Cheesecake models, women gamers, and social justice.

The discussion in the Age of Sigmar thread got pretty not about Age of Sigmar, but I think it was a really interesting conversation that merits its own thread.

To quickly summarize, I said I worried that Raging Heroes might be one of the reasons why there are so few women wargamers.

I also said that, given the percentage of wargamers who are women versus the percentage of other types of gamer, such as Magic players, I think we have a serious and ongoing gender issue in our hobby.

Some people more or less called me an idiot.

Let's talk about this here!

Why do representations of women, and especially women soldiers, have to be sexy? Why does that sexiness have to be wildly impractical?

Note that I have zero problems with bare breasts, or with sexy, but I do feel like depictions of warrior women in high heels with bare breasts so big that they give themselves a concussion if they tried to run are stupid to the point of insulting my intelligence. Also note that I think GW's depictions of women, while too few, have been by and large quite good.

I don't think realism is that big of a deal in wargaming minis.

RH is unrealistic, but their soldiers are intended as IG substitutes. To that end, two of their three human analog armies from their first KS are fully clothed, and armored about as effectively as their male GW counterparts. (Yes, they still have sculpted chest plates, I'll address that in a sec.) The third seems clearly intended to fill a Catachan (read: American Vietnam) style, and to that end their clothing is no less protective than what actual GIs got, and no more revealing than male clothing in similar speculative images.

Their proportions are totally unrealistic, but virtually every good mini can say that. At 25mm scale, realistic proportions just look awful. And at that size, if you want a mini to be recognizably female, you have to emphasize the secondary sex characteristics, including body shape.

The most egregious offenses from the TGG KS are no worse than what we see in Alien or Tank Girl, neither of which are being accused of hideous sexism. Rather, they are taken in good humor, as they were most likely intended.

I think, when it comes to minis, Kingdom Death is an infinitely worse offender. Graphic sexual images coupled with grotesque body horror make for a particularly loathsome 'torture porn' aesthetic that's far more offensive (and degrading to women) than anything RH has done.

That's just my own take on it; as an RH backer to the tune of $600 over two KS, my objectivity might rightly be questioned here.

I think it's a misconception that the depiction of women in certain ways (and I argue that they're technically depictions of women in the individual sense not the collective sense) is a barrier to women being interested in engaging with a medium. This is absurd. Firsly where were the women in wargaming before this recent explosion of provocative and sexualised models? Sure we had the same thing in the 80's but it was less prominent. Still very very few ladies in the hobby though. And why are women not boycotting the fine arts? Plenty of sexualised nudity in the fine arts throughout the entirety of human history. Plenty of male nudity too. Nobody seems to mind.

The fact is women generally are not attracted to wargaming. Doesn't matter what you do to make it a friendly and safe space for them, they just aren't interested. Just as many men aren't interested in playing with tea sets. Sure there are exceptions and many of either gender will enjoy both pastimes but the fact remains that you can't gender educate anyone to enjoy a specific hobby. They'll either like it or they won't.

I don't like this idea of bringing gender politics into hobbies and twisting them with Victorian attitudes. There's nothing wrong with sexualised human forms, it's organized religion and their hang ups and needs to control society that disseminated the idea that sex is bad. I thought we had a social evolution in the 60's to overthrow the prudish Victorian disgust of sex? Wan't this when was forced to accept that women could be sexual without being objects?

I agree that the idea of a chainmail bikini being armour is laughable and for that reason I wouldn't use such models. But I sometimes like female models to look sexy just I like male models to look kickass. But the same goes the other way too, depends on what purpose they have in my collection. There's an argument that there should be some parity in the sexualised models, there should be some sexy and unrealistic dudes too but economics will dictate that there'd be less of those because of hobby demographics.

There's a case that gaming ranges should include more female figures in general as it's very difficult to field an entirely female army. In 40k you can take SoB or you can field DE as all female but that's about it. Fantasy had a lot of female only elf units but not an entire army. I'm sure many women gamers would love to field an all female army, as would many men. Gamers do have some ground for declaring gender discrimination here due to sheer lack of representation. But this should be addressed sensibly, perhaps more diversity in elf models for the new AoS line, a unit of IG from a world where women fill out the defence force etc. I don't want to see female space marines or women in every army for the same reason I don't want to see women in chainmail bikini's or barbarians running around in loin cloths. It's dumb, unrealistic and smacks of external wish-fulfilment that has no real place in wargaming for me. Do that yourself if you really want to, field your tentacled she-demons of torture-lust if that's what gets you off, but don't make me have to do it. And certainly don't tell people that they can't do it because it offends you. If you don't like it just don't do it. Don't play those guys if you really object to it. But don't tell them they can't do it.

The "torture porn" aesthetic isn't any more offensive than anything else. Sure you might not like it but again why do you get to tell somebody what isn't appropriate? Sure some of it may be in bad taste and anything in the same ball park as Hentai will find itself in bad taste for the great majority of collectors. but some people like them or they wouldn't sell. So long as nothing vile and illegal is being represented what's the problem? The history of human artisitc expression is filled with examples of this kind of expression. The human mind is full of darker passions and you can't say that anything that doesn't follow recognized social norms is of no value. Sure it might be deviant but that doesn't mean it has no value. It just has no value to you. A brief examination of sexualised deviancy (of the legal kind not the criminal kind) will lead you recognize that males are oftent he recipients of the much of the "torture", often perpetrated by females. So the nature of these subcultures aren't necessarily sexist, thus the depiction of such in miniature isn't necessarily sexist. Again economic would dictate that for a range of models with such a niche appeal in an industry dominate vastly by males that certain styles of model will sell and others won't. Again, if you don't like them don't buy them.

