Roll For Insight: Talking Tits – It’s Time To Banish Boob Armour
May 10, 2019 by cassn
Lads, it’s time I got something off my chest. While I like to keep abreast of games news, recently something has been really getting on my tits. I don’t want to look like a boob, but I’m just busting to talk about this. Alright, enough puns (they’re udderly terrible anyway), let’s get down to business and have a serious chat about boob armour. Nipple.
If you are a woman working or playing in the gaming industry, it’s inevitable that you’re going to end up talking about what a female miniature is wearing at least once a week. And for every one you talk about, there have been five others you didn’t bother to mention because, well, that’s just the type of miniature that company makes. You’re used to it. You’re sick of complaining. People have started giving you that ‘who put a quid in the angry feminist?’ look when you point out that boobs just don’t do the anti-gravity thing. They just don’t care.
A Negative Body Image
And why should you? After all, in a world where Commissar Yarrick is levying his forces against your Ork armies, policing women’s bodies seems pretty pointless (hehe). But representation matters, especially in an industry which is actively trying to expand and become more inclusive.
A recent study concerning images on Instagram has proven what people have known for years; if people are consistently exposed to unrealistic body images, they start to believe their body is the problem. And, with 90% of young girls in the UK stating that they don’t like their bodies, maybe it’s time we stopped pretending that "bad representation is better than no representation" is a good compromise.
Yet this particular angry feminist comes up against regular resistance for seemingly obvious arguments for better representation. And since you can’t win every battle, I choose carefully. Rather than point out follies in stereotyping female roles and female bodies (the buxom bar wench springs to mind), instead I just try to point out the ones which are overtly impractical.
Going into a gun battle wearing only your underwear, for example, seems like a silly idea. Indeed, none of the male infantry are doing it. But - you know us women - we’re always after that perfect bikini body selfie, even under heavy fire.
I’m being hyperbolic, of course, but I feel it’s an absurd position to have to try and defend. I’ve had gamer guys tell me that these half-dressed women are fine - it’s a uniform. That I’m overreacting - it’s only a game, after all. However, you show me the soldier that’s happy to go into battle with more skin showing than a beached Kardashian, and I’ll show you a guy whose miniature paint fumes have gone to his head.
(Side note: saying it’s ‘only’ a game is another pet peeve of mine. We’re a gaming community. Gaming matters for us)
“But what about Conan?” “What about Hero Quest?”
Alright, keep your loincloth on guys - I’m aware some men go into battle with nothing but their sword and, one must assume, a sense of muscular pride. But comparing knights and barbarians is like comparing apples and...well, barbarians. They’re different eras, different universes, different weapons, different armor (or lack of). And I think we all understand how women are treated in Howard’s Hyborian Age - let’s just say Conan never read much Simone De Beauvoir in college.
However, for those pedants who insist on comparing the two scenarios, I would direct your attention to the ongoing argument in comics, film, and gaming which debates whether these stripped, muscle-bound gym bros are, in fact, male power fantasies. There are, of course, two sides in that debate, with many men stating they have never wanted to look overtly muscular, and women who like that type of body. However, the sparce research which has been done so far suggests the opposite is true in the majority of cases. Indeed, the fact that these hyper-hench images originally existed in an industry once targeted to an almost exclusively male audience confirms that these men were not designed to appeal to the female gaze.
But it isn’t all hopeless, and there are people in the field who are trying to make a difference. Annie Norman, one of our Women to Watch for 2019, founded the Believable Female Miniatures project, which seeks to get women out of the bikini and into well-fitting, useful armour. However, the fact that her tireless work is considered niche and pioneering speaks volumes about how much more still needs to be done in the gaming industry to promote inclusion.
The Dreaded Boob Armour
Take boob armour, for example - my own personal hatred. It’s ridiculous, impractical, and sometimes the only protection offered to these women (I have no doubt representations of the boob armour bikini will seriously confuse the archaeologists of the future). Despite its impracticality, I regularly hear the defence of its use in the gaming industry. Indeed, Greek Hoplites and Roman soldiers wore muscular cuirasses, so it would make sense to represent the body through metalwork. But let’s look closer at that argument.
First of all, historical artefacts tell us that these highly detailed cuirasses were rarely used, with the few that have actual battle damage being much more limited in ornateness. Furthermore, these cuirasses were developed during the bronze age - at a point when the most extreme armour piercing weapon was an axe (and perhaps a few Roman maces). My point is this - when the hardest weapons you face are spears and swords, you can smith all the nipples you want and it doesn’t really matter.
However, a lot of these female miniatures are in the middle of firefights, and I sincerely doubt that each breast, divided and cupped into individual metal holders is going to protect anyone in that situation. Indeed, in history, by the time the late medieval period rolls around, armour had already changed from flat or bell-shaped to an outward crease in the front (which would eventually turn into the full peascod style) to cope with a range of heavy shock weaponry, lances, pollaxes, and guns.
It seems obvious, but these outward creases allowed central hits to angle outward - a pretty important and life-saving advantage. Chest blows would naturally angle downward and out, hopefully allowing you to battle another day (although sometimes the fauld would be pierced or, less often, the neck). So by changing the crease to an inward, boob-separating format, you’re pretty much committing yourself to getting maced in the mammaries. Not to mention the fact that one heavy blow, even if it doesn't pierce through, is going to almost immediately damage the sternum with the impact.
That’s just the science of armour, but it’s also important to remember that, from a fashion perspective, women didn’t even wear bras until the 19th century, so the idea of parting the ladies up and out for battle makes little sense. There are no records of shaped female armour in medieval times. So let’s just dispel the myth for once and for all. There is no practical, historical, or social reason for boob armour. It’s a fantasy object.
Changing The Status Quo
So why is it on the tabletop? I can only speculate, but I would argue that for designers, sculptors and companies, they feel that they are still targeting a majority of their products to young adolescent males or men who have grown up with these figures and are comfortable with their design. After all, the gaming industry is a free market, and a valuable one at that. These designers have a right to create what they believe will be a profitable income source. To an extent I understand this thinking, but we’re never going to get the diversity and change we want to see in gaming if we don’t begin to adapt to new markets.
Step into any gaming shop, look at the female figures on offer, and count the seconds until you come across boob armour - I guarantee it will be less than a minute. In fact, you’ll have a hard time to try and find a lady who hasn’t gone to Ann Summers the Blacksmith for her battle garb.
For me, this is a massive part of the problem - sheer availability. Morals are noble and important of course, but sometimes you just want to add female infantry to your table without having to research for three weeks first. But the more you ask your FLGS about real female figures, the more they’ll begin to stock them. Change doesn’t happen overnight, but it doesn’t happen at all if you don’t try.
