. Nothing wrong with that or inherently sexually exploitative, it's a matter of aesthetic.

I agree with that second paragraph.

Representation of the human form is one of the foundation stones of painted, drawn and sculpted art. That's the case because it, in simple terms, can be beautiful, and is something that tugs on our emotional strings. We're designed to find the human form attractive, and consequently representations of it (although, looking at some of the toy/miniature stuff you can get from asia, some people take that part a bit too far). I think the fact that the hobby is so male dominated means that you get miniatures designed to appeal, and not so much for the other way round (and when you do you get guys sculpting what they think is the kind of thing that women want to see.. which often isn't that at all)

Something like the sniper, or the miniature below, in some ways I find less offensive (or should I say offensive to my sensibilities) than someone swinging a chainsaw or with an angry, shouting face and firing a missile launcher. She's got hips and looks fairly cool. So what?

 Elemental wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
Men and women are biologically different. We are a sexually dimorphic species. There are overall differences between the sexes both physiologically and psychologically which have a biological component. Therefore, any somewhat realistic portrayal of men and women is going to include portrayals of those differences, which is only sexualized in the sense that men and women are sexualized.

There is definitely a line to be crossed into what is sexual, especially if it's exploitative, fetishistic or fantastical. This particular example doesn't appear to be any of those.

Yeah, it's worth remembering that "impressive" or even "attractive" doesn't have to equate to being sexualised.

One thing I find interesting is that portrayals of men are almost never criticised for being sexualised--they have to be exaggerated to the point of comedy before the word comes to anyone's lips. I think it's one of those things that when you examine where the assumptions come from, you realise just how much cultural conditioning we all carry round with us about what men and women "should" present themselves as.

To be honest , "sexualized" males aren't a common sing out there.

This is not a sexualized male, as much as people likes to put him as a example of it:


THIS are sexualized males.:



Is easy to spot the difference. If you see a semi naked male and think "Wow, I want to be like him"; he isn't sexualized. If you see one and think "Wow, thats some weird stuff", then its sexualized.

Now I'll say that I have 0 problems with sexualization and even if I find the miniature a little "eye catching", I really like it. I was just answering to the "Portrayals of men are almost never critisied for being sexualized". Thats because the portrayal of sexualized men is very, very small.

All are sexualised, the difference is the culture that created them, all aim to give a male form in the prime form their culture believes it to be, you find it "weird" because your image, does not align with theirs.

Dark Severance wrote:Now I do think it was overemphasized to be feminine, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. The issue of "why not make her like everything else" is the concern. When you have a miniature line that for example has 20 different female characters that are snipers... how do you make them all stand out from each other? If they were all either sniping, in a crouched shooting position, resting the rifle in a resting stance, etc then they'd all look the same. After about 2 resting poses, a couple shooting, maybe a running almost every 'practical' pose will start to look like the others. So how do you make it different, cool and still be unique. That is the hard part is finding that right balance.

I don't mind the initial miniature too much and I don't know if I would actually say it's overtly sexualised but the pose is a rather boring cliche of the sassy and confident archetype for female poses.

The question of how to make them stand out from each other is an interesting problem and the main issue when you need multiple miniatures (even if they are not all connected by being the same type or wearing the same outfit). I don't think "SJW" would mind too much if female miniatures were more sexualised in their presentation if the same happened to male miniatures too. But that usually doesn't happen too often. Female miniatures often rely on "sexy" poses or outfits to differentiate them from the male ones while the male ones look regular. Why do female miniatures often rely on sexualisation to differentiate them but male ones don't?

Imagine a line of miniatures where the female miniatures were all in the standard poses while the male miniatures often had some variations of a pelvic thrust pose, maybe they also focused a bit too much on an exaggerated adonis belt (or the clavicle/shoulder/calves), softer musculature (and not extreme bodybuilder physique), or with posing that exposed and exaggerated certain features no matter what the male miniature's job actually were. The line would feel unbalanced and strange. Call me crazy but I think that if male miniature can manage to have such a huge diversity of poses, body types, outfits, and expressions without constantly drifting into the liminal space of maybe—or maybe not—being sexualised then the same should be also possible for female miniature.

