Women in wargames

[Arlequín]

*General Comment aimed at no-one in particular*

I think people ought to go and grab a stack of the top ten women's magazines, root through them and then come back and argue that 'overt-sexuality' is offensive to women... 'baring' in mind that many of the photos and ads in those magazines are often photo-shopped to emphasize certain feminine qualities.

If as a male wargamer, you feel either embarrassed or offended by 'over-sexualised'  miniatures, then just say so... 'man-up'.

Personally I don't like them much and I would find them much more relevant to my hobby if they were making use of male armour and clothing in both a 'feminine way' and a historical way, rather than purpose-designed female armour or clothing. For example Hasslefree's Marika van Oswald;



To me a woman dressed for war, would be similar to her male counterparts... who already have determined what is to them the most practical form of dress for how they fight. Someone else mentioned Minairon's Milicianas, which are another good example of women being feminine while dressing to fight... there are a whole load of SCW photos of women in men's uniforms... but still being women at the same time.

I also suspect that the lack of female gamers might be cultural, rather than because they flee from the overtly-sexualised context of wargaming. On my recent visit to Hispania Wargames in Spain, there was no shortage of females taking an active part in the hobby, nor are Spanish figures any more un-sexualised than anywhere else.



They are playing this...



and seem to have no issues with the overly-sexualised promotion, or indeed the figures used in the game.

As for pirates, I seem to recall reading that Mary Read went into a fight with her breasts purposely exposed...

[Daeothar]

Show me five figures of females in plate armor that is not 'boob armor' and five men with armor that stresses their big schlongs and I might be willing to discuss your points.

A (very) quick internet search (at work, without the long list of manufacturers in my favourites) yielded these ladies in armor.

I'll leave the males for yourself to find, but basically every codpiece in virtually every line of fantasy miniatures is ridiculously optimistic...

Still, I was not refering to any private parts in my post, but rather to the nearly always hugely bulging muscles in the upper bodies (arms, shoulders, pecs, abs). And for the sake of simplicity, I will even include with that, the most ubiquous symbol of exaggerated masculinity: shoulderpads!

[shandy]

Arlequin, I'm neither embarassed nor personally offended by over sexualised minis. I still don't find those representations a good thing. There are things in the world I'm not personally affected by and I still don't find them good. I'm not a victim of IS terror in the Near East, I don't even know anyone who is and still find it a bad thing, without being incited by political correctness or anything.

You are right about historical plausible clothing, it would be a cool thing if more manufacturers would make an effort in this direction.

About Mary Read: I think it was Anne Bonney and North Star legitimized their bare-breasted figure in this way. I'm not so sure, for me this sounds like slander by contemporaries. We both know that historical sources are tricky, especially if they come from enemies - this sounds like the typical way of reducing fighting females to sex objects (which in itself would be a separate topic to explore). But of course there is a tradition of exposing breasts in combat, from Vikings to French Revolution. There is also a tradition of exposing male buttocks in combat, not so many figures out there that do that (before anyone link, I know there are some nappy scots) 

And for the sake of simplicity, I will even include with that, the most ubiquous symbol of exaggerated masculinity: shoulderpads!

This would be a question for another thread, but can anyone explain why in the year 40.000 the shoulder pad has become the most important secondary male sex organ? 

[Momotaro]

You seem to have the impression that I have asserted a series of cast-iron facts; I have not. It seems to me that these things are the case, based on my own observations. I happen to think the repeated and overt sexualisation of women, without almost any alternative image, is a bad thing in of itself. Do you?

Ok fair point.  I think there are positives and negatives to where we are at the moment.

Sexuality, expressed openly, can be many things - not least an assertion of confidence and control.  Many women enjoy dressing, behaving the way they want to.

You just need to look at the last Kim Kardashian photoshoot - all boobs, bum and oiled skin - to see that most folks simply treat tast level of over-sexualisation with nothing but ridicule.  I think people's sensibilities - male and female - are pretty well tuned to what is "too much".

I have two teenage daughters (they used to play minis games with me too).  We've educated them, hopefully well enough to understand the dangers around them.  We've taken the attitude that if they're going to do something, they're not going to tell us.  In that case, I'd far rather they got sensible sex advice from a magazine than none at all.