There's plenty of genuine sexism (and other serious discriminations) throughout the world. Wargaming s the least of our worries.

Calyptra wrote:

Why do representations of women, and especially women soldiers, have to be sexy? Why does that sexiness have to be wildly impractical?

I'm guessing this is your core question. I would challenge both questions though. My quick answers are;

1. They don't.
2. It doesn't.

I actually think it is unfair to suggest that either condition exists as an absolute, and I also think it's unfair to suggest that it's a particularly brutal trend. Let's break down each point a bit.

Why do women soldiers "have" to be sexy? Well...for the same reason male soldiers "have" to be hyper-masculine. It's a fantasy trope that is played out as often in Hollywood or in paintings as it is in anything else. For example, is this images offensive to the point of insulting my intelligence as a man?

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11120/111201214/4590763-conan-the-barbarian-arnold-schwarzenegger-movie-image.jpg

I don't think so. That said, I do accept that there is a titillation and fantasy fulfillment nature of it, and also that the image is not particularly one of a viable set of armored protection in the sense of its times. I am aware of this, and I am fine with it, because it is way cooler, sexier, and fantastic to have the hero running around like that. I find the female form attractive, and enjoy seeing it shone off, I own and will buy again in the future models that showcase that. I also own and will buy again models that don't (for instance, I know from Raging Heroes most recent Kickstarter one of the models I really want is the heavy-set Cannoness character, specifically because I think she looks both unique and badass. But that doesn't mean I want no sexy half naked miniatures, and it also doesn't mean I want no sensible non supermodel looking miniatures.

Secondly, as far as practicality...well, again, it's fantasy. The sheer fact I paint my Imperial Fists bright yellow is pretty much me admitting that I give not two figs about practicality or realism. What I am after is a look and aesthetic. Now, maybe my look and aesthetic is for hyper realism and practicality, and in that case I would paint my Marines like the old RT Camo themes. People can do that. They can also, if they dislike a certain given model for any given reason, seek out a model that they like.

I want both, and I want both for both genders - because both can look good and fulfill different desires and needs that I, as a gamer, painter, and collector, have.

So I do not begrudge any given company, sculptor, or sculpt for attempting something. If I do not care for it, I will not buy it, and its existence does not bother me enough as an artistic medium to demand any level of outrage. Now, perhaps that's because I'm white and male, so I live in the bubble, but, really, I know for a fact that proportionate, reasonable, and sensible female models exist in multiple lines. I know because I own some, and use them. So, at that point, is the issue that any that don't meet this criteria exist at all? I can't get behind that. And if the issue is that 'not enough exist to meet an unstated belief of what is proper' well...I honestly expect that to either change over time, or not, dependent on the market demands and societal pressures (of which this industry has few).

I am unsure how many females are turned off from the hobby due to this - but, frankly, looking at GW's overall female models in compare/contrast to their male ones, I think it must be fairly few - as that company has, generally, done an okay job in mixing it up in a fair way. So, at that stage, it is either a dearth of female characters or an actual greater sociological avoidance of the hobby than simply the chainmail bikini.

At least that would be my supposition.

Also, I like chainmail bikinis and leather jockstraps - I would be sad if they left fantasy/sci-fi art.

Demantiae wrote:

The fact is women generally are not attracted to wargaming. Doesn't matter what you do to make it a friendly and safe space for them, they just aren't interested. Just as many men aren't interested in playing with tea sets. Sure there are exceptions and many of either gender will enjoy both pastimes but the fact remains that you can't gender educate anyone to enjoy a specific hobby. They'll either like it or they won't.

Kind of a self fulfilling prophecy.  

Quote :

I don't like this idea of bringing gender politics into hobbies and twisting them with Victorian attitudes. There's nothing wrong with sexualised human forms, it's organized religion and their hang ups and needs to control society that disseminated the idea that sex is bad. I thought we had a social evolution in the 60's to overthrow the prudish Victorian disgust of sex? Wan't this when was forced to accept that women could be sexual without being objects?

We did.  And then a male-dominated corporate and media structure used this new found freedom to use the appeal of sex to objectify women in new and even more demeaning ways.

Quote :

I agree that the idea of a chainmail bikini being armour is laughable and for that reason I wouldn't use such models. But I sometimes like female models to look sexy just I like male models to look kickass. But the same goes the other way too, depends on what purpose they have in my collection. There's an argument that there should be some parity in the sexualised models, there should be some sexy and unrealistic dudes too but economics will dictate that there'd be less of those because of hobby demographics.

Definitely agree with the first bit.  I'm not looking for realism, it's fantasy for cryin out loud!    Not so sure about the second bit.  I think it might be more like cartoons--there are definitely more females who'd like to participate, but the industry refuses to acknowledge or address them.

