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.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 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.

That was exactly what I said.
Grey skin ogres= Their own race, with their own traditions and way of life
Pink skin ogres= Fat humans.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 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?

The one you picked you mean I ascribe to the one that care about both

I thought you had made a mistake, now I know it was intentional it’s even funnier

Please never change, even in then slightest, you have provided me with hours of entertainment

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 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.

Then when could you identify a miniature as objectification? Or the mentality behind it harmful?

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 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.

Ok, having your cake and eating it too, got it. Your opinion is formed by the fact that you find it illogical or unreal, yet when I argue that certain stereotypical depictions are illogical or unreal its the fantasy handwave.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 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.

I honestly don't know what to say... you think men don't have breasts? What do you think our nipples are attached to?

Plastic miniatures that almost always turn out to be women uf they aren't boob monsters. You can claim that men have no breasts in one sentence and state that those miniatures with big boobs are not depictions of women in the next?

And again, I'm not arguing its all men, I have been firmly arguing about bad eggs... That comparison makes no sense.

[

topaxygouroun i 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.

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.

They sell because sex sells. Which clearly says something about why these miniatures get made. That doesn't me all of them expressions of misogyny, but its silly to pretend that it isn't about hot women.

I never said there was a plotting group. Again, bad eggs, read what I'm arguing. As for the market not being sexist, that is an amazing claim to make overall. Sexism can be a part of the market, because its a societal mindset. That doesn't make the whole market sexist, it just means that sexism might find a spot in it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 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.

Then when could you identify a miniature as objectification? Or the mentality behind it harmful?

By having said conversation? Look at the internet about Sarkeesian now, a lot of the bad eggs are getting drawn out outside of Dakka.

Is anyone else reminded of that scene in Spinal Tap where Nigel asks what's wrong with being sexy?

 Formosa wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 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?

The one you picked you mean I ascribe to the one that care about both

I thought you had made a mistake, now I know it was intentional it’s even funnier

Please never change, even in then slightest, you have provided me with hours of entertainment

But feminism that equally cares about both men and women isn't feminism. You're turning it into something that goes against thw core of the idea behind it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 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

Unless you want to share the community with people who think sending rape threats are funny? It doesn't have to help, I just want them out.

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 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.

Then when could you identify a miniature as objectification? Or the mentality behind it harmful?

A miniature is never harmful, except if you choose to see it this way. A miniature is not a voodoo doll. You can't poke it and suddenly women are oppressed. The only mentality behind making a miniature is the need to sell it and get money to buy your grocceries. The job mentality if you would have it. Some casters make super human soldiers in full plate killing space aliens. They do it because there are fans of this idea and they want to buy the miniatures. Some casters make boob miniatures. They do it because there are fans of this idea and they want to buy the miniatures.

Little girls don't look at wargame miniatures featuring huge boobs and think "woa now I have to be like it otherwise I am a failure". This is just not a scenario that happens. Do you know what harmful mentality do little girls get exposed to (and nobody protests it)? Disney princesses. Promising them the happy ending just by virtue of being lucky or beautiful. Heck there are even Disney princesses who don't even have to be alive to get the guy (sleeping beauty).

Unless you want to share the community with people who think sending rape threats are funny? It doesn't have to help, I just want them out.

I very much don't. However shouting and cursing will not help. And throwing the sexist grenade to everyone who disagrees with you will DEFINITELY not help either. And finally, if someone likes and buys a boob miniature it does not mean that they are sexist.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 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.

Then when could you identify a miniature as objectification? Or the mentality behind it harmful?

A miniature is never harmful, except if you choose to see it this way. A miniature is not a voodoo doll. You can't poke it and suddenly women are oppressed. The only mentality behind making a miniature is the need to sell it and get money to buy your grocceries. The job mentality if you would have it. Some casters make super human soldiers in full plate killing space aliens. They do it because there are fans of this idea and they want to buy the miniatures. Some casters make boob miniatures. They do it because there are fans of this idea and they want to buy the miniatures.

Little girls don't look at wargame miniatures featuring huge boobs and think "woa now I have to be like it otherwise I am a failure". This is just not a scenario that happens. Do you know what harmful mentality do little girls get exposed to (and nobody protests it)? Disney princesses. Promising them the happy ending just by virtue of being lucky or beautiful. Heck there are even Disney princesses who don't even have to be alive to get the guy (sleeping beauty).

Unless you want to share the community with people who think sending rape threats are funny? It doesn't have to help, I just want them out.

I very much don't. However shouting and cursing will not help. And throwing the sexist grenade to everyone who disagrees with you will DEFINITELY not help either.