Boob armour is a fantasy object, and that means we can change it. We can choose not to buy another half-naked general because she has a cool gun that makes it okay. We can make real representations of real women. We can put them in actual clothes. And, maybe one day, their breasts won’t be bigger than their heads and their waists smaller than their thighs.
Here’s the thing: that original generation of gamers - we’ve grown up, and most of us have kids of our own now. Little boys and, importantly, little girls. We don’t want our daughters believing that these accentuated bodies are what they should be emulating. My daughter shouldn’t believe that bigger boobs or a smaller waist will give her more value as a person. I don’t want her to believe that women need to look good, even at the cost of their very lives.
I’m raising a warrior, and when she holds aloft the severed head of her enemies, she’s not going to worry about being sexy enough. She’s going to worry about the horrified looks of the other children on the school trip, and how long she’ll spend in prison.
So, my fellow gamers, let’s band together and ask for better breasts from our gaming experience. Conscientious chests. Moral mammaries. Most importantly, let’s keep talking tits.
Tell us your thoughts below...





































The response to this article has been overwhelming, and for that I want to thank our OnTabletop/Beasts of War community. Roll for Insight began as a series of editorials designed to talk about the issues which affect and shape the contemporary gaming community. These articles are intended to provoke discussion, challenge our contemporary thinking, and create a stronger community which doesn’t shy away from ‘difficult’ issues. I believe that this article, and the response from the OnTabletop community, has achieved those aims.
First of all, I must apologise for my silence over the last few days – I wanted to wait and read all the comments over the weekend before I replied so I could address some of the bigger issues in the debate. Also, @lancorz wedding was a beautiful and wondrous affair that left me utterly useless for the entirety of the following day. That being said, I believe the community has astutely asked and answered all the important questions which have arisen in my absence. However, I will do my best to clarify anything which still needs to be said on my part.
As regards the validity of boob armour: Several members of the community have pointed out (rightly so) that sculpted male curiasses were used in battle. As I said in the original article this is correct, however, they were less intricate than other designs. The reason for this is simple: battle armour took damage. You wouldn’t wear your Sunday best to a mosh-pit, and you wouldn’t don your fancy armour for a firefight.
The sculpted, Adonis-style designs that remain in museums were kept for competitions, parades and tournaments, where a man could strut his steel six-pack with pride. Therefore, by this logic, female armour (should it have existed at all) would have been less…shapely…on the battlefield than the intricately prominent, carefully curved also-she’s-in-heels armour which we too often experience in wargaming. Would you wear a six-inch stiletto into a firefight? What about a metal boob-kini?
I am happy to concede that, if they had the option, wealthy women may have chosen to request shapely and intricate armour, but female miniatures are by nature warring women, and it seems unlikely that these battle curiasses would have been as voluptious as many which are currently used in miniature gaming.
Indeed, it should also be noted that there are no historical depictions of female boob armour. When armour was used by women, they used the same armour as men. As for differentiating between men and women, artists used long skirts in their paintings to highlight which characters were female, rather than focus on their magnificent mammaries. These skirts (which were obviously not worn in battle) are a signifier to the viewer that the soldiers is a female fighter.
Indeed, skirts are a non-sexual item which still allows for identification of male/female. Yet if I suggested putting long skirts on every female miniature, the idea would come across as ridiculous, prudish, and utterly impractical for wargaming (I am obviously not suggesting this). However, is a female soldier tripping over a long skirt and impaling themselves on their own sword any more ludicrous than one whose body proportions means her back could not possibly support her chest? In my mind, both are equally as idiotic. Female soldiers do not need to be defined by breasts – it is an aesthetic choice. Several members of the community have pointed out that, with new sculpting technology constantly improving the detail of miniature design, miniature females can now look like women without overt or extreme signifiers such as these. Yet, for those who question the point of having a female miniature who you can’t tell is female from a distance, the answer is simple: because I could have a realistic and cool female soldier. I could be strong and powerful and capable, and I wouldn’t have to look like Pamela Anderson to do it.
On that topic: I personally love the new Commissar – she, by far, has become one of my favourite models because she looks badass. And if I play her on the tabletop, I’m doing it because she’s a strong female character which I like. I know that she’s female. Who I’m playing against will also know that she’s female. And if they don’t, I will say ‘oh, she’s female, actually’, and then we’ll all move on with our lives and our game. I don’t need bountiful bosoms on every miniature to demonstrate just how female they are.
Because, let’s be honest, these top-laden ladies have little to do with signifiers or alternate histories. Ultimately, they are designed with men in mind. They are designed to be sexual objects and to appeal to a predominantly male market – and in this they succeed. But this article was not about what appeals to men – it was about including more women in wargaming.
I hear all too often from people in our community about how everyone is welcome at the table, but at the first suggestion that perhaps some things as they stand in our community may make others feel uncomfortable, a rallying cry of liberalism-gone-mad is sounded. Let me be clear; despite how this article has been perceived, at no point have I suggested a censorship of the wargaming community. Let us take Conan as a perfect example. I, personally, would not play Conan – I have no interest in Robert E. Howard’s world of weak and passive women. However, the art, the design, and the lore remain important and integral elements of the wargaming community, and I firmly believe they have a right to exist as artistry.
They are part of where wargaming has come from and I respect that. I just don’t believe it’s where the wargaming community needs to stay. This hobby is constantly developing and evolving. We see it in the technology we use, the stories we tell, the new mechanics of the games we buy. The world is changing, and I am merely suggesting that – if we want – it is possible to leave these colossal chests in the past.
Indeed, the key element here is the personal desire for change, and neither I, nor anyone else, has the right to stop you playing how you want. It is – after all – your hobby, and, if DD damsels take a higher priority in your gaming experience than diversity and inclusion, then that is your personal choice. Indeed, the free market rewards individualism and, as I said in the original piece, vote with your wallet on what you want your hobby to be.
However, this article has aimed to highlight that some elements of wargaming as they currently stand can make it uncomfortable for new players, and I stand by that assertion. Inclusion requires listening and learning from new voices. It requires compromise and movement on both sides. It requires debate and discussion – exactly why Roll for Insight, and your responses, matter so much for this community.
Despite the controversy, I can only hope this article has done what it was intended to do – encouraged free thought and insight. I hope it has provoked questions and challenged beliefs. And, most importantly (as I said before), I hope it will encourage you to keep talking tits!