Quote :

The "torture porn" aesthetic isn't any more offensive than anything else. Sure you might not like it but again why do you get to tell somebody what isn't appropriate? Sure some of it may be in bad taste and anything in the same ball park as Hentai will find itself in bad taste for the great majority of collectors. but some people like them or they wouldn't sell. So long as nothing vile and illegal is being represented what's the problem? The history of human artisitc expression is filled with examples of this kind of expression. The human mind is full of darker passions and you can't say that anything that doesn't follow recognized social norms is of no value. Sure it might be deviant but that doesn't mean it has no value. It just has no value to you. A brief examination of sexualised deviancy (of the legal kind not the criminal kind) will lead you recognize that males are oftent he recipients of the much of the "torture", often perpetrated by females. So the nature of these subcultures aren't necessarily sexist, thus the depiction of such in miniature isn't necessarily sexist. Again economic would dictate that for a range of models with such a niche appeal in an industry dominate vastly by males that certain styles of model will sell and others won't. Again, if you don't like them don't buy them.

I don't think anyone is saying you shouldn't be ABLE to make torture porn minis.  In the same way that you shouldn't be able to ban assault fantasy pornography.  Or faux snuff films, if that's your thing.  But they certainly aren't healthy, and usually don't promote good gender relations.

Quote :

There's plenty of genuine sexism (and other serious discriminations) throughout the world. Wargaming s the least of our worries.

Good note to end on; agree wholeheartedly.

EDIT: Just to clarify, I think there is a fine line between art and pornography (art carrying some kind of intent for emotional or intellectual resonance, and pornography being intended primarily for sexual titillation or arousal).

Don't get me wrong, lol: I don't have anything against pornography.  Even in wargaming!  (It'd be pretty hypocritical of me to claim otherwise!)  But in writing, or privately displayed pieces, the onus of engagement is on the viewer/reader, which means 'if you don't like it, don't read it/look at it' is a valid response.  But when you bring miniatures to a game, you are forcing other people to engage with your work/purchase.  You're bringing it into the club, where other people didn't make the choice to play with/around the piece.  The inherently interactive (and cooperative) nature of the game makes miniatures which are beyond the boundaries of good taste something which should be left at home.

Demantiae wrote:

I don't like this idea of bringing gender politics into hobbies and twisting them with Victorian attitudes. There's nothing wrong with sexualised human forms, it's organized religion and their hang ups and needs to control society that disseminated the idea that sex is bad. I thought we had a social evolution in the 60's to overthrow the prudish Victorian disgust of sex?

This is very annoying. It's frustrating to be cast as a kind of prudish Aunt Gertrude figure in Victorian dress going, 'Boobs? Horrors! Take it away, I say, AWAY!'

That's not the idea at all.

Cheesecake has it's place. Cheesecake all around! Sure, why not? BUT... try this: Do a google image search for 'Sexy Miniatures' (don't do this at work, obviously). How many guys do you find? I've done so, and I can tell you: none. Not one model of a guy in a deliberately sexualised design.

'Sexy Male Miniatures'? Nope, it just brings up all the chicks again.

'Bishy Miniatures'? Anima Tactics has a few, and that's pretty much it.

Experiment Number Two: Try to find me a miniature for my role-playing character. She was a kid from the wrong side of the streets who got up to all sorts of badness to survive in a harsh and unforgiving world. Now she's a rogue for hire and a loner with a fierce hatred of society and a hair-trigger temper, who will slit your throat if you so much as look at her funny.

Pretty badass, huh? Now try to find her.

What if it were a guy instead? Well, that was quick. So many options.

This, you see, is the problem. There aren't many models or characters that you can identify with, unless you happen to be looking for a Femme Fatale or a Playful Cutie. Female miniatures are overwhelmingly made for guys.

Demantiae wrote:

The "torture porn" aesthetic isn't any more offensive than anything else.

Try to put yourself in a woman's shoes (not literally, mind). How many times in your life have you worried about being assault? Are you often afraid to be out alone? Do you look at a miniature of a 'Slave Girl in Distress' and think, 'That might actually happen to me?'

I'm not suggesting for a second that torture porn leads to actual assault, or that the game store is going to turn into The Accused, but is it really that difficult to understand why having things like that around is going to make women uncomfortable?

Thor665 wrote:

Why do women soldiers "have" to be sexy? Well...for the same reason male soldiers "have" to be hyper-masculine. It's a fantasy trope that is played out as often in Hollywood or in paintings as it is in anything else. For example, is this images offensive to the point of insulting my intelligence as a man?

Why would it? It shows Arnie being strong, competent, and powerful. Of course it's a trope. An old, tired, outdated, anachronistic trope from the pulps of the 1930s. Oddly enough, I like it when women are shown to be strong, competent, and powerful too.

Hollywood action movies are catching up, albeit slowly. Off the top of my head there's Uma Thurman ('Kill Bill'), Angelina Jolie ('Salt'), Sharon Stone ('The Quick and the Dead'), Keira Knightley ('Centurion'), and of course, dear god, the absolutely fantastic and utterly badass work of genius that was Charlize Theron as Imperator Furiosa ('Mad Max: Fury Road').

It's a bad show when game designers are actually behind Hollywood in keeping up with the times!

Barking Agatha wrote:

try this: Do a google image search for 'Sexy Miniatures' (don't do this at work, obviously). How many guys do you find? I've done so, and I can tell you: none. Not one model of a guy in a deliberately sexualised design.

I definitely was swamped with females on this one (or canoodling couples).

Barking Agatha wrote:

'Sexy Male Miniatures'? Nope, it just brings up all the chicks again.

This search actually gave me a whole lot of male models in...very explicit and sheer underwear choices. No miniatures at all - those packages were plus sized to be sure

Barking Agatha wrote:

'Bishy Miniatures'? Anima Tactics has a few, and that's pretty much it.