Good thing I said the mentality behind it can be harmful then right. And no, throwing it to everyone certainly does not help.

This may come as a shock, but there's a huge row around Disney Princesses.

Mulan is the Disney movie with the best message for girls. And boys, everybody in general.

Mulan is a girl that does what she does not because of romantic love or because stupid motivations but because she wants to save his father's life. He works hard, is brave, and at the end of the day, she doesn't saves the day doing "men" things (Thats something many stories get wrong, the idea of a woman that becomes strong just because she behaves like a man), but because of her cleverness and inteligence (The palace scene).

And the movie in general is the most mature one of disney, showing a military conflict with tons of people dying, yeah, out of scene but what do you want.
And Shan Yu has no musical scene because Shan Yu is invading the fething china and killin people left and right. The "How many men are needed to deliver a message" left that clear.

People that says "Brave" is the feminist Disney's movie are just ignorant. Mulan is the real deal.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Spoiler:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 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.

Then when could you identify a miniature as objectification? Or the mentality behind it harmful?

A miniature is never harmful, except if you choose to see it this way. A miniature is not a voodoo doll. You can't poke it and suddenly women are oppressed. The only mentality behind making a miniature is the need to sell it and get money to buy your grocceries. The job mentality if you would have it. Some casters make super human soldiers in full plate killing space aliens. They do it because there are fans of this idea and they want to buy the miniatures. Some casters make boob miniatures. They do it because there are fans of this idea and they want to buy the miniatures.

Little girls don't look at wargame miniatures featuring huge boobs and think "woa now I have to be like it otherwise I am a failure". This is just not a scenario that happens. Do you know what harmful mentality do little girls get exposed to (and nobody protests it)? Disney princesses. Promising them the happy ending just by virtue of being lucky or beautiful. Heck there are even Disney princesses who don't even have to be alive to get the guy (sleeping beauty).

Unless you want to share the community with people who think sending rape threats are funny? It doesn't have to help, I just want them out.

I very much don't. However shouting and cursing will not help. And throwing the sexist grenade to everyone who disagrees with you will DEFINITELY not help either.

Good thing I said the mentality behind it can be harmful then right. And no, throwing it to everyone certainly does not help.

How do you identify the mentality behind a miniature as harmful tho?

 Sinful Hero wrote:
How do you identify the mentality behind a miniature as harmful tho?

Somewhere, on some 3D imaging program, a man is making tiddy commando girls. He twirls his mustache, wrings his hands, and licks his lips. "Muahahahaha! I'll make her have big titties, just to hurt little girls! Because I hate girls! Because REASONS!"

Thunder claps, and lightning strikes in the distance, while unsettling organ music plays.

If you want to see and understand how males should look sexualised look at the male pinups from KDM.

Disciple swings, he misses, he proves Formosa correct again and the crowd goes miiiiiild

feminism
ˈfɛmɪnɪz(ə)m/Submit
noun
the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.

EQUALITY OF THE SEXES, or are you gonna say the Oxford English Dictionary is wrong eh?

equality
ɪˈkwɒlɪti,iːˈkwɒlɪti/Submit
noun
1.
the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, or opportunities.

So that’s making both sexes equal, not men above woman’s and not woman’s above men, therefore by its very difintion feminism should promote men’s rights equally as it promotes woman’s, so again by its very definition.... disciple is not a feminist hahah

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
If you want to see and understand how males should look sexualised look at the male pinups from KDM.

Adam is doing something right with those models. I know my wife loves them. I’m quite fond of them myself.

 Sinful Hero wrote:
How do you identify the mentality behind a miniature as harmful tho?

That's a great question. Wikipedia is a great place to start, particularly good articles where you can follow up with sources listed in the bibliographies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism

 Nurglitch wrote:
That's a great question. Wikipedia is a great place to start, particularly good articles where you can follow up with sources listed in the bibliographies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism

So, at a certain point you may need to mull this one over, dude.

If something like a figurine, that people are free not to purchase, is 'harmful' because it's 'sexist'- something that trivial...

... you can't act shocked when you've watered down the definition of 'sexist' and people stop caring about it altogether.

Let's face it- miniature figures? Video game girls? Swimsuit ads? Cartoon drawings? It's starting to sound like all of these things are harmful and sexist unless we throw a tarp over every woman or make her morbidly obese.

I'd rather just be called 'sexist' by the emotionally fragile fringes of society than start censoring art. I can deal with that, because they're going to find some damned reason to do it anyway.

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Spoiler:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 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.

Then when could you identify a miniature as objectification? Or the mentality behind it harmful?