Ohh I think the dialogue on this topic will go on for a good long while…
and you know what… that’s exactly as it should be as only through a civil dialogue can we start to get an understanding for points of view that dont gel with our own.
We may never share the same points of view but the more we talk it out the more likely we will gradually find options and compromise.
Some folk wonder why I’m always so reluctant to stifle debate and why I’m aghast at the thought of ‘deplatforimg’ – these things are anathema to me, and the reason is simple…
I grew up in a period in northern Ireland where we had direct censorship, my ‘enemy’s Gerry Adam’s was blocked from having his voice heard on TV etc (they even over dubbed him one time to get around it.
But it wasn’t censorship that ultimately brought a breakthrough here it was dialogue.
Additionally growing up you would have rarely saw a disabled person on TV, you just didnt. It was almost a case of normality to hear the words ‘mong’ or ‘spastic’ etc and I saw folk laughed at and ridiculed, sometimes it sat badly with me but other times it was like water of a ducks back.
At some point society set out to address this, my children have grown up with Cbeebies and Mr Tumble and have long been exposed to disability in a positive way… my children from what I know of them will be far less likely to act in the horrible way I saw as a kid, and see the humanity first and the disability second.
The above may be apples and oranges to this conversation but to me they are aspects of why this site has and always will be a community for your comments and dialogue and why we are here in the comments with you when we can.
much love folks
“Some folk wonder why I’m always so reluctant to stifle debate and why I’m aghast at the thought of ‘deplatforimg’ – these things are anathema to me, and the reason is simple…
I grew up in a period in northern Ireland where we had direct censorship, my ‘enemy’s Gerry Adam’s was blocked from having his voice heard on TV etc (they even over dubbed him one time to get around it.
But it wasn’t censorship that ultimately brought a breakthrough here it was dialogue.”
This is a highly refreshing take to see nowadays. Cheers!
“Some folk wonder why I’m always so reluctant to stifle debate and why I’m aghast at the thought of ‘deplatforimg’ – these things are anathema to me”
I think that is commendable, with a caveat where opinions are being platformed that are rooted in disenfranchising, removing, controlling, or outright eliminating people of a certain race, creed, gender, religion, sexuality.
Free speech is not without consequence, and a paradox of defending free speech is that you can end up defending people that which for nothing but the restriction and genocide of others.
It’s not a paradox of free speech it’s a foundation of it. I disagree with what you say but will defend your right to say it and all that.
I don’t agree with deplatforming anyone on any grounds other than explicit incitement to violence, no matter how objectionable their opinions. Not only am I reasonably confident that any extremely ideas can be easily countered but also, if you allow any institution the right to censor anyone, they will eventually censor anyone who doesn’t agree with them. Freedom of speech won’t die overnight, it will die slowly and will die from an overdose of good intentions.
When people say “anyone is welcome at my table” I have always assumed there is an unspoken caveat that says “as long as you’re willing to play what we’re playing”. If I am playing a game you don’t like, you’re welcome to join and give it a try or to find somewhere else to play. I’m not going to force someone to play something they don’t like nor Outright refuse to play with someone without good reason; I don’t expect to have to change my hobby to accommodate anyone else, I would never ask or expect anyone else to do that for me. I like what I like, you can like what you like and if we end up liking the same thing, cool we can enjoy it together. If it turns out we don’t like the same things then c’est la vie, we go our Separate ways and find people who share our interests and views. We are all free to believe what we wish and associate with who we wish. We’re also free to change our beliefs and associations at any time, but we’re under no obligation to do so.
I play a lot of Monolith’s Conan Boardgame and I get it that it’s not to everyone’s taste. But in the right setting* anyone here would be welcome to join me at that table (even you Cass, even though I already know you don’t like it). However if you decide that isn’t the game for you whilst I will respect your decision not to join me I would not be as accepting of a request that I play something else.
* The right setting being some kind of club or open gaming session. I don’t expect any random BoWers turning up at my house uninvited asking for a game of Conan thank you very much.
@cass I do not think you need to apologise, waiting for the discussion to evolve before responding is not a bad idea.
Now I have to point out a few things, muscle cuirass was a status symbol and it was used in battle, we do have evidence for it not only in descriptions and art but from actual battle damage, an important indication that these highly important people were in the right flank of the phalanx were the fiercest fight was done (and the king or general was), like the knights, the ancients of wealth and power wanted to be seen in he best example of form their era had, sexualisation in the military uniforms and selections of troops is nothing new in the military history and something that has been changed only “recently” by the industrialisation of war that happened in the great war and onward for example the beards mandatory to many armies because they were a symbol of manliness were shaved by orders because they made gas-masks not seal well (even then the “manly moustaches” survived).
I think what is missing is context of what was viewed as sexual or “sexy” in each era we discuss as I said initially the hourglass full plate armour was detrimental to the wearers safety (and pocket) but a symbol of what was then thought as an ideal male form, likewise high heels were worn that era by men both to help riding, but also to look taller (we have a few ridiculously big examples), in the same way the long dressed women portrayed in the usually anachronistic artworks of the crusades like for example, Florine of Burgundy, are showing what was then considered a beautiful woman.
I am surprised you single out Robert E. Howard a strong women proponent of his era (some would say feminist) well known for his strong female characters and a defender of actual women especially in the writers circle.
On the actual discussion, the big debate is, if one wants to make a female model and it is not looking like a female why make it? why spend the design and resources to make a slimmer male model? some form of “sexualisation” even if it is to not have a helmet and/ or a more feminine pose is needed to convey the main purpose of the sculpt been gendered, usually out of the normal (that been fighters warriors are usually male).
The other point of discussion is if we want to change our hobby, in the wider genre of geek culture of comics and digital games forceful changes to that direction have so far a disastrous effect indicating that probably the wider (male) audience does not want this, while, surprisingly, or not, the women percentage has not changed positively by such changes (according to sources it has either stayed the same or dropped), I would argue this is more to the forcefulness of the issue and not an organic growth to an appeal to a possible alternative audience, I would also argue that the web comic and to a more limited extend indy publishing has shown there is a small audience for such original titles, but does not show much growth (logical given the nature of business) I believe given the time to grow organically it may grow big, or, evolve in its own genre and have its own audience, that would be troubling…
The biggest debate is what is diversity? and what is inclusion? are we not diverse and inclusive in our hobby? we have so many genres anybody can find something and everybody has a strong opinion about it, we have historical games without boobplates we have fantasy and sci fi with and without (admittedly with are more), we have boardgames that deal with nothing about it, do we need to force a change? I think it is a bad idea, promoting an alternative option for new companies and new lines instead of promoting a change is a better solution, create demand and somebody will try to fill it.