I didn't get any male miniatures on this one - didn't really get female ones either.

I will note that Google does affect searches based on your own past search history...though after my 'sexy male miniatures' search I may not wish to point that out.

Barking Agatha wrote:

Experiment Number Two: Try to find me a miniature for my role-playing character. She was a kid from the wrong side of the streets who got up to all sorts of badness to survive in a harsh and unforgiving world. Now she's a rogue for hire and a loner with a fierce hatred of society and a hair-trigger temper, who will slit your throat if you so much as look at her funny.

Pretty badass, huh? Now try to find her.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41tjlpq8KJL._AC_UL320_SR290,320_.jpg
http://www.rpgminiatures.com/acatalog/guthrie_03big.jpg
http://www.darkswordminiatures.com/shop/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/330x/040ec09b1e35df139433887a97daa66f/7/4/7444_f1_p.jpg
http://product-images.highwire.com/1795220/2772679.jpg
http://static2.paizo.com/image/product/catalog/RPR/RPR03255_500.jpeg
http://www.belminiart.com/lauman/gallery/lodainthief/lodoni1.jpg
http://images.frpgames.org/products/product_31216.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/f7/f9/51/f7f951cd6d0dd32e7ea338620925e43e.jpg
http://www.adepticon.org/wpimages/2006/mini2.jpg
http://product-images.highwire.com/1795277/2772770.jpg
http://www.fantization.com/images/products/display/60095.jpg
http://www.darkswordminiatures.com/shop/media/wysiwyg/Parkinson/2111/P_Set2_FemaleElfRightSide_g.jpg
http://miniset.net/files/set/rm-03082.jpg
http://www.darkswordminiatures.com/shop/media/wysiwyg/Caldwell/3103/fan_c_s1_glenf_mw.jpg
http://static2.paizo.com/image/product/catalog/RPR/RPR60013_500.jpeg
http://940ee6dce6677fa01d25-0f55c9129972ac85d6b1f4e703468e6b.r99.cf2.rackcdn.com/products/pictures/314121.jpg

I just did a Google search for 'Female Rogue Miniature' and grabbed things off the first page of results that were not 'sexualized' beyond some cleavage or armor covered boobs. I actually kind of want the miniature that is the first link. I also know for a fact that if I go to the Reaper site I will have lots of good options (at least in my opinion).

Barking Agatha wrote:

What if it were a guy instead? Well, that was quick. So many options.

I will agree that there are probably 'more' options, but I don't agree that a female option has a dearth of possible choices if that's your contention.

Barking Agatha wrote:

This, you see, is the problem. There aren't many models or characters that you can identify with, unless you happen to be looking for a Femme Fatale or a Playful Cutie. Female miniatures are overwhelmingly made for guys.

I would agree that a solid percentage of female models are made to be sexual with guys as an intended audience. I disagree with it as a problem though - a vast majority of erotic fiction is written with females in mind, not guys, and the men in those books are not what I would call men that I can identify with. I agree that can be annoying, I'm just not sure that the presence of a bias is evidence of a problem that demands solution though, if other options are available in, what I perceive as, reasonable amounts.

Barking Agatha wrote:

Why would it? It shows Arnie being strong, competent, and powerful. Of course it's a trope. An old, tired, outdated, anachronistic trope from the pulps of the 1930s. Oddly enough, I like it when women are shown to be strong, competent, and powerful too.

The OP presented the idea of sexualized imagery as being insulting to the intelligence of the viewer.
I agree with you that the Arnie image is not. I actually think your ability to look at a sexualized male image and see power and competence actually speaks to the idea that, often, the message of a piece of art (in whatever format) is strongly affected by the perceptions of the viewer.

I actually suspect many men look at sexually attractive and provocative female images and see that as 'strong' women. I will agree many do not, and will also agree that it is hardly the same for everyone. But that's kind of my point - I am fine with the images within the context of how they're being used and don't think the presence of cheescake is an inherent stop for people who might otherwise enjoy the hobby.

Barking Agatha wrote:

Hollywood action movies are catching up, albeit slowly. Off the top of my head there's Uma Thurman ('Kill Bill'), Angelina Jolie ('Salt'), Sharon Stone ('The Quick and the Dead'), Keira Knightley ('Centurion'), and of course, dear god, the absolutely fantastic and utterly badass work of genius that was Charlize Theron as Imperator Furiosa ('Mad Max: Fury Road').

If that qualifies as 'catching up' why doesn't also the presence of non-sexualized miniatures? I presume you agree sensible female minis exist? So it's really just percentage amount that is the issue? I just think if Hollywood is okay, then surely miniature manufacturers are - I would put both groups into the same general social bucket for how they present and market the female form with neither really being better or worse than the other - yeah?