Fafnir wrote:If you see penises and stripper poles everywhere you go, maybe the problem isn't that penises and stripper poles are everywhere, but rather the problem might just be that they're always on your mind.

If only it were that but we just tend do see a lot of stripper poles (as shorthand for sexualised female miniatures) and nearly no penises (as shorthand for sexualised male miniatures). The "problem" some people have with this is the lack of balance in the depiction (besides often breaking immersion). Why does the depiction of women often just drift so quickly into old cliches?

I still love this sniper very much and the miniature is recognisable as female even without the usually heavily exaggerated indicators. And this female barbarian looks more believable (despite the loose boob) than these even if the Confrontation barbarians have both breasts covered.

 Luciferian wrote:
The thing that I dislike about the sculpt is that she has her hand over the muzzle of her weapon. But that would be annoying whether it was a male or female model.

Either she doesn't like that hand or the sculptor didn't want her gripping the barrel as it may have been confused as a sexual pose.
I'm wondering what the other model's pose is though, it looks like they're being swarmed by bees or something and trying to brush them off.

Oh he is a hacker, he manipulates a VR interface only he can see.

That is actually another good example of exaggeration, CB has said many times hackers in reality would do minor moves usually non perceivable, but to emphasise their role they give them these poses.

 Dark Severance wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
To me both the model and drawing share a very similar pose that focuses on the subjects buttocks over every other aspect of the subjects. Yes, the Major doesn't have the Raging Heroes bent knee pose like the Ghulan Infantry trooper, but both are still thrusting their rears out for the viewer. Neither suggests to me "professional soldier."

The difference between the Major's image and the figure referenced is because one is "thrusting" their rear out and she is not. The Major is not thrusting hers out, her feet are evenly spaced apart and she is turned looking over her shoulder. It would be different if she was bent over while looking over or faced behind her, but she is in a square balanced stance. The infantry trooper isn't in a movement or motion that makes sense, her rear is actually being thrust out unnaturally.

It is more of a case of unnatural vs natural. Just like swapping out the sniper rifle for the binoculars, it looks more natural despite the pose itself didn't change.

Respectfully, this seems like a distinction without a difference. The focus of the Ghulan Infantry figure is the woman's rear. The focus of the image of the Major is her rear. The leg stance seems secondary to the fact that the artists wanted you to focus on the women's buttocks.

What makes the Ghulan figure with binoculars work for me is that her pose seems natural because she isn't using a sniper rifle prop. She looks like a soldier at rest armed with a pistol and binoculars. In that context the pose is fine. With the sniper rifle, she is not in a natural pose and not in anyway indicating she is a sniper other than the prop gun she has. That the figure looks more natural without the gun simply reinforces how awkward the sniper sculpt is in my opinion.

Correct, context is the key, the Ghulam is in a pose that contextually makes sense, she is hiding behind some frame spotting enemies, its a natural pose, but out of context it does not make much sense.

The sniper is a resting pose makes more sense she is posing for a picture than be on the battlefield, its not a combat pose but painters love to paint these models.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
its not a combat pose but painters love to paint these models.

Exactly! I'm a painter first, gamer second, and I love when I paint the occasional "relaxed" miniature. It's a breath of fresh air

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
The sniper is a resting pose makes more sense she is posing for a picture than be on the battlefield, its not a combat pose but painters love to paint these models.

Which is why the model gets labeled as sexualized by some. If the context to understand the pose is "she is taking a picture" then the model is not a sniper and is simply a female figure holding a prop in a "sassy" pose.

Maybe she wants to screw up her back so she can get sent home from Space 'Nam?

Might explain her hand on the barrel, too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It tells a story. She ain't no fortunate one.