Now an interesting question is if all of that can attract more women? I really do not know, other, similar, industries as I said above say no, I have my reservations stated above for this “no” and I think its a matter of time for the next generation of gamers to be more mixed, but, I think the female gamer will come to the hobby for what it is, for the same reasons male gamers come and if a more mixed buyers environment changes things it will be in an organic way.
Even thought I sound negative/ contrarian here and you may think I disliked the article, I quite enjoyed it and would like to see more on the subject, I feel the short length of the article and the ideas cramped into it does a disservice to your expression of them, I would love to see a series of articles about the subject and the other relevant to it catching up and analysing each aspect of the discussion in more detail and a sum up article in the end.
@warzan here is a weekender topic for you (and a huge can of worms) “the why’s of the hobby” why we joined?, why we thing others joined?, why we stayed?, why we think others stayed?, why we think others do not join?, why we think people leave?
“@warzan here is a weekender topic for you (and a huge can of worms) “the why’s of the hobby” why we joined?, why we thing others joined?, why we stayed?, why we think others stayed?, why we think others do not join?, why we think people leave?”
That could be a really meaty one indeed!
Some very good points but I do have one issue.
Archaeologists agree that Muscle Armour was worn in combat it was just toned down and not as gaudy as the Burial finds.
On the point of Ab Armour we have to look at the process by which something if found by an archaeologist we can’t write it off just because we don’t have battlefield examples. If you found that on a Battlefield would you leave it there? It’s worth a fortune in scrap metal alone. We know impracticable armour aspects like enlarged codpieces and thin waists were worn in battle so there’s no reason abs wouldn’t have been.
The Bronze was taken from Trajan’s Column so it is not hard to imagine it would be taken from a battlefield.
We know that by the Time of the Second Punic War Roman Soldiers were wearing armour that covered their chest and that some were decorated in the Greek Ab style, there’s no reason for a Private Soldier (serving in Rome’s Army at this time was a privilege of the Land Owners) to spend good money on a ceremonial piece of armour when he could just mildly decorate his one and only set.
This is an artists recreation of a piece of armour found belonging to a Roman Soldier (who would have only had the one set for economic reasons especially since Hannibal wasn’t giving them much to loot) of the Second Punic War Period. Two big circular nipples.
This is a line drawing of an example of “Nipple Armour”. It shows Battle Damage and was found in Hungary.
The Armour of the Greeks became lighter as time went on and it was possible that rather than Solid Bronze Abs some may have been perishible covers for the armour to keep it light and still keep the aesthetic.
There is a lot of accepted evidence of men wearing “Muscle Armour” and “Nipple Armour” into combat.
As for why would people wear uncomfortable or impractical things onto a Battlefield I would point you to the entire 17th-20th Century.
Landschneckt’s wore not just codpieces but actual fake Schlongs (they doubled as wine containers) and giant puffy and slashed clothes into melee combat against Pikemen and Rodelero’s. Nothing about that is practical yet it was done. Look at a Napoleonic Hussar or a French Zouave and you won’t find much practical equipment. In fact British Cavalry of the Napoleonic Period would often soak their pants in water and put them on wet to get that ultra skin tight look that was so desirable even when no women were around to see it.
Many Celts fought Naked or with barely a loincloth.
The Mahdi (Sudan 1880’s) forbade his Warriors from using Shields (he later retracted this) and made them all take a vow to never replace their garments until they were victorious.
In the Renaissance to Modern Era that so many things are based on practicality was not as common as we assume.
I always enjoy the Roll for Insight keep them coming
soooo many assuumptions.
Classy response Cass. Inspired by your article I was trying to think of some heroines that managed to kick ass, without lingerie based armour!
Can’t figure out how to add a photo here, but Brian of Tarth from GoT in a fantasy genre, and Vasquez from the Aliens Sci-fi movie both sport standard unisex body armour.
Not sure if there are existing models out there of these two characters, if not there’s should be!
Neither Vasquez nor Brienne of Tarth look particularly feminine either and that’s what it really boils down to – whether you want recognisable or practical/sensible female miniatures because the two are mutually exclusive even, it would seem, at 1:1 scale.
To play the devil’s advocate, while there is no historical precedent for boob armour, there would be a historical precedent for female armour that would have accentuated the female form. Take the armoured codpiece, for example. The only reason for having it was to show off and I have no doubt to exaggerate what you were packing in trouser department. The same with the larger belly and narrow waists on some armour, this was because a narrow waist was considered to be a sign of manliness at the time. It is not unreasonable to assume that if women did ever fight in large numbers, that their armour would have reflected the desired female form of the time but in a practical manner i.e. not boob armour but armour that may have accentuated the female form with a larger bust.
At the expense of being that guy…actually there’s heaps of historical evidence, both archaeological and written evidence of boob armour. Literally tons. Mail made for females is shaped differently than it is for males, as were cuirass’ etc. It’s really only later plate armour that we don’t have much in the way of evidence but by then female combatants and the shape of the armour had changed.
@horus500 ‘actually there’s heaps of historical evidence, both archaeological and written evidence of boob armour. Literally tons.’
Can you post sources or links for this, please? I’m unaware of any compelling historical evidence for female warriors, so this would be useful.
Sure, I’ll assuming you’re not an archeologist but you can find most of this stuff in book stores or probably summaries online.
For ancient authors try Diodorus of Sicily on Amazons
Plutarch-Lives. Probably the best description of amazons
Hippocrates talks about Samatian women warriors
Herodotus too of course
For modern writers Rice, ‘the Scythians’ Sulimirski ‘the Samatians, von Bothmer Amazon’s in Greek Art,
For medieval stuff there’s the Anglosaxon chronicles, where you’ll read about Aethelflaed, the Orderic Vitalis, or modern authors like Dornier ‘MercianStudies’ Duff ‘Matilda’, Kelly ‘Eleanor of Aquitaine’, Pernoud Eleanor of Aquitaine.
More recently there’s been a number of archaeological digs that have uncovered female Viking graves and the Russians regularly uncover Samatian and Scythian female warrior graves. For statues try googling Athena or Minerva (basically the same god) often depicted in a female muscle cuirass.
If you google Jeanne de Montfort you’ll probably get stuff too. I’m not sure but I think her armour still exists.
Once I’m back home I’ll dig out the issues of the various archaeology journals I’ve kept overs the years as this sort of stuff comes up semi regularly.