Thor665 wrote:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41tjlpq8KJL._AC_UL320_SR290,320_.jpg
http://www.rpgminiatures.com/acatalog/guthrie_03big.jpg
http://www.darkswordminiatures.com/shop/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/330x/040ec09b1e35df139433887a97daa66f/7/4/7444_f1_p.jpg
http://product-images.highwire.com/1795220/2772679.jpg
http://static2.paizo.com/image/product/catalog/RPR/RPR03255_500.jpeg
http://www.belminiart.com/lauman/gallery/lodainthief/lodoni1.jpg
http://images.frpgames.org/products/product_31216.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/f7/f9/51/f7f951cd6d0dd32e7ea338620925e43e.jpg
http://www.adepticon.org/wpimages/2006/mini2.jpg
http://product-images.highwire.com/1795277/2772770.jpg
http://www.fantization.com/images/products/display/60095.jpg
http://www.darkswordminiatures.com/shop/media/wysiwyg/Parkinson/2111/P_Set2_FemaleElfRightSide_g.jpg
http://miniset.net/files/set/rm-03082.jpg
http://www.darkswordminiatures.com/shop/media/wysiwyg/Caldwell/3103/fan_c_s1_glenf_mw.jpg
http://static2.paizo.com/image/product/catalog/RPR/RPR60013_500.jpeg
http://940ee6dce6677fa01d25-0f55c9129972ac85d6b1f4e703468e6b.r99.cf2.rackcdn.com/products/pictures/314121.jpg

Some of those are nice, yeah. I'm curious about this one:

http://www.adepticon.org/wpimages/2006/mini2.jpg

I can't find out where she's from. Any ideas?

On the other hand, I'm not sure why you included this one:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/f7/f9/51/f7f951cd6d0dd32e7ea338620925e43e.jpg

Really? Does that say badass, cutthroat, scary-ass b* to you?

Thor665 wrote:

I would agree that a solid percentage of female models are made to be sexual with guys as an intended audience. I disagree with it as a problem though - a vast majority of erotic fiction is written with females in mind, not guys, and the men in those books are not what I would call men that I can identify with.

And that would be a problem, if we wanted more guys to get into 'Fifty Shades of Torturing the English Language', but why would you do that to anyone, except as terrible vengeance?

Thor665 wrote:

I actually think your ability to look at a sexualized male image...

A what now? Was... that your idea of a 'sexualised male image'? I don't think so!

No. These are sexualised male images:

http://static9.depositphotos.com/1371851/1101/i/950/depositphotos_11012815-Male-model-pose.jpg
http://talkaboutweight.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Male-Model.jpg
http://g02.a.alicdn.com/kf/HTB1j6SJHVXXXXaPXVXXq6xXFXXXA/Zod-panties-u-sexy-underwear-male-briefs-low-waist-brief-breathable-rhinestone-butt-lifting-comfortable-male.jpg
http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/man-chains-20638960.jpg
http://static3.fashionmagazine247.com/img/33400/11.jpg
http://coo4.tuvotacion.com:81/imagenes_unicas/el-chico-de-one-direction-mas-sexy-en-baniador-366637.jpg
http://instinctmagazine.com/sites/instinctmagazine.com/files/images/blog_posts/Jonathan%20Higbee/2014/01/06/bradgoreski.png

Now just imagine, for a moment, that space marines all looked like that.

You know, never mind. I'm imagining it and suddenly it doesn't look like such a bad idea.

[quote="Barking Agatha"]

Thor665 wrote:

Some of those are nice, yeah. I'm curious about this one:

http://www.adepticon.org/wpimages/2006/mini2.jpg

I can't find out where she's from. Any ideas?

Afraid not.

Barking Agatha wrote:

On the other hand, I'm not sure why you included this one:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/f7/f9/51/f7f951cd6d0dd32e7ea338620925e43e.jpg

Really? Does that say badass, cutthroat, scary-ass b* to you?

If I saw a woman in leather armor and a cloak duel wielding swords while pointing at me with one and scowling? Yes.
But I certainly accept that this is subjective - so if it doesn't say it to you that is fine, I don't feel need to have everything I perceive from art to be also perceived by others.

Barking Agatha wrote:

And that would be a problem, if we wanted more guys to get into 'Fifty Shades of Torturing the English Language', but why would you do that to anyone, except as terrible vengeance?

I can agree with that
That said, it's a valid counter discussion. Is the "male dominated" tabletop miniature game male dominated due to marketing decisions, or are marketing decisions made because it's male dominated? Same applies to fiction erotica. I, personally, am not sure on which came first in that chicken and egg discussion, but it seems to be part of this question.

Barking Agatha wrote:

A what now? Was... that your idea of a 'sexualised male image'? I don't think so!  

That's fine - but a man wearing nothing but a leather bikini bottom and holding his sword in front of his crotch is certainly in line with many of the types of issues I have seen raised even in this thread for what constitutes a sexualized female image. If Arnie doesn't do it for you I'm not going to force you to reconsider.

Barking Agatha wrote:

No. These are sexualised male images:

I would rather say 'these are *also* sexualized male images' but, yes, I agree with you, they are sexualized male images.

Barking Agatha wrote:

Now just imagine, for a moment, that space marines all looked like that.

I would submit that, depending on the artist, they often do look overly beefcake-y.
I mean, I love me the Thor movies from Marvel comics, and apparently it is in Chris Hemsworth's contract to run around without a shirt for no particular purpose at a given point in each of those movies - it doesn't negatively impact my attitude towards the movies anymore than the obligatory 'woman in underwear/bikini' thing that is the gender reverse. The question on the table, as far as I can tell, is whether those sorts of things are 'bad' for the miniature industry to draw in women, and I am of the opinion that it is not. That's the point I'm attempting to convey along with (perhaps) reasoning.

Barking Agatha wrote:

You know, never mind. I'm imagining it and suddenly it doesn't look like such a bad idea.

Maybe you just found a niche market that could make you some money and draw some women into the miniature war gaming. If I had the skill and a 3d printer I would make some test miniatures to see what people thought as a social experiment.