I have no issue taking them to concerts where girls are dressed provocatively: they know that they are not allowed to now but will have their own choice in a few years.  In many ways the story of bringing up children is the story of how the world will mark them as they grow up and away from our protection, from their first baby cold to their latest broken heart.  Over 20 or so years, you move from total control to little more than advice as they grow up.

I think things like rape resolution statistics are still woeful, but we no longer live in a world where a judge can claim the victim was "asking for it" by dressing sexily.  Domestic violence is openly talked about and refuges are available.  The latest cohort of women is outperforming boys in school and out-earning their male peers in the workplace.

On the other hand, I believe we live in a culture that promotes unhappiness and discontent by delivering images of perfection - perfect life, perfect body - at us all the time.  Sexualised imagery is a part of that, but by no means all.  Under tens are, I think, oblivious to the sexual part of the imagery, but drink in the tale TV tells them that they need the perfect circle of friends, perfect "boyfriend".

Illness related to body image and self-harm are soaring in both girls and boys, but again it seems tightly wound with feelings of self-control in a world of monstrous pressures on children to conform and succeed, rather than just sexualised imagery.

As for male attitudes to women, I simply can't tell you whether sexualisation and porn are having an impact.  I grew up in an extended family where women were the strong core of the household and every bit a man's equal.  I work in the healthcare industry, where women outnumber men heavily in the public sector and slightly in private companies - there is simply no question of "talking down" to my female colleagues, customers and bosses.  I've not dated in a decade, so I can't say how that goes - my impression back then was that online dating was allowing both sexes to treat it like a supermarket shop

Jeez I can talk... so my conclusion is that I see no problem with sexy minis, no problem with sexy anything, but remain open to someone showing me that no, they really are making life worse for women.  I do find some of the imagery nasty, much of it badly done, some of it rather good.

[Momotaro]

And for the sake of simplicity, I will even include with that, the most ubiquous symbol of exaggerated masculinity: shoulderpads!

GW's space marine imagery is, quite frankly, some of the most homo-erotic art I've ever seen...

[Arlequín]

Arlequin, I'm neither embarassed nor personally offended by over sexualised minis. I still don't find those representations a good thing...

Me neither, at best I find them infantile and if it were teenage lads who actually tended to rave over them, I'd imagine they'd stop when they began dating... but in this case I'm clueless.

That being said, there's something about an otherwise naked woman in a hussar jacket that works for me, but I'd never consider buying a figure of one... that's just me though.
 

About Mary Read: I think it was Anne Bonney and North Star legitimized their bare-breasted figure in this way...

Possibly but having encountered a number of 'female irregulars' in another life, the incidence of aggressive breast-baring might surprise you. Certainly a favourite pastime used to be flashing at CCTV cameras as a distraction, with the hope of swinging the lens away from what someone else was doing off-camera. Of course there was one lady who just liked being on camera.

This would be a question for another thread, but can anyone explain why in the year 40.000 the shoulder pad has become the most important secondary male sex organ? 

The triangular or 'swimmers' physique was considered that most attractive to women. Hence adding shoulder pads and the removal of trouser pleats in suits. Aggressive male behaviour is usually signalled by broadening the chest by throwing the shoulders back... so wide shoulders are both sexual and psychologically intimidating. I can't explain flared-trouser battle armour though, some things just don't make any sense.

[shandy]

Certainly a favourite pastime used to be flashing at CCTV cameras as a distraction, with the hope of swinging the lens away from what someone else was doing off-camera. Of course there was one lady who just liked being on camera.

Now that does sound like a very British thing to me 

[Gibby]

so my conclusion is that I see no problem with sexy minis, no problem with sexy anything

Well keep an eye out for my upcoming Kickstarter... sexy English Civil War... 

[Valerik]

Well keep an eye out for my upcoming Kickstarter... sexy English Civil War... 

Always interested in a figure with a well sculpted buff coat...

I'd back such projects.


Valerik

in order to bring you the finest in entertainment there will be a three drink minimum

[Momotaro]

Well keep an eye out for my upcoming Kickstarter... sexy English Civil War...  

I thought the court order stopped you showing people your "pike and shotte" in public  

[Gibby]

I didn't read it! 