So, only the Sarmatian/Scythian horse archers with any evidence of actual female warriors then… The recently reported Viking female warrior grave is highly suspect, and disputed. See here, for instance:
http://norseandviking.blogspot.com/2017/09/lets-debate-female-viking-warriors-yet.html
The rest you cite are mostly leaders, rather than members of armies.
None of which, as far as I can see, had ‘boob armour’. I’m really not sure that counts as ‘literally tons’ of evidence. I was hoping for some physical evidence that demonstrates the historical validity of ‘boob armour’.
By the way, after leaving the army I became a forensic archaeologist (the money is hopeless). Whether people like it or not armour for women would be a different shape to men. It had to anatomically. As I’ve said elsewhere, it wont be fantasy style ‘Boob armour’ but if you’ve ever worn armour you’ll know there are some styles that don’t move and have to be fitted to the wearer.
Women in many cultures became warriors although the evidence suggests that they were often viewed suspiciously, particularly by male dominated cultures (see accounts of Boudica or Zenobia by Roman authors, Joan of Arc as examples).
History is at best a jigsaw where we have no idea how many pieces there are or where they are. A great example is the Praetorian Guard. How many of them were there? The Augustan period is probably on of the most literary and archaeological rich eras in Roman history but we still cant say for certain how many cohorts or the size of the cohorts. We do know who all the officers were, let alone the names of it’s members. We know a lot more about leader than rank and file troops because they were usually the ones that could afford a more permanent record of their deeds.
We know female warriors in many cultures existed as they appear in written, artistic and archaeological evidence. I just mentioned those above because they are the stand-out ones.
In East Timor I would recover bodies of people killed just months before. In a modern country we couldn’t get records of who lived there let alone hundreds or thousands of years ago. Because of the climate and the fact that they were in mass graves, the decomposition was such that we had difficulty telling genders (previously determined by factors like hip size). Now we are doing it with chemical tests. The chemical tests for those female Vikings says they were female. On top of this, there are Anglosaxon and Frankish records says there were female Viking warriors.
It’s pretty clear you don’t want there to be Boob armour even if it exists so this is a largely pointless argument.
Actually, I’m wondering if we’re talking at cross-purposes here; I’m more than happy to accept that female armour would be shaped differently, in the same way that armour for different sized / shaped males would be.
I *think* what you’re referring to as ‘boob armour’ is simply regular armour, modified where needed for the user… whereas what’s being objected to in this article is armour which specifically models breast shapes as armour, effectively making a point of the wearer’s sex.
As for the Viking stuff, yes, there’s been DNA testing to determine a certain set of remains was female, and the authors attributed those remains to a grave with weaponry, inferring that the woman was therefore a warrior in life. However, the graves had been excavated over 100 years earlier, and it was not clear at all which bones went with which graves. The paper is full of questionable assumptions, unfortunately.
Although the Anglo Saxon and Frankish records you mention sound interesting; so far all I’ve been able to find is references that the Danes traveled with their wives and children. But if there’s stuff in there about female warriors, I’ll take another look! 🙂
Also regarding the viking graves, the presence of weapons and armour does not implicitly make the inhabitant a warrior. Such items were more than just the tools of war, they were also status symbols and indicators of wealth, it would not be unusual for an important woman to be buried with weapons, especially swords even if she was not a woman.
My understanding of this is that there isn’t a lot of evidence for female soldiers and warriors in any significant numbers in any culture. There are occasional outliers but, especially in a world of melee combat, women would be significantly less capable. And in a world of high infant mortality, they were of far greater value to their respective societies as mothers than as fighters. The nature of female armour is, therefore, predominantly speculative certainly as far as plate armour is concerned.
Ah. This old Chestnut again.
The science part isn’t entirely sound. Although it’s true that the boob plate might deflect some blows inwards towards the sternum (although it would deflect an equal amount of blows outward), it’s also true that generally that was the thickest part of the breastplate so deflecting that blow inwards is unlikely to be the fatal injury that people suggest. The initial strike would land on the chest and would absorb the majority of the force and whatever remained would be highly unlikely to be powerful enough to penetrate the armour. We must also assume that said armour would not be form fitting because the occupanct should in fact be wearing a gambeson underneath. Therefore those metal boobs are in fact just decorative and probably don’t actually affect the effectiveness of the armour in anyway, positively or negatively – they would be purely decorative.
It’s also entirely true that armour has been used to emphasise what people felt was an attractive body shape in any given era, even if the sculpted muscle cuirasses weren’t necessarily worn frequently in battle. If you look at medieval male plate armour for example it tends to make the wearer look like they have a slender waist, this is also reflected in artwork from the period. That was considered a desirable, masculine feature at the time. Also check out some of Henry VIII’s cod pieces and tell me they’re all about practicality. . Therefore it is also a reasonable assumption that, especially among the wealthier classes, that had female knights been a common phenomenon, that boob would actually have existed. A more likely form of female armour would likely be an inverted breastplate with the bulge that usually sat over a knight’s belly sitting over a female knight’s bust. This would provide better comfort while still achieving the same objective as the male counterpart (i.e. the little metal pot belly). This is, however, all speculation (as are claims that it would be dangerous to wear it) because historically it didn’t really exist and nor was there much need to consider the female form in armour design. My own opinion is that had there been a need to make female armour the majority wouldn’t have boobs but, like the muscle cuirass, some would and they would be just as effective as armour without.
As for whether they are a good or bad thing among miniatures. Well I think you need to ask yourself what it is that you want to achieve. Do you want it to be obvious to an observer that there are female miniatures on the table or do you want female miniatures that look “sensible” under a close cam (I use the term sensible loosely). The two are mutually exclusive. When you make “sensible” looking miniatures they tend to not be recognisably female from a distance of 4′ and while you as the owner might know they’re female a casual observer will not and the default assumption for knights and warriors is that they’re male because that’s the reality that has shaped our opinions. By emphasising certain female characteristics, specifically hips and breasts (i.e. sexual characteristics), then even at a distance of 6′ away (a full gaming table) the miniatures are recognisable as female. And that’s really the choice that you’re faced with.
I’m not trying to make that choice for you. If you don’t like boob plate or miniatures with emphasised female sexual traits (hips and breasts) that’s entirely fine, you’re totally free to feel that way. But ultimately it’s down to preference – you either like or you don’t. Explanations as to whether it’s practical or not, historically accurate or not and even whether it really has a negative effect on people are actually pointless. We can all find studies to back up our preference and counter any study or fact the opposing camp might dredge up but the truth is, this is really just about personal preference.