A miniature is never harmful, except if you choose to see it this way. A miniature is not a voodoo doll. You can't poke it and suddenly women are oppressed. The only mentality behind making a miniature is the need to sell it and get money to buy your grocceries. The job mentality if you would have it. Some casters make super human soldiers in full plate killing space aliens. They do it because there are fans of this idea and they want to buy the miniatures. Some casters make boob miniatures. They do it because there are fans of this idea and they want to buy the miniatures.

Little girls don't look at wargame miniatures featuring huge boobs and think "woa now I have to be like it otherwise I am a failure". This is just not a scenario that happens. Do you know what harmful mentality do little girls get exposed to (and nobody protests it)? Disney princesses. Promising them the happy ending just by virtue of being lucky or beautiful. Heck there are even Disney princesses who don't even have to be alive to get the guy (sleeping beauty).

Unless you want to share the community with people who think sending rape threats are funny? It doesn't have to help, I just want them out.

I very much don't. However shouting and cursing will not help. And throwing the sexist grenade to everyone who disagrees with you will DEFINITELY not help either.

Good thing I said the mentality behind it can be harmful then right. And no, throwing it to everyone certainly does not help.

How do you identify the mentality behind a miniature as harmful tho?

Again, by discussing these topics.

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
If you want to see and understand how males should look sexualised look at the male pinups from KDM.

Adam is doing something right with those models. I know my wife loves them. I’m quite fond of them myself.

Well they are blunt sexualised depictions of the male form, Adam was adamant he will not make male pinups until he found an artist to make proper male sexualised miniatures.

Now according to the logic sexualisation = bad (or worse) there should be an uproar, at least equal to the uproar female pinups got, but everybody seem to like them so double standards on the morality of sexualised human form?

Personally I like them they are quite well made and avoid been the caricatures people think "male power fantasy" is about.

 Nurglitch wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
How do you identify the mentality behind a miniature as harmful tho?

That's a great question. Wikipedia is a great place to start, particularly good articles where you can follow up with sources listed in the bibliographies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism

How do you identify sexism and misogyny through a miniature? What are the criteria? How does a miniature make a woman into an object?

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Nurglitch wrote:
That's a great question. Wikipedia is a great place to start, particularly good articles where you can follow up with sources listed in the bibliographies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism

So, at a certain point you may need to mull this one over, dude.

If something like a figurine, that people are free not to purchase, is 'harmful' because it's 'sexist'- something that trivial...

... you can't act shocked when you've watered down the definition of 'sexist' and people stop caring about it altogether.

Let's face it- miniature figures? Video game girls? Swimsuit ads? Cartoon drawings? It's starting to sound like all of these things are harmful and sexist unless we throw a tarp over every woman or make her morbidly obese.

I'd rather just be called 'sexist' by the emotionally fragile fringes of society than start censoring art. I can deal with that, because they're going to find some damned reason to do it anyway.

But Dorito... a sister of battle is only str3, we are limiting her rights and ability to wound a MALE space marines ! repression!!!’

 Formosa wrote:
But Dorito... a sister of battle is only str3, we are limiting her rights and ability to wound a MALE space marines ! repression!!!’

LMAO.

Still waiting to hear some complaints from people about their rules from people who only know how to play Loyalist Marines.

 Formosa wrote:
Disciple swings, he misses, he proves Formosa correct again and the crowd goes miiiiiild

feminism
ˈfɛmɪnɪz(ə)m/Submit
noun
the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.

EQUALITY OF THE SEXES, or are you gonna say the Oxford English Dictionary is wrong eh?

equality
ɪˈkwɒlɪti,iːˈkwɒlɪti/Submit
noun
1.
the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, or opportunities.

So that’s making both sexes equal, not men above woman’s and not woman’s above men, therefore by its very difintion feminism should promote men’s rights equally as it promotes woman’s, so again by its very definition.... disciple is not a feminist hahah

You do realize that women have a longer way to go to equality right? This is like showing up to a Black Lives Matter rally and saying "I agree, but don't All Lives Matter?". You're missing the point by quoting a dictionary. It even says right there "the advocacy of WOMEN'S rights on the ground of the equality"

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Nurglitch wrote:
That's a great question. Wikipedia is a great place to start, particularly good articles where you can follow up with sources listed in the bibliographies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism

So, at a certain point you may need to mull this one over, dude.

If something like a figurine, that people are free not to purchase, is 'harmful' because it's 'sexist'- something that trivial...

... you can't act shocked when you've watered down the definition of 'sexist' and people stop caring about it altogether.