[FramFramson]

Momotaro's was already on fire with excellent posts in here today, but that last one's the cropper!  

The only thing I will add at the moment is to echo what Daeothar and Scurv (and myself, yesterday) have said: There are thousands upon thousands of perfectly reasonable female miniatures out there. We are choked for choice. Yes, there are porny figures, but guess what: every visual or artistic medium known to man has its porn as well as its "straddling the line" stuff (ooh, matron) and in trying to stamp that out you might as well be trying to ban sex.

The choice of running an army or game with boobs n' bums everywhere is a reflection on the GM or person fielding the army, not the hobby or manufacturers.

[answer_is_42]

: There are thousands upon thousands of perfectly reasonable female miniatures out there. We are choked for choice.

Are there? Where? I must have missed those.

[Arlequín]

The choice of running an army or game with boobs n' bums everywhere is a reflection on the GM or person fielding the army, not the hobby or manufacturers.

Yes to the first bit, no to the second. Manufacturers produce what sells it is true, but they also create a 'need' via advertising. If you create a culture amongst your consumers where t&a minis are the default option and that they are... I don't know, 'avant-garde' or 'edgy', or something like that, then the customer will often buy into it.

Ultimately it comes down to customers not buying them and manufacturers not making them in equal measure... but it would seem that by and large both entities are quite happy with the way things are.

In either case personal choice trumps pretty much any argument presented against such figures.

Sadly I would probably buy into a 'sexy ECW' or Medieval range that was along the lines of Eureka's 18th Century ones (i.e. more clothed than unclothed). No display of 'pike and shotte' for me thanks.
 
 

[FramFramson]

Are there? Where? I must have missed those.

Well you have already stated in this very thread that you don't seem interested in doing any research or letting any niggling fact get in the way of your "gut feelings".

I can think of dozens of manufacturers off the top of my head - some have even been posted in this thread, to get you started - if you care to look at all.

If you want to go on, have a look at the catalogues posted in this thread: http://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=39902.0
I grant you find plenty of T&A on that list too (that list is not curated for prudishness!), but there are plenty manufacturers on that list with perfectly equitably-treated minis (Red Box or our own LAF minis, for instance) and plenty more who offer both sexy and sensible minis (Reaper, or Studio McVey, or Hasslefree, for instance). And that's just fantasy.

I am actually quite disappointed. This could have been a jumping off point for a reasonable discussion about something of genuine concern, the dearth of women in wargaming (in most, but not all countries), but now it appears this was all little more than an excuse to vent some personal moral outrage.  

Yes to the first bit, no to the second. Manufacturers produce what sells it is true, but they also create a 'need' via advertising. If you create a culture amongst your consumers where t&a minis are the default option and that they are... I don't know, 'avant-garde' or 'edgy', or something like that, then the customer will often buy into it.

Ultimately it comes down to customers not buying them and manufacturers not making them in equal measure... but it would seem that by and large both entities are quite happy with the way things are.

In either case personal choice trumps pretty much any argument presented against such figures.

Sadly I would probably buy into a 'sexy ECW' or Medieval range that was along the lines of Eureka's 18th Century ones (i.e. more clothed than unclothed). No display of 'pike and shotte' for me thanks.
 
  

I don't see that that's a disagreement at all. I have already said that there will always be some demand for sexualized things and that that demand will be satisfied by people who like making money.

Nobody is forcing anyone to run these in a game. Nobody.

This is wargaming - you decide what game to play, you pick the people want to wargame with, you make the army lists or the scenarios, you choose the figures, you paint the figures (usually). The nonsense about being forced to use particular figures is a very small proportion of the hobby as a whole - mostly limited to GW and close imitators who want you to buy specific, licensed products; most tabletop wargames are what you make of them. If you find buxom figures (or games prominently featuring buxom figures in contrived scenarios) offensive in your chosen hobby game, it is up to you to make some decisions about your participation in said hobby.

If you feel that a large percentage of your fellow hobbyists seem to be making poor choices, or that you feel pressured by your peers to use miniatures which you find to be in questionable taste, there may be other forces at work worth talking about, but getting offended at such figures' or games' mere existence is a waste of time.