Something else that I have also noticed when speaking to female gamers is that while there is a significant breadth of opinion on the matter, the majority of the ones I have spoken to (although not an overwhelming majority) actually prefer the the more sexy looking miniatures and if choosing a miniature to represent themselves in an RPG are far more likely to select one that looks sexy and badass (i.e. boobs, hips, maybe heels) than one that looks sensible. I suspect that is due mostly to the fact that actually we don’t want our miniatures to represent ourselves, we want them to represent what one might consider an aspirations. We would all love to be a Hollywood beautiful all action hero if given the choice.
Even BoW’s own Dawn designed a somewhat sexy looking miniature when she designed her own miniature despite having every opportunity to go with “sensible”.
https://www.beastsofwar.com/featured/dawn-unveils-finished-jezebel-miniature/
Another point for that is that the only real “boobplate” I know to exist was done for a female larper? (or HEMA?) on her insistence despite her blacksmiths objections, so the precedent of a female warrior choosing “boobplate” exists.
It’s unlikely the sternum on boob armour would be that tough. Coming at this from an entirely material science direction (me being a chemist and working in material science currently) to make armour in the manner would involve either bending metal – and in turn weakening it – or using welds of some form which again would be weak compared to nice sheet metal.
Also on the topic of sheer aesthetics sure, some people may have worn armour that was purely decorative, but I think the point here is more about representation of the rank and file female fighters. They would be wearing functional armour.
On the topic of if models appear female or not, I think the recent work by GW on the Escher definitely shows you can design sculpts that look female other than just boobs. I am talking about facial structure that we can now get on minis, or just proportions of the models – again GW is moving to more realistic scales rather than the big hands designs of old.
And while sure you can just vote with your wallet (Hell I collect Kingdom Death), the point is about more diversity being available in the first place, and how that works towards the goal of diversifying the consumer base of the companies.
I don’t think it is a big ask and I don’t think it is wrong to just admit when designs are purely male gaze designed eye candy (no matter who does and doesn’t by that product – plenty of women I am sure enjoy painting and collecting racy models – more power them I say!).
Bending the metal… So sort of like helmets and pauldrons then? Metal plate armour is, by design curved. Making boob plate, while arguably more complex than a regular breastplate, would not have been beyond the skills of a medieval armoursmith. We didn’t see it because there was no need for it.
Also, Escher Models, even current implementation, have boobs, hips, heels and are complemented by large, recognisably female hair do’s. They’re as exaggerated as Infinity miniatures (incidentally they’re the about the “sexyist” miniatures I have). But that’s good because you can tell from a good distance away that they’re female. When you view a table with an Escher gang you know it girls without having to get right up close to the models.
By bending I mean severe bends. Not gentle curves. Bending metal to create the pronounced shape in sheet metal will weaken it at that point.
I guess the severity of the curve would depend entirely on the size of the boob being added. And as i already said, the shape of the armour would not be form fitting due to the amount of padding worn underneath the armour so the shape of the “boobplate” would not be linked in any way to the physiology of the wearer. It is even possible that the metal breast may simply be added to the front of an otherwise solid breastplate for no reason other than decoration
The entertainment industry (movies, games etc) as a whole is very ignorant of the amount of padding that was worn under armour. Do people really think that a chainmail coif was really sat on top of the head without padding underneath? But that is a rant for another day.
They don’t even need to be metal in that case, wood would work too.
As an amateur Blacksmith I can tell you it wouldn’t affect the armour. We don’t “Bend Metal” we anneal it to make it soft then we shape it then we harden it again. Any stress on the metal from making the breasts would be just the same as the stress on the metal for making kneecaps or vambraces.
But those are smooth curves, not say ridiculous deep “cleavage” shapes.
The theory is the same. The metal doesn’t change.
The metal is the same material, but the stress tensors in areas that display sharp angles cause fractures. This is why windows in early aircraft made from aluminium had to be redesigned, the square angles at the corners allowed for cracks to develop, and so they were changed to have gentler curves.
Most boobplate doesn’t have any cleavage. The breasts are quite separate.
I think we’re also in agreement to admit that some models are designed for a male audience. I haven’t disputed that, which is why I said that really this just boils down to preference and none of us really have the right to police any preferences other than our own. We don’t need to publicly justify those preferences and generally people who do are actually trying to police other people’s preferences.
It’s ok to not like sexy models. It’s ok to like them. It’s not ok to tell anyone else what they should like – that’s what I take issue with.
Diversity is a different matter – the market will change when there’s a market for something else. As the article says, it’s a free market and people are free to buy what they like, not what someone else wants.
Agreed that we should do away with the boob armour in miniatures; it exists purely because sex sells, not because it makes a good miniature. And even then I’d say it qualification as ‘sexy’ is up for debate; take the new Slaanesh minis for example – personally I find the more restrained look of the new KoS more attractive than if it had a mass of boobs hanging out.
And to be honest, outside of things like Slaanesh, there’s not really any need for most female minis to hang on attractiveness; we think nothing of male minis having battle scars or just generally being ugly, so why should we treat female minis any differently. That’s not to say there can’t be attractive female minis in practical armour anymore than attractive male ones, just that attractiveness should be a minor concern when designing/sculpting minis.
As a man, I kinda like sexy models. I do have to say though, that there’s a fine line between sexy and cheesecake.
Boobplate exists so you can tell the occupant is female. Females are sculpted with exaggerated features so that you can tell the miniatur is female. On a miniature that is only an inch or so in height, it’s not really possible to identify it as male or female without exaggerating physical characteristics. I think the Joan of Arc miniature above proves it – it looks like a man.
Except classical depictions of Joan of Arc do not use boobplates to differentiate her gender. Even the painters of romantic era tended to avoid painting her with boob armour. And that must have hurt for them, as they never usually passed up the chance to paint a tit (see above image of a Valkery with steel-bending nipples). I found a grand total of three paintings of her with boob armour. Two from the mid-Victorian period, and one a cubist piece from 1912. All others depict her with more appropriate plate armour, yet there is no doubt she is the Maid of Orleans.
You can find the list of depictions I was looking over here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_depictions_of_Joan_of_Arc
It is likely that Joan of Arc wore armour more suited to a man simply because manufacture of female armour was largely unheard of and Blacksmiths of the day simply worked with the designs they knew. The fact that Joan of Arc wore what would be best described as male armour doesn’t really change anything. The point being made is that in an alternative historical timeline (or fantasy setting) where women DID/DO fight in large numbers it is probable that female plate armour would exist in a form that better showed the physique of the female occupant and which emphasised whatever characteristics that society deemed desirable, most likely there would be a “bulge” across the chest area of female breastplates. Less frequently wealthy female knights may also have armour made that specifically emphasised the breasts in some way and thus you probably would in fact see boob plate. Our own world is not really a good place to look for it though due to the fact that women didn’t fight in significant numbers and so even basic female armour doesn’t really exist, let alone fancy, ornate female armour.