Let's face it- miniature figures? Video game girls? Swimsuit ads? Cartoon drawings? It's starting to sound like all of these things are harmful and sexist unless we throw a tarp over every woman or make her morbidly obese.

I'd rather just be called 'sexist' by the emotionally fragile fringes of society than start censoring art. I can deal with that, because they're going to find some damned reason to do it anyway.

I have mulled it over. Here's what I figure, that people are free to buy what they want. But, as noted, part of the problem with sexism is its pervasiveness. Miniatures, video games, advertisements, cartoons, and that's the tip of the iceberg. All these things add up. And sexualizing endomorphs as well as other body shapes and sizes, or 'throwing a tarp over every woman' is beside the point. The point is that it's more like constant, pervasive gnawing rudeness. People who are being sexist are being asked not to be so constantly rude, so to speak, and it would be funny to see the response except that the response is just more sexism. It's like yes, I know you like chewing with your mouth open. You like doing it, and it's a free country, but it would be considerate of some of us if you wouldn't.

So I'm sorry we're emotionally fragile and that we upset you by asking if you wouldn't rub it in quite so much and maybe be considerate of others. And yes, once you stop being sexist, I'm going to presume it's because you've decided to be considerate of others, and I'm going to follow up with other requests based on your newfound consideration for others.

Incidentally, English also needs a plural second person pronoun besides you (and I'll settle for 'youse' or 'y'all').

 Nurglitch wrote:

So I'm sorry we're emotionally fragile and that we upset you by asking if you wouldn't rub it in quite so much and maybe be considerate of others. And yes, once you stop being sexist, I'm going to presume it's because you've decided to be considerate of others, and I'm going to follow up with other requests based on your newfound consideration for others.

Incidentally, English also needs a plural second person pronoun besides you (and I'll settle for 'youse' or 'y'all').

"Youse" works if you're from the Northeastern US. You can splash in some profanity to make it more authentic.

But are you emotionally fragile? Let me show you something, please hear me out here:

Being considerate of someone's feelings: Bob does not like my third-party bikini model, he just politely tells me he's not comfortable with it if I want to play a game with him. That's pretty fair- I can elect to either swap the model, or just play with someone else. All is civil, everybody wins.

Being emotionally fragile: Bob does not like my third-party bikini model and demands I never use it, and proceeds to berate me for having something that harms women. Bob is not being civil, Bob is being a snowflake.

In the former, I'm pretty sure that gives everyone involved a right to 'agree to disagree' and people can choose what they do. In the latter, someone's just screaming at me- he can shove it and play in the highway, and I'm pretty sure this would make him rather unwelcome around the community.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
If you want to see and understand how males should look sexualised look at the male pinups from KDM.

Adam is doing something right with those models. I know my wife loves them. I’m quite fond of them myself.

Well they are blunt sexualised depictions of the male form, Adam was adamant he will not make male pinups until he found an artist to make proper male sexualised miniatures.

Now according to the logic sexualisation = bad (or worse) there should be an uproar, at least equal to the uproar female pinups got, but everybody seem to like them so double standards on the morality of sexualised human form?

Personally I like them they are quite well made and avoid been the caricatures people think "male power fantasy" is about.

I put the people that claims "all sexualisation=bad" at the same level as religious prudes claiming the same thing 50-60 years ago.
I can understand people that complaints that only one gender is over-sexualized while the other isn't. Thats why I claim for more sexualization in general, not in specific (There could be products that only show one gender sexualized because their target is the opposite gender/homosexuals), so I believe products cattering for the other gender should exist too. And I'm glad that they are becoming more popular, as Bobtheinquisitor said with Marvel and KMD shows.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Disciple swings, he misses, he proves Formosa correct again and the crowd goes miiiiiild

feminism
ˈfɛmɪnɪz(ə)m/Submit
noun
the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.

EQUALITY OF THE SEXES, or are you gonna say the Oxford English Dictionary is wrong eh?

equality
ɪˈkwɒlɪti,iːˈkwɒlɪti/Submit
noun
1.
the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, or opportunities.

So that’s making both sexes equal, not men above woman’s and not woman’s above men, therefore by its very difintion feminism should promote men’s rights equally as it promotes woman’s, so again by its very definition.... disciple is not a feminist hahah

You do realize that women have a longer way to go to equality right? This is like showing up to a Black Lives Matter rally and saying "I agree, but don't All Lives Matter?". You're missing the point by quoting a dictionary. It even says right there "the advocacy of WOMEN'S rights on the ground of the equality"

In a game whose setting so prominently features demon worship, actual demons, armored super-freaks, soccer hooligans, all-consuming bioweapon hordes, Terminator robots, the Inquisition, and a god devoted to blood and skulls, one may be forgiven for not being conscious of the niceties of social equity.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Nurglitch wrote:

So I'm sorry we're emotionally fragile and that we upset you by asking if you wouldn't rub it in quite so much and maybe be considerate of others. And yes, once you stop being sexist, I'm going to presume it's because you've decided to be considerate of others, and I'm going to follow up with other requests based on your newfound consideration for others.