Over all I have to agree with Thor's view points, I've mostly stayed out of this thread because I don't think I can adequately present my case. I've begun to type a response to the original post several times but I don't think I have the ability to properly articulate what I want to say. I've found the conversation interesting to read.

Thor665 wrote:

Is the "male dominated" tabletop miniature game male dominated due to marketing decisions, or are marketing decisions made because it's male dominated?

That's an easy one, these hobbies all began as boys' clubs and largely still are. Even the first one, H.G Wells' 'Little Wars', says: 'a game for boys from twelve years of age to one hundred and fifty and for that more intelligent sort of girl who likes boys' games and books.' My, aren't you a clever little girl! The expectation was, however, that you would be the rare one, and with good reason, because they weren't activities appropriate for young ladies. Next thing you'd be wanting the vote, or summat!

As for these being purely marketing decisions, we've heard that before. American comic books in the 80s said, 'We don't make comics for girls because girls don't buy the comics that we don't make for them.' This was around the time that japanese manga translations began to be sold in the US, quickly outselling American comic books in their own country. I guess the Japanese thought, 'We do make comics for girls, because we like money!'

Thor665 wrote:

If Arnie doesn't do it for you I'm not going to force you to reconsider.

Aw, no. That's just his 'Grahnt Me Revhaange!' pose. You want his 'Spahnk me, Ahve Beehn a Baahd Bhooy!' pose:

http://i2.wp.com/accidentalbear.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/arnold-cosmo.jpg?resize=569%2C427

As I keep trying to explain, 'sexualised' isn't all about nakedness, but about attitude!

Also, this classic! http://i1.wp.com/accidentalbear.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Burt-Reynolds-cosmo.jpg?resize=600%2C280

And this! http://www.cinebing.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/ryan-reynolds.jpg

And... okay, I'll stop now.

Barking Agatha wrote:

I mean, I love me the Thor movies from Marvel comics, and apparently it is in Chris Hemsworth's contract to run around without a shirt for no particular purpose at a given point in each of those movies - it doesn't negatively impact my attitude towards the movies anymore than the obligatory 'woman in underwear/bikini' thing that is the gender reverse.

So where's the 'Thor movie' of miniature games then?

Barking Agatha wrote:

As I keep trying to explain, 'sexualised' isn't all about nakedness, but about attitude!

I don't agree with that simply because I agree with the argument about chainmail bikinis - and however much 'tude Red Sonja has, she remains sexualized. So does Conan, quite often. I can agree that attitude (and pose) can affect that dynamic, but at the end of the day a prime component of cheesecake is indeed the clothing in every method of it I have ever seen. I will agree that 'naked' is not a rule for cheesecake, but assuredly tight and/or revealing clothing is part of the operation.

Barking Agatha wrote:

So where's the 'Thor movie' of miniature games then?

I dunno, depends how you wish to quantify it. I would note that my avatar contains a nude male wood elf miniature (and a fully clothed and dominant female). Maybe it's that. I think one would need to define the 'it' more agreeably first in order to then try to draw fair compare/contrasts. But you and I both know that just as there are reasonable female figures there are assuredly unreasonable male ones. I think the core debate is one of amounts, not one of 'not existing'.

Thor665 wrote:

however much 'tude Red Sonja has, she remains sexualized.

You're behind the news. She's been reclaimed recently as a feminist icon.

'Sexualised' is not the same as 'sexy'. When we say that someone has been 'sexualised' we mean that they have been de-fanged, as it were, by making their sexiness their dominant characteristic, de-emphasising or eliminating such attributes as cleverness, strength, skill, or power.

The difference between the first Arnold picture and the second is that in the first, the character is striking that pose for himself. In the second, he is striking the pose for you. It is not about him, his strength, or his character, it's about you and your visual enjoyment of his body. It's what we mean by 'objectification'.

The other difference of course is that Arnie is slumming it: he can do this to be a good sport and then go right back to being seen as a big strong manly man. (And this is a young Arnie, before all the fame, wealth, and power went straight to his uncomplicated head, much as it did to Mel Gibson). For women it is the opposite: you are automatically sexualised whether you want to be a sport about it or not, and then it becomes a constant struggle to be taken seriously.

Thor665 wrote:

I would note that my avatar contains a nude male wood elf miniature (and a fully clothed and dominant female).

Noted. It's a very nice conversion and it shows your commitment to the DE theme, primarily concerned with cruelty and indifferent to gender roles!

Thor665 wrote:

But you and I both know that just as there are reasonable female figures there are assuredly unreasonable male ones. I think the core debate is one of amounts, not one of 'not existing'.

Conversions don't count!

I'm sure there must be 'unreasonable' male figures out there, but they must be really few, because I haven't been able to find any. Or maybe I just fail at google. I would be very interested if you could use your excellent searching skills to find some. Bishy ones, preferably. Think David Bowie as Jared the Goblin King in Labyrinth.

Anyway, yeah, there are many 'reasonable' female miniatures, and much more so in recent years than it used to be. Also, it's true that most girls do like to be pretty, so you need female miniatures that are also pretty in order to appeal. Ideally, pretty while also appearing to be competent, their prettiness being an attribute, rather than their defining characteristic.

Even Raging Heroes (which is what started this whole argument) have quite a few models like that.

But cheesecake is prevalent, and pervasive, and other things beginning with 'p'. It's all over the place even in situations where it's utterly inappropriate, like a female stealth commando with only half a stealth suit striking a sexy pose instead of hiding in the shadows like a sensible person. Check this out:



Can you believe they're both in the same regiment? Why doesn't he 'vogue' while firing his weapon? That's the sort of thing I am talking about.

I was really hoping this thread would devolve into a discussion about Age of Sigmar

To be fair, those Line Kossack models are really old (~2007 or even older far as I know) and soon to be replaced. The Moiras you posted in the previous thread have already been resculpted. They still retain the leotards that I see more as a Ghost in the Shell homage (their leader is named Kassandra Kusanagi) and it also needs to be kept in mind that they come from an anarchist spacefaring pirate society, not unlike our own favourite spiky space elves.

Spoiler:

I don't like the older sculpts either, and that lady Kossack model is quite atrocious, while the old Moiras are just plain silly. Since moving on to 3D sculpting, the last two years of releases are a lot more utilitarian in their design. I'm probably biased in this discussion, as Infinity models are probably the most fun I've ever had with in my years of painting, but I'd urge you to not just knock an entire range of models because of some horribly outdated sculpts. It's like judging about GW models based on that old (and still current!) Morathi model.

Some quick examples:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

You could definitely argue that the Fusiliers have a bit of a "photo-shoot pose" to them, but for both each of the Fusiliers that pose for the cameras to display the superiority of the great PanOceania, the other two Fusiliers are picking up the slack and doing their jobs. But it makes sense with their background, as the Fusiliers generally don't see the heaviest battles and mostly sit on rear guard duty while the remote-piloted Armoured Cavalry TAGs do all the dirty work.

You will likewise find a similar theme of photo-shoot posing to ALEPH sculpts.

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

The ALEPH units are not human at all, but synthetic humans used as the private army of the AI ALEPH. Their units (and Steel Phalanx in particular) are designed to be beautiful, their characters designed to be utterly heroic to inspire the population (Steel Phalanx operations are broadcasted to the entire Human Sphere to showcase their benevolent overlord AI's superiority over the alien threat of the Combined Army. One can also say it is to mask the eerie similarities to the AI that drives the Combined Army on their conquest, though their synthetic soldiers are far more utilitarian and care little about good PR.


My overarching point to this discussion is this. We really ought to take another look at things we may not like on the first glance in order to understand it. It is especially important with fiction. Context is incredibly important. Without context, the imagination runs wild. Without context, Dark Eldar are a bunch of utterly nightmarish creatures that boggle the mind at how they could be appealing. Only by going deeper than just the first impression do we learn that the Dark Kin are, in fact, a pretty miserable bunch that put up a great show of supremacy to mask their grave weaknesses. Only by going deeper do we get an understanding of who they are.

With this said, I really urge people to judge fiction on its own merits, rather than the possible reactions one might have. By questioning their audience, authors and their works suffer. I am of firm belief for authors to just do their thing and let the market decide what is good and what isn't, despite our own personal beliefs on what we find good, what we find bad, and what we find downright silly.

Barking Agatha wrote:

You're behind the news. She's been reclaimed recently as a feminist icon.

Yeah, it's very hard to keep up on what has been declared 'bad' on a given scale of bad at any point, I'll agree.

Barking Agatha wrote:

'Sexualised' is not the same as 'sexy'. When we say that someone has been 'sexualised' we mean that they have been de-fanged, as it were, by making their sexiness their dominant characteristic, de-emphasising or eliminating such attributes as cleverness, strength, skill, or power.

If that's the paradigm - how 'sexualized' do you find most miniatures nowadays? Because while I certainly agree with the chainmail bikini concept of most of them wearing non functional/sexy armor. If simply 'big boobs and panties' is not an inherent sexualization then I would suggest that the problem is assuredly in the minority for the industry, but I don't feel you would agree with me - I'm missing something here, yeah?

Barking Agatha wrote:

The difference between the first Arnold picture and the second is that in the first, the character is striking that pose for himself. In the second, he is striking the pose for you. It is not about him, his strength, or his character, it's about you and your visual enjoyment of his body. It's what we mean by 'objectification'.

That seems a definition ripe with subjective opinion to it.

Barking Agatha wrote:

For women it is the opposite: you are automatically sexualised whether you want to be a sport about it or not, and then it becomes a constant struggle to be taken seriously.

If this is true though, changing up the way people make miniatures will change nothing, as the issue is deeply set in the way men perceive women and has nothing to do with whether the miniature is sexy or not.

Barking Agatha wrote:

I would be very interested if you could use your excellent searching skills to find some. Bishy ones, preferably. Think David Bowie as Jared the Goblin King in Labyrinth.

This frightens me because I still don't know what that word is, though I have watched me my Labyrinth a few times. I just went onto Reaper's site this time, since I suspect your goal is to actually purchase a mini if you like something I found.

https://www.reapermini.com/graphics/gallery/4/50307_p_1_mj.jpg
https://www.reapermini.com/graphics/gallery/4/60161_p_1_dks.jpg
https://www.reapermini.com/graphics/gallery/4/60117_p_1.jpg
https://www.reapermini.com/graphics/gallery/4/14570_darkelf_warrior_front_af.jpg
https://www.reapermini.com/graphics/gallery/4/03169_G.jpg
https://www.reapermini.com/graphics/gallery/4/03016_w_1.jpg
https://www.reapermini.com/graphics/gallery/4/14046_Ardynn_tl.jpg

Barking Agatha wrote:

Anyway, yeah, there are many 'reasonable' female miniatures, and much more so in recent years than it used to be. Also, it's true that most girls do like to be pretty, so you need female miniatures that are also pretty in order to appeal. Ideally, pretty while also appearing to be competent, their prettiness being an attribute, rather than their defining characteristic.

I would point to those Infinity images Siticus posted - looks like their new line very much encapsulates this idea (and, at least when a female model is posing there is also a male model doing the same...might be a good place to look for 'Bishy' things also?)

Evil Space Elves wrote:

I was really hoping this thread would devolve into a discussion about Age of Sigmar

Genius!

Siticus the Ancient wrote:

To be fair, those Line Kossack models are really old (~2007 or even older far as I know)... I don't like the older sculpts either, and that lady Kossack model is quite atrocious, while the old Moiras are just plain silly. Since moving on to 3D sculpting, the last two years of releases are a lot more utilitarian in their design.

Yeah, those are much better (leaving aside the depressing idea that 2007 is 'really old'!)

Siticus the Ancient wrote:

Context is incredibly important.

Context is everything, which is exactly why 'but elves are nymphomaniac nudists in the lore!' is a poor excuse.

Thor665 wrote:

If this is true though, changing up the way people make miniatures will change nothing, as the issue is deeply set in the way men perceive women and has nothing to do with whether the miniature is sexy or not.

The way that men perceive women is not biologically determined, but cultural, and culture can change, and has changed. That's why we have these discussions!

Thor665 wrote:

https://www.reapermini.com/graphics/gallery/4/50307_p_1_mj.jpg
https://www.reapermini.com/graphics/gallery/4/60161_p_1_dks.jpg
https://www.reapermini.com/graphics/gallery/4/60117_p_1.jpg
https://www.reapermini.com/graphics/gallery/4/14570_darkelf_warrior_front_af.jpg
https://www.reapermini.com/graphics/gallery/4/03169_G.jpg
https://www.reapermini.com/graphics/gallery/4/03016_w_1.jpg
https://www.reapermini.com/graphics/gallery/4/14046_Ardynn_tl.jpg

No, no, maybe a little, no, no, no, no, and no. Ah well, thanks for trying

Thor665 wrote:

This frightens me because I still don't know what that word is...

Bishy is an english slang shortening of the Japanese word 美少年 (Hiragana: びしょねん　Romanji: Bishonen） meaning pretty boy. Just look up male J-pop/K-pop artists to get an example.

I think she started using Bishy because I use the word Bishonen in the Age of Sigmar thread.

If 'Bishy' just means pretty boy I disagree with some of her 'no' calls then

Barking Agatha wrote:

The way that men perceive women is not biologically determined, but cultural, and culture can change, and has changed. That's why we have these discussions!

By that clam you are suggesting that women view men in a non-sexualized way unless men choose to be sexualized? Because your original comment was that women had no choice in how they were viewed. I will agree that, as a man, I find attractive women attractive - but I do not think that is untrue for women. Attractive men and unattractive men are also viewed through that lens, which suggests to me that, yes, the pose and attire is the actual issue, not an ephemeral 'attitude' aspect.

Barking Agatha wrote:

No, no, maybe a little, no, no, no, no, and no. Ah well, thanks for trying

Okay, one upmanship;

http://ironwindmetals.com/store/popup_image.php?pID=5700&type=JPG&osCsid=j52u6s4j08fnd3ikp0bj5f0673

Thor wins.

Sorry, no. It's more or less the idea, but the execution is horrible. I'm afraid it's no use to me, but thanks again for trying

And no, I did not start saying 'bishy' because someone else said 'bishonen', which I hadn't even noticed. I've actually been looking for a bishy miniature for more than a year. Since Karlos and Gary, in fact. Remember them? No, of course you don't. To you it was just 'Tuesday', wasn't it? But you'll never get away with it, you fiend! Anyway, if you did remember them you would recall that I described them as 'bishy', and it occurred to me afterward that it might be fun to make miniatures of them, so I started looking for bits or alternate miniatures that I could use. In this purpose I have been thwarted by a dearth of bishyness that I find most curiously strange.

It took me a long while to find a sexy male slave for FemVect - patience and time will eventually reward you.

Can I complain about high heels here?

Even on cowboys?

Barking Agatha wrote:

Thor665 wrote:

however much 'tude Red Sonja has, she remains sexualized.

You're behind the news. She's been reclaimed recently as a feminist icon.

Yes, but she looks exactly the same as she always has, half naked in a chainmail bikini. Girls don't care, they love her anyway because of the writing and how her character is treated. She looks just as sexualized as she always has, but Gail Simone started writing her, so now girls love her just as much, if not more than guys used to.

And I never called you an idiot, Calyptra, nor even implied it, I just stated that your worries about RH made no sense for several reasons, primarily because there has always been a lack of girls in the hobby and RH is a very new company, and secondarily, that all of the girls I know, including myself, are very excited about RH because their minis look phenominal and GW has so few female models.

Furthermore, nearly all of the RH minis with their tits out are directly inspired by GW minis that have their tits out. The witch elves might not, but their queen Morathi sure does. RH heroes minis are not any more sexualized than GW's female models, they're just sexier, by which I mean that they are a more successful attempt to make sexy female figures. Sexy poses, thongs, high heels, bikinis, and bare nipples abound in GW's female miniature selection. RH is just doing all of those better.