Also, part of the issue here is not whether a massive statue or portrait of Joan of Arc looks like a woman, but whethe a 28mm (or even 15mm!) miniature of Joan of Arc looks like a woman. The smaller the canvas your working with, the more you have to exaggerate things to maintain visibility of them, and for females that means boobs and hips.
It’s also worth noting that in the early 1400’s platemail was at the proto design stage where it resembled a round shape. Google some images and you’ll realise that unless Joan of Arc was a particularly busty girl, she would have been able to wear a males breastplate and fit everything in.
The main issue here is as always the belief combat armour through the ages is above all practical and at no point was used to enhance the sexual features of the wearer according to the period even if it is detrimental to the wearers health, the actual full plate shown is a fine example of a male combat armour with sexualised features, the wasp waist that was thought in the period to be a prime feature of beauty for the males and a fine funnel for weapons to hit a vulnerable point of the armour (and a lower breast dome again a feature of beauty for males in the period), the metalwork for the curves made it far more expensive than not having them, but what is an added risk of injury and extra cost when you look good? some other examples have extensive codpieces that made riding difficult but it was another prime feature of good look of the period.
If it was acceptable for females to fight in that period their armours would be equally enchanting what was thought to be beautiful for the female body in the period and the same can be seen throughout history in both civilian and military clothing humans want to look attractive and make sure what they wear compliments their looks.
On a related subject yes, Greek muscle armour was worn on the battlefield…
One can see the modern depiction of plate armour in fantasy does not mimic these historical armours with wasp waist and boosted breast but a modern aesthetic of what is an attractive male, no wasp waist and breast dome is higher (and no codpieces), ironically the modern depiction of how a male is sexy makes the armour better at protection than the actual medieval armours, the “boob plate” depiction is just the equivalent it is debated if it would actually be indifferent or better at protecting (trap instead of deflection for melee, the metalwork needed means the armour is far stronger between the domes), but it is again an aesthetic issue and not a practical issue, humans like to see symmetrical forms, but beyond that what looks good or sexy is shaped by the current aesthetics.
Now the other big issue touched is the depiction of an idealised form, again an ephemera shaped by the present, but art always tries to grasp to ideals and I do not see anything wrong with that, it is the things we strive for and it always has been like that, the depiction of perfection is to guide and inspire and the depiction of mediocrity while useful in on itself for other purposes it is not a thing to inspire for.
All the above been said I am glad there are companies now that provide what you are looking for, I am proponent of the idea than if you want something the market does not provide make it yourself, but I am against forcing personal beliefs to others.
Sex sells. Always has and always will.
Who’re the vast majority of players? Men. And what do men like? Beautiful women. It’s called catering to your target audience.
As others have already pointed out, had women been as active on the battlefield as men we would very likely had seen examples of armours that emphasised and exeagerate the female shape.
And why is only the female body a problem? What about men in body hugging spandex with impossibly buff bodies and a truly impressive package between their legs? What about super-heroic men, of course with the aforementioned buff bodies, who fearlessly stare their enemies down and kills hundreds of them in a show of impossible bravado?
My point is that men are portraid in just as idealized, and often impossible, ways. So why is it only females that are a problem?
And on a more practical level, when talking wargaming we have to consider one important factor: these are tiny models seen at a distance. So you exeagerate proportions to bring the point across. Take the new female Commissar, for example. She’s realistic, yes, but there’s just one problem – she looks like a boy. She has no features that would suggest that she’s female. No big boobs. No wide hips. No long hair. Nothing that would suggest, at a casual glance across the table, that we’re looking at a woman.
The Joan of Arc miniature above also looks like a boy
The point with the Commissar is that you shouldn’t need to know it’s a female miniature – she’s a soldier so it shouldn’t matter about her gender etc.
That being said I think they did a great job making her feel female without having to resort to pushing the traditional ideas.
@brennon – yes, absolutely, 100% agree
The point with the commissar does not exist in my opinion, for all terms and purposes her model looks like a slim male to anybody not invested in the lore (as it has been predicted for all “realistic” female miniatures, they look like a slim, maybe shorter, male in full battle gear).
There is no statement that this is a strong, female leader, leading the soldiers to battle, for all terms and purposes her model might as well be a male as most will be assumed it to be a male, no point, no statement, no representation, nothing, for a miniature to tell a story it must show it, it cannot rely on words to make her be a female leader, it cannot rely on animation, it cannot be voiced, the tools of the other industries, now if her sculpt was at 52mm, 1/6 ectr it would be big enouph to have bigger details to make her stand out.
Animation, voice and narration are things other industries can use to make a female stand out when it is not apparent, Samus Aran, female Spartans, other various examples scattered throughout the comics, games and movies use these tricks to make the female cast stand out when the realistic armour,battle gear ectr, means they do not look much different, if at all, from males, a small 28-33 model cannot use any of it to make the models stand out as a non by default male fighter, except, maybe, narrative and that can be quite ineffective to anybody outside of the deep lore and must rely on external visible and recognisable marks to make its point.
If you want a female model to look like female then it must show it, have the head without a helmet cap and make sure the hairstyle complements a female face, a neutral pose that is feminine more apparent female features, combinations of all the above.
In my opinion if you make the model of a female soldier then you make a statement, however small and for whatever reason, that this model does not represent the expected standard, for a good reason,of a male a soldier, if then you go out of your way to make it look as indistinguishable as possible with a male soldier (but hey realistic) what point does the miniature make?
Therein lies the quandry. If you don’t need to know it’s female, why even bother to make a female? The truth is that people who argue for female miniatures DO need to know it’s a female.
If you can’t see that she’s female, what’s the point of the model?
The model is supposed to show a strong woman in realistic armour. And that’s certainly fair enough. The problem is that she doesn’t look female at all – she looks like a young boy. A young commissar cadet, rather than a full grown woman.
And that goes back to my point about emphasising and exaggerating the model. You need to be able to tell that the model represents a female. If you can’t… Well… Once again: what’s the point?
I agree especially with the point about younger gamers. Education and the availability of female minis in suitable gear is priority regarding this issue. I still cringe when I see miniatures of scantily clad females, feels a bit pervy and stereotypical of the genre (comic book guy as the best example). However I also think the pinup with boob armour and the barbarian with muscles on his muscles belong in fantasy and gaming as a throwback. They were like the archetype of an era. Classic fantasy art is full of these depictions and I think there’s still a market for them presented as a reference or homage to that old school fantasy era.