Incidentally, English also needs a plural second person pronoun besides you (and I'll settle for 'youse' or 'y'all').

"Youse" works if you're from the Northeastern US. You can splash in some profanity to make it more authentic.

But are you emotionally fragile? Let me show you something, please hear me out here:

Being considerate of someone's feelings: Bob does not like my third-party bikini model, he just politely tells me he's not comfortable with it if I want to play a game with him. That's pretty fair- I can elect to either swap the model, or just play with someone else. All is civil, everybody wins.

Being emotionally fragile: Bob does not like my third-party bikini model and demands I never use it, and proceeds to berate me for having something that harms women. Bob is not being civil, Bob is being a snowflake.

In the former, I'm pretty sure that gives everyone involved a right to 'agree to disagree' and people can choose what they do. In the latter, someone's just screaming at me- he can shove it and play in the highway, and I'm pretty sure this would make him rather unwelcome around the community.

Exactly. I'm hoping for a world in which the guy showing up with the sexist miniatures at the local gaming shop is treated just like the guy that loses his temper when confronted by someone he doesn't like, and is unwelcome in the shop or club. Much like how people sporting Nazi symbology on their miniatures currently are.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Disciple swings, he misses, he proves Formosa correct again and the crowd goes miiiiiild

feminism
ˈfɛmɪnɪz(ə)m/Submit
noun
the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.

EQUALITY OF THE SEXES, or are you gonna say the Oxford English Dictionary is wrong eh?

equality
ɪˈkwɒlɪti,iːˈkwɒlɪti/Submit
noun
1.
the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, or opportunities.

So that’s making both sexes equal, not men above woman’s and not woman’s above men, therefore by its very difintion feminism should promote men’s rights equally as it promotes woman’s, so again by its very definition.... disciple is not a feminist hahah

You do realize that women have a longer way to go to equality right? This is like showing up to a Black Lives Matter rally and saying "I agree, but don't All Lives Matter?". You're missing the point by quoting a dictionary. It even says right there "the advocacy of WOMEN'S rights on the ground of the equality"

Haha I knew you would try to argue with the LITERAL meaning of femisim, you continue to prove me right every time you open your mouth, you don’t even know the meaning of the thing you are professing to support.


Wanna hear a secret though .... lean closer .... I live with a feminist lesbian couple, they are in their late 50’s and easily the best people I’ve ever known, I known what a real feminist is from them, from their stories, they had a real fight, real issues to push against, being gay in Northern Ireland in the troubles is likely the biggest issue they faced... they are fething heroes and modern day “feminists” are pathetic shadows of these great pioneers, they are god damn inspirations!

And that is why I mock you, your not a feminist, your a bored man trying to look good in you’re peir group, you’ve likely never fought... really fought for anything in your life.

Yes I’m being harsh, but at least I’m being honest.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Disciple swings, he misses, he proves Formosa correct again and the crowd goes miiiiiild

feminism
ˈfɛmɪnɪz(ə)m/Submit
noun
the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.

EQUALITY OF THE SEXES, or are you gonna say the Oxford English Dictionary is wrong eh?

equality
ɪˈkwɒlɪti,iːˈkwɒlɪti/Submit
noun
1.
the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, or opportunities.

So that’s making both sexes equal, not men above woman’s and not woman’s above men, therefore by its very difintion feminism should promote men’s rights equally as it promotes woman’s, so again by its very definition.... disciple is not a feminist hahah

You do realize that women have a longer way to go to equality right? This is like showing up to a Black Lives Matter rally and saying "I agree, but don't All Lives Matter?". You're missing the point by quoting a dictionary. It even says right there "the advocacy of WOMEN'S rights on the ground of the equality"

In a game whose setting so prominently features demon worship, actual demons, armored super-freaks, soccer hooligans, all-consuming bioweapon hordes, Terminator robots, the Inquisition, and a god devoted to blood and skulls, one may be forgiven for not being conscious of the niceties of social equity.

“Black and white learned a long time ago to gang up on green”

Got to love terry pratchett

Actually, I don’t think I’m going to continue that tangent.