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.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Laws that differ from coubtry to country. Even the age of consent is different between Western countries. Illegal is a terrible argument.

I'm just going to let you know now, you don't want to go down this road because I automatically get suspicious about people who express skepticism about 'age of consent' laws. So, you might wanna just make a hard turn away from this topic.

So to try an win the argument you're going to try and throw some sort of child molester shade at me, classy man. I think this conversation is over. You know what I meant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formosa wrote:

I don’t think he realises he just said that

Google feminism. Its about pulling harder on female issues to get them to an equal level as men. But laugh all you want I guess

I didn't know the core of feminism was so controversial to you.

 Grot 6 wrote:
Straw man needs straw, I guess... O.o

Good argument. 9/10, could have used an armpit noise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
So to try an win the argument you're going to try and throw some sort of child molester shade at me, classy man. I think this conversation is over. You know what I meant.

I didn't choose the hill for you to die on, man. I was giving you fair warning.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

No one is harmed, except the objectification of women continues. You do realize that is one of the points right, just because nobody is harmed doesn't mean its ok. Opinions differ, selling boobie miniatures isn't going to be banned. Just realize where people are coming from on the other side.

Wouldn't literally any miniature be an objectification of something?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:

Pretty sure I don’t want to try to argue what is and isn’t attractive, being as subjective as it is. It wasn’t my point, either. Objects are not objectification. No one is being reduced to being an object by an object used to represent a person.

And my point wasn't that women are reduced to objects either, its that in parts of the hobby the female body becomes/is treated as an object.

My Total War example is that the subjectivity of attractiveness can also be hiding misogyny.

To tie in to my overall overall point, the issue is not adressing these topics allows misogynists to hide in our community. You aren't one for liking the figures mind you in my view. But the group that feels most attacked will quickly show their real face. It happened to Sarkeesian the first time and they are seemingly coming out of the woodworks on other sites as well. Not adressing it will only allow the bad eggs to fester and damage the community. Take these people out of the community and when people like Sarkeesian show up she would be flailing against the wind, because she isn't going to be validated by the bad eggs we removed.

I don’t believe anyone could argue against ostracizing misogynists from tabletop games, aside from situations where they could see problems with their worldview.

 Desubot wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

No one is harmed, except the objectification of women continues. You do realize that is one of the points right, just because nobody is harmed doesn't mean its ok. Opinions differ, selling boobie miniatures isn't going to be banned. Just realize where people are coming from on the other side.

Wouldn't literally any miniature be an objectification of something?

Of course, but that isn't what is meant by the objectification of the female body. Not all figures do that, but its hard to argue that those that do don't exist.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Because feminism is all about putting men first amiright

I thought it was for equality.

So, apparently, it isn't.

Feminism wants equality as a final goal. And for that to happen, they believe the way to do it is with women's empowerment, because they are in a position of inferiority. So yeah, feminism is all about women.
(Not saying I agree with this, but thats how general feminism works)

Catering to male issues is a secondary thing that isn't in the core of the feminist theory and objetive.

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:

Pretty sure I don’t want to try to argue what is and isn’t attractive, being as subjective as it is. It wasn’t my point, either. Objects are not objectification. No one is being reduced to being an object by an object used to represent a person.

And my point wasn't that women are reduced to objects either, its that in parts of the hobby the female body becomes/is treated as an object.

My Total War example is that the subjectivity of attractiveness can also be hiding misogyny.

To tie in to my overall overall point, the issue is not adressing these topics allows misogynists to hide in our community. You aren't one for liking the figures mind you in my view. But the group that feels most attacked will quickly show their real face. It happened to Sarkeesian the first time and they are seemingly coming out of the woodworks on other sites as well. Not adressing it will only allow the bad eggs to fester and damage the community. Take these people out of the community and when people like Sarkeesian show up she would be flailing against the wind, because she isn't going to be validated by the bad eggs we removed.

I don’t believe anyone could argue against ostracizing misogynists from tabletop games, aside from situations where they could see problems with their worldview.

Yeah, but how are we to ostracize them if we don't talk about it untill they explode publically and drag us all down?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Laws that differ from coubtry to country. Even the age of consent is different between Western countries. Illegal is a terrible argument.

I'm just going to let you know now, you don't want to go down this road because I automatically get suspicious about people who express skepticism about 'age of consent' laws. So, you might wanna just make a hard turn away from this topic.

So to try an win the argument you're going to try and throw some sort of child molester shade at me, classy man. I think this conversation is over. You know what I meant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formosa wrote:

I don’t think he realises he just said that

Google feminism. Its about pulling harder on female issues to get them to an equal level as men. But laugh all you want I guess

I didn't know the core of feminism was so controversial to you.

You know if I google feminism I’m gonna get 10 different answers right? It’s one of the issues with the movement these days, they don’t even know what they want, but I’m pretty simple so I’m going with the true meaning, equality for woman AND men ...

And I rightly laughed at your stupid gaff, because it was funny.

 Sinful Hero wrote:
I don’t believe anyone could argue against ostracizing misogynists from tabletop games, aside from situations where they could see problems with their worldview.

Odd fact: No one wants to keep racists around. No one wants to keep misogynists around. No one wants to keep women out of gaming. No one wants bigots, bullies, or bad apples. Absolutely no sane person wants any of this, except maybe other bigots, bullies, and bad apples that have been ejected from the community.

Every reasonable person across the spectrum agrees that these sorts of people are unwelcome. You would think that'd be a good thing and that it'd be enough...

... but it seems awfully peculiar that one side of the argument has quite a few players that want to shift the definitions of bigots, bullies, and bad apples to fit people they disagree with about trivial things. Almost like they're redefining these words for the purposes of gatekeeping...

Phone quote mess.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I'm in a strange position because I like bikini suits but I don't like them in my serious videogames/comics/movies, because when I try to take a strong female character serious its hard to do it when she wears plate bikini. It breaks my inmersion. (Sisters of Battle, for example. I have no problem with boob-plate, I think as long as isn't too exagerated is a middle ground to make the feminine form more clear. Plus, tradition on how is the design of the faction. But I don't have a problem with normal plate armour for females.)

In the other hand, if the product is comical/the costume fits the character/ its an erotic/porn product I have no problems with it.

I feel the same way. I'm cool with KDM being KDM, but never want to see a Sister of Battle in a Prodos-style armored thong. For me, the issue is when people push for sexy when sexy isn't called for.

This. If you are going for a parody, having characters running around wearing exactly one mink and constantly flexing is great. If you want to be taken seriously, stick them in Gambeson.

Where things get a little trickier, in my opinion, is with stuff like Infinity. Male figures, and robots are reasonably serious (if highly anime-esque), but the vast majority of female models are basically pinups in 28mm pewter. While this is very appropriate for the heavily anime-inspired designs, the game as a whole isn't quite over-the-top enough (a la Gurren Laggan) for this to be a seamless fit.

 Desubot wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

No one is harmed, except the objectification of women continues. You do realize that is one of the points right, just because nobody is harmed doesn't mean its ok. Opinions differ, selling boobie miniatures isn't going to be banned. Just realize where people are coming from on the other side.

Wouldn't literally any miniature be an objectification of something?

Depends on how hard you’re adhering to the definition. Technically they’re more like representations.

 Formosa wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

I don’t think he realises he just said that

Google feminism. Its about pulling harder on female issues to get them to an equal level as men. But laugh all you want I guess

I didn't know the core of feminism was so controversial to you.

You know if I google feminism I’m gonna get 10 different answers right? It’s one of the issues with the movement these days, they don’t even know what they want, but I’m pretty simple so I’m going with the true meaning, equality for woman AND men ...

And I rightly laughed at your stupid gaff, because it was funny.

So you pick out the one specifically uncaring about men?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

So you pick out the one specifically uncaring about men?

You mean the one you referenced yourself?

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I'm in a strange position because I like bikini suits but I don't like them in my serious videogames/comics/movies, because when I try to take a strong female character serious its hard to do it when she wears plate bikini. It breaks my inmersion. (Sisters of Battle, for example. I have no problem with boob-plate, I think as long as isn't too exagerated is a middle ground to make the feminine form more clear. Plus, tradition on how is the design of the faction. But I don't have a problem with normal plate armour for females.)

In the other hand, if the product is comical/the costume fits the character/ its an erotic/porn product I have no problems with it.

I feel the same way. I'm cool with KDM being KDM, but never want to see a Sister of Battle in a Prodos-style armored thong. For me, the issue is when people push for sexy when sexy isn't called for.

This. If you are going for a parody, having characters running around wearing exactly one mink and constantly flexing is great. If you want to be taken seriously, stick them in Gambeson.

Where things get a little trickier, in my opinion, is with stuff like Infinity. Male figures, and robots are reasonably serious (if highly anime-esque), but the vast majority of female models are basically pinups in 28mm pewter. While this is very appropriate for the heavily anime-inspired designs, the game as a whole isn't quite over-the-top enough (a la Gurren Laggan) for this to be a seamless fit.

Infinity clearlies objetify women and uses it as an appeal for their customers.
BUT, and this is a big but.
I don't believe is bad to do that. They are free to design whatever they want, and if it sells it sells. I don't like too much sexuality in my serious hobbies because I believe its a cheap marketing practice, but whatever.

Personally, I believe the biggest problem is the lack of sexualized male figures. You just need to watch perfume ads, videoclips, etc... the ratio of sexualized males to sexualized females is very very different. And I believe this comes from a social idea about how men are the "activelly sexual" gender and females are the pasive ones, so the big companies don't find market value in cathering to female sexual desires.

Of course, as 50 shades of Grey showns, they are very wrong in that regard, and I'm sure things will change in the future, with no less but even more sexualization, the difference is that it will be cattered to females too.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

No one is harmed, except the objectification of women continues. You do realize that is one of the points right, just because nobody is harmed doesn't mean its ok. Opinions differ, selling boobie miniatures isn't going to be banned. Just realize where people are coming from on the other side.

Wouldn't literally any miniature be an objectification of something?

Of course, but that isn't what is meant by the objectification of the female body. Not all figures do that, but its hard to argue that those that do don't exist.

I would argue no figure objectifies women. They’re objects, they’re inanimate. They can’t force women to act a certain way. The idea that these figures have power over anyone is ridiculous. You can ascribe whatever narrative to a Brother Vinni sculpt you want, but at the end of the day it’s still an object. Objects don’t objectify women- people do. If want to argue people use figures to objectify women, I ask how? By making them fit a specific ideal? By representations of bound or wounded women? They’re still objects that make no statements. No flesh and blood woman was objectified, which is my core point. No harm or detriment was made.

 Galas wrote:

Infinity clearlies objetify women and uses it as an appeal for their customers.
BUT, and this is a big but.
I don't believe is bad to do that. They are free to design whatever they want, and if it sells it sells. I don't like too much sexuality in my serious hobbies because I believe its a cheap marketing practice, but whatever.

Personally, I believe the biggest problem is the lack of sexualized male figures. You just need to watch perfume ads, videoclips, etc... the ratio of sexualized males to sexualized females is very very different. And I believe this comes from a social idea about how men are the "activelly sexual" gender and females are the pasive ones, so they big companies don't find market value in cathering to female sexual desires.

Of course, as 50 shades of Grey showns, they are very wrong, and I'm sure things will change in the future, with no less but even more sexualization, the difference is that it will be cattered to females too.

Black Library's Horus Heresy series is pretty 'sexualizing' I guess you could say about SM. I think the issue with sexualizing males that the line between power fantasy and sexual is pretty hard to identify.

As for sexuality in serious hobbies, I think I stand where you do on it. Its possible, but the further you go with it the more the hobby starts to feel as the thing bolted on.

This thread really needs a GIF from The Room.... "You are tearing me apart!"




..... Oh, and to be closed as nothing good will come from it. Take it to the OT if you want a real Thunderdrome!

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

No one is harmed, except the objectification of women continues. You do realize that is one of the points right, just because nobody is harmed doesn't mean its ok. Opinions differ, selling boobie miniatures isn't going to be banned. Just realize where people are coming from on the other side.

Wouldn't literally any miniature be an objectification of something?

Of course, but that isn't what is meant by the objectification of the female body. Not all figures do that, but its hard to argue that those that do don't exist.

I would argue no figure objectifies women. They’re objects, they’re inanimate. They can’t force women to act a certain way. The idea that these figures have power over anyone is ridiculous. You can ascribe whatever narrative to a Brother Vinni sculpt you want, but at the end of the day it’s still an object. Objects don’t objectify women- people do. If want to argue people use figures to objectify women, I ask how? By making them fit a specific ideal? By representations of bound or wounded women? They’re still objects that make no statements. No flesh and blood woman was objectified, which is my core point. No harm or detriment was made.

I'm sure the guy that did this did work for Corvus Belli.

 Galas wrote:

I'm sure the guy that did this did work for Corvus Belli.

Spoiler:

Best TAG in the game, TBH.

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

No one is harmed, except the objectification of women continues. You do realize that is one of the points right, just because nobody is harmed doesn't mean its ok. Opinions differ, selling boobie miniatures isn't going to be banned. Just realize where people are coming from on the other side.

Wouldn't literally any miniature be an objectification of something?

Of course, but that isn't what is meant by the objectification of the female body. Not all figures do that, but its hard to argue that those that do don't exist.

I would argue no figure objectifies women. They’re objects, they’re inanimate. They can’t force women to act a certain way. The idea that these figures have power over anyone is ridiculous. You can ascribe whatever narrative to a Brother Vinni sculpt you want, but at the end of the day it’s still an object. Objects don’t objectify women- people do. If want to argue people use figures to objectify women, I ask how? By making them fit a specific ideal? By representations of bound or wounded women? They’re still objects that make no statements. No flesh and blood woman was objectified, which is my core point. No harm or detriment was made.

They can't force it no, but it can be a representation of what the sculptor/costumer expects what a woman needs to look like to be a woman so to speak. Going back to my Total War example, just because they were not attractive enough it immediately made them men to some people.

At the end of the day it still indeed is an object. But its not as if we don't project on objects. Every representation of people that aren't real are objects, it doesn't mean that there isn't any thought behind it.

I think this is the main point of contention, is the underlying mentality behind the object harmful? I would argue in certain cases of the community it is.

I remember people in the total war forum talking about how the Bretonnian Damsels did indeed look old/like males.

At the same time, that people called me stupid for liking 6th's edition grey-skinned ogres over the pink skin ones, so screw them!

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
At the end of the day it still indeed is an object. But its not as if we don't project on objects. Every representation of people that aren't real are objects, it doesn't mean that there isn't any thought behind it.

I don't think you understand: So WHAT if this is what he expects a woman to look like? Exactly whose problem is this? If someone doesn't meet his standards, that's just their own problem to sort out. If he spends his life thinking a woman should look like an anime doll, then that's his issue to sort out.

You do not get to own another human being's preferences or likes.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I think this is the main point of contention, is the underlying mentality behind the object harmful? I would argue in certain cases of the community it is.

No, it isn't. Not with healthy, normal, rational adults. The 'community' is not one thing, it is many things. If people like things you don't, then kick rocks and find other people to spend time with. Stop demanding people change everything to accommodate someone's personal insecurities.

What next, are we gonna complain that Batman is 'problematic' because he's rich and we're not?

 Galas wrote:
I remember people in the total war forum talking about how the Bretonnian Damsels did indeed look old/like males.

At the same time, that people called me stupid for liking 6th's edition grey-skinned ogres over the pink skin ones, so screw them!

Yep, those are exactly the type of people that helped Sarkeesian get where she is today.

As for pink ogres, always thought they looked pretty strange pink. It made them feel like the oversized version of humans. Grey feels more distinct.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@AD, I'm not planning to respond to your comments anymore, so you might want to save yourself some time I guess?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
@AD, I'm not planning to respond to your comments anymore, so you might want to save yourself some time I guess?

It's fine, you never had a solid, intelligible argument to start with. I accept your concession.

It certainly won't stop me from refuting what you say for the amusement of others.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Really that is your response? He-man? Yes he represents another form which people consider sexist, the fact that the hero always has to be the big muscly guy. Its Conan the Barbarian level stereotyping.

So handwaving it away with fantasy universes? Aren't you one of the same people complaing over in the SW threads that Rey was a Mary Sue because what she did was unrealistic. Methinks this smells of having your cake and eating it too.

I think Rey is a Mary Sue because I did not get to see her character develop, unlike Luke, not because "what she did was unrealistic". She started the game with max level. All I got was a "I have never seen so much raw power". Well thanks a fracking bunch, director. Did you do Exposition 101 in director academy? Show me, don't tell me. Methinks you are assuming too much.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Uh everyone has two boobs? Look down, they are just more pronounced on women. There is nothing sexist about liking boobs, however it is sexist to treat women like they are nothin more than a pair of boobs in games such as the infamous DoA Beach Volleybal.

No, everyone has two nipples. Only women have boobs. And men are programmed to like them. Same way -to my knowledge- that women are programmed to like male b.u.t.t.s. It's almost as if humans have this thing for liking curves. Nobody treats women like they are a pair of boobs. They treat their plastic miniatures as having huge boobs. Plastic miniatures, not real women. In the case of the video game, regardless of what BuzzFeed would have you believe, the playerbase of "DoA Beach Volleyball" (like, all 65 of them) do not shape global male attitude towards women in real life. Playing a videogame about girls in bikinis does not make them sexist, any more than playing Farming Simulator makes me a farmer.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
No one is harmed, except the objectification of women continues. You do realize that is one of the points right, just because nobody is harmed doesn't mean its ok. Opinions differ, selling boobie miniatures isn't going to be banned. Just realize where people are coming from on the other side.

Cast companies do not make boob miniatures in order to objectify women, jesus. They make them because they sell. It's a very simple equation really. Most of the miniature collectors/painters/gamers are men. Men like boobs. Put boobs on the miniatures and they will sell more. Funny side effect. Even if people hated boobs, putting them would also increase sales. Just like most people here hate Sarkishian but this thread managed 35 pages in 4 days. Love and hate are opposites to lovers, not corporations. A company's job is to stimulate want through any means necessary, and there is only so many stimulants that are stronger than hate.

There is not a board of fat unfullfilled men plotting daily on how to destroy womankind by introducing boob miniatures. There are statistics that show boobs sell. Space marines sell more than tyranids because people want to play the hero more than they want to play the villain in their games. The market is not sexist. The market is what it is. Supply and demand.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Spoiler:

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

No one is harmed, except the objectification of women continues. You do realize that is one of the points right, just because nobody is harmed doesn't mean its ok. Opinions differ, selling boobie miniatures isn't going to be banned. Just realize where people are coming from on the other side.

Wouldn't literally any miniature be an objectification of something?

Of course, but that isn't what is meant by the objectification of the female body. Not all figures do that, but its hard to argue that those that do don't exist.

I would argue no figure objectifies women. They’re objects, they’re inanimate. They can’t force women to act a certain way. The idea that these figures have power over anyone is ridiculous. You can ascribe whatever narrative to a Brother Vinni sculpt you want, but at the end of the day it’s still an object. Objects don’t objectify women- people do. If want to argue people use figures to objectify women, I ask how? By making them fit a specific ideal? By representations of bound or wounded women? They’re still objects that make no statements. No flesh and blood woman was objectified, which is my core point. No harm or detriment was made.

They can't force it no, but it can be a representation of what the sculptor/costumer expects what a woman needs to look like to be a woman so to speak. Going back to my Total War example, just because they were not attractive enough it immediately made them men to some people.

At the end of the day it still indeed is an object. But its not as if we don't project on objects. Every representation of people that aren't real are objects, it doesn't mean that there isn't any thought behind it.

I think this is the main point of contention, is the underlying mentality behind the object harmful? I would argue in certain cases of the community it is.

If a miniature producer makes figures of nude women that are bound- do you assume the producer is a misogynist?

 Galas wrote:

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I'm in a strange position because I like bikini suits but I don't like them in my serious videogames/comics/movies, because when I try to take a strong female character serious its hard to do it when she wears plate bikini. It breaks my inmersion. (Sisters of Battle, for example. I have no problem with boob-plate, I think as long as isn't too exagerated is a middle ground to make the feminine form more clear. Plus, tradition on how is the design of the faction. But I don't have a problem with normal plate armour for females.)

In the other hand, if the product is comical/the costume fits the character/ its an erotic/porn product I have no problems with it.

I feel the same way. I'm cool with KDM being KDM, but never want to see a Sister of Battle in a Prodos-style armored thong. For me, the issue is when people push for sexy when sexy isn't called for.

This. If you are going for a parody, having characters running around wearing exactly one mink and constantly flexing is great. If you want to be taken seriously, stick them in Gambeson.

Where things get a little trickier, in my opinion, is with stuff like Infinity. Male figures, and robots are reasonably serious (if highly anime-esque), but the vast majority of female models are basically pinups in 28mm pewter. While this is very appropriate for the heavily anime-inspired designs, the game as a whole isn't quite over-the-top enough (a la Gurren Laggan) for this to be a seamless fit.

Infinity clearlies objetify women and uses it as an appeal for their customers.
BUT, and this is a big but.
I don't believe is bad to do that. They are free to design whatever they want, and if it sells it sells. I don't like too much sexuality in my serious hobbies because I believe its a cheap marketing practice, but whatever.

Personally, I believe the biggest problem is the lack of sexualized male figures. You just need to watch perfume ads, videoclips, etc... the ratio of sexualized males to sexualized females is very very different. And I believe this comes from a social idea about how men are the "activelly sexual" gender and females are the pasive ones, so the big companies don't find market value in cathering to female sexual desires.

Of course, as 50 shades of Grey showns, they are very wrong in that regard, and I'm sure things will change in the future, with no less but even more sexualization, the difference is that it will be cattered to females too.

Marvel films, of all things, have catered pretty well to the desires of women without it becoming obtrusive for male viewers, and vice-versa. Maybe everything should be more like Marvel movies.

For me, Infinity looks a lot like Maxim magazine. It portrays women just sexualized enough for me not to take it seriously or want to buy it, but it takes itself too seriously or is not sexualized enough to compete in the market(s) I would group it with. But it clearly sells, so they must be doing something right.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:

Pretty sure I don’t want to try to argue what is and isn’t attractive, being as subjective as it is. It wasn’t my point, either. Objects are not objectification. No one is being reduced to being an object by an object used to represent a person.

And my point wasn't that women are reduced to objects either, its that in parts of the hobby the female body becomes/is treated as an object.

My Total War example is that the subjectivity of attractiveness can also be hiding misogyny.

To tie in to my overall overall point, the issue is not adressing these topics allows misogynists to hide in our community. You aren't one for liking the figures mind you in my view. But the group that feels most attacked will quickly show their real face. It happened to Sarkeesian the first time and they are seemingly coming out of the woodworks on other sites as well. Not adressing it will only allow the bad eggs to fester and damage the community. Take these people out of the community and when people like Sarkeesian show up she would be flailing against the wind, because she isn't going to be validated by the bad eggs we removed.

I don’t believe anyone could argue against ostracizing misogynists from tabletop games, aside from situations where they could see problems with their worldview.

Yeah, but how are we to ostracize them if we don't talk about it untill they explode publically and drag us all down?

Oh, I know, I know, call them bigots and "baskets of deplorables". That will help. It did before. /s

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Spoiler:

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

No one is harmed, except the objectification of women continues. You do realize that is one of the points right, just because nobody is harmed doesn't mean its ok. Opinions differ, selling boobie miniatures isn't going to be banned. Just realize where people are coming from on the other side.

Wouldn't literally any miniature be an objectification of something?

Of course, but that isn't what is meant by the objectification of the female body. Not all figures do that, but its hard to argue that those that do don't exist.

I would argue no figure objectifies women. They’re objects, they’re inanimate. They can’t force women to act a certain way. The idea that these figures have power over anyone is ridiculous. You can ascribe whatever narrative to a Brother Vinni sculpt you want, but at the end of the day it’s still an object. Objects don’t objectify women- people do. If want to argue people use figures to objectify women, I ask how? By making them fit a specific ideal? By representations of bound or wounded women? They’re still objects that make no statements. No flesh and blood woman was objectified, which is my core point. No harm or detriment was made.

They can't force it no, but it can be a representation of what the sculptor/costumer expects what a woman needs to look like to be a woman so to speak. Going back to my Total War example, just because they were not attractive enough it immediately made them men to some people.

At the end of the day it still indeed is an object. But its not as if we don't project on objects. Every representation of people that aren't real are objects, it doesn't mean that there isn't any thought behind it.

I think this is the main point of contention, is the underlying mentality behind the object harmful? I would argue in certain cases of the community it is.

If a miniature producer makes figures of nude women that are bound- do you assume the producer is a misogynist?

No, I would think its not to my taste, but as I can't read minds I would need a conversation.