I agree, like many a 1970’s sitcom/comedian the big fake tits pin style models, computer games etc hark back to a past time that can be incredibly cringed viewed with modern eyes.
Yes there will was be bit of “meh” to conversation from blokes as we don’t tend to be as sexualised in the same manner as women (yeah ok this may be a sweeping generalisation but you get the drift), so perhaps we are not aware of the true upset it can cause.
I will say that the big boobed look does play into the whole gamers = unwashed virgins inhabiting basements image that many blokes I would imagine have faced.
It’s hard to disprove and move to a more inclusive community with these design options being taken.
Totally agree especially with the “meh” from guys. I know myself and my pals were never bothered by Conan types we just saw it as cool and it hasn’t affected us the way body image can impact on others, especially younger females getting into the hobby. Also with the inclusivity, I think the wargaming community has done a good job this year alone in standing up and saying anyone and everyones welcome at the table. Now it’s time to get miniatures for those players and bring them to the table too
Perhaps we should also highlight good examples of Miniatures which have more realistic female body proportions.
Here is my nomination for the categoy “Modern Warfare Miniatures”:
Harlequin by Kev White at Hasslefree
https://www.hfminis.co.uk/shop?product=harlequin~hfa120&category=modern-%26post%252dapoc~modern-troopers
The interesting thing about Kev White is how he sculpts. He makes a naked dolly, which he then dresses (in putty) in the outfit he wants on it. If the naked dolly doesn’t look realistic, he’ll change it until it does. While he does make female warriors with large breasts (and sometimes they don’t get covered) the proportions look right. He is definitely worth a follow on facebook to see the stuff he is sculpting.
As nice as that figure is, and except for the “softness” of the jawline and face, I’d be hard pressed to tell the alleged gender either way when it would be seen at its tabletop size, not blown up 5-10x.
Maybe part of the reason why female minitatures tend to be *ahem* oversized in certain areas is because it is difficult to make one (that looks good) ?
The ‘classic’ sculptors may not have had the materials and techniques …
However … techniques have evolved, new materials and tools are available.
As such the challenge is to convince customers that women can look cool without all of the added bits.
I think the game ‘HATE’ by CMON did a pretty good job, but then it had the advantage of being based on a comic …
40k has a real problem, because it tends to rely on oversized figurines by default.
A ‘realistic’ proportioned female figure tends to look too much like a young boy, which is the kind of problem that limited edition female Kommissar had. It will be interesting to see how they treat the (new?) sisters of Battle.
Check out the daily rushes from Warhammer Fest for a SoB figure.
Here’s the thing … I think GW isn’t that offensive (to me) and the ‘oversized’ figurines would fit within their setting.
I’ve seen much worse …
Great article … but not enough puns. 😉
Body shape is not just a tabletop gaming thing, but extends to other media like computer games, comics, TV and movies.
Avengers Endgame has been criticised with regard the appearance of Thor (I’ll leave it at that to avoid spoilers)…
Gravity does not apply females in comic books.
In the world of magazines… men’s magazine portray woman as objects of desire and women’s magazines seem to encourage women to become that desire.
In short… some things will never change no matter how many people talk about it.
I’m not an expert in comics because I hate superheroes but it is my understanding that gravity is not the only area of physics that doesn’t apply to superheroes.
Physics does not apply to fantasy, or science fiction either… physics is replaced by the plot device in most cases.
In which it’s not an issue that gravity doesn’t apply in some circumstances, right?
Bugger! i had a twitcher glee moment thinking it was birds being discussed…….
Nah, that’s the next Burrows & Badgers article by Ben.
?
I wrote out a whole rant and then thought better of it. I don’t want to cause offence and so I have deleted it.
I will simply say. This is my hobby, and anyone telling me what I am or am not allowed to enjoy in it will be studiously ignored.
No one’s telling you what to do. There should just be more room made for ‘Sensible Shoes’ and interesting alternative takes of doing female miniatures
I disagree completely disagree with you there @brennon , I think the article is absolutely trying to tell people what to do. Here’s a few select quotes:
“But the more you ask your FLGS about real female figures, the more they’ll begin to stock them”
“We can choose not to buy another half-naked general because she has a cool gun that makes it okay. We can make real representations of real women. We can put them in actual clothes. ”
“So, my fellow gamers, let’s band together and ask for better breasts from our gaming experience”
Each one of those is a rallying cry, a call to action or a request for help. And the general tone of “think about the children” when coupled with this creates an inference that if you don’t agree with this, don’t fall in line and you keep buying sexy female miniatures you obviously don’t care about the children and what sort of monster doesn’t care about children?
As I have said elsewhere, this is purely a matter of personal preference. It’s perfectly fine to not like boob plate or pinups or any other miniature for that matters. It’s not ok to tell others that they also should not like them or should not buy them. Generally speaking, people who feel the need to vocalise the rationale behind their own opinions, as this article is doing, are actually trying to impose their opinion onto other people.
I actually think this is quite disappointing to read an article like this from Beasts of War who have, for so long, been very neutral on the subject. They have never openly taken a side for or against sexy female miniatures and have covered all miniatures with an open mind. One of the reasons I like BoW is because they don’t take a side, they don’t judge people because of their tastes and they don’t try to tell people what they should or should not buy. The pin ups of Kingdom Death get equal billing with the sensible heroes of Bad Squiddo which is exactly how it should be and it’s why I continue to pay by subs every month. This article, however, flies in the face of past articles and statements (yes I have seen BoW defend boob plate and pinups when criticised for promoting them), it’s a surprising change in direction. This isn’t a member posting on the forums, this is an employee of the company writing on behalf of the company and being published by the company. As a result their opinion is seen as BoW’s opinion – if it wasn’t then the company shouldn’t publish it, it should be moved to a forum and qualified as the opinion of the person not the business.
Hypothetically speaking, say that sexy pinup miniatures or boobplate females were my thing and I read this, would I still feel welcome at BoW or that they will continue to bring me news of things I like? Or would I now feel as though my own tastes and preferences were no longer welcome because I am part of some perceived problem? I actually think this article walks a very fine line and while it exists in isolation it may not be a problem but if it becomes a recurring theme, as has been seen in so many other branches of entertainment from comics to videogames to films, the audience may start to shrink and it’s very hard to recover from that. I don’t really want to see that happen because I love BoW.
OTT both the Team and the Community are a broad church 🙂
If we only publish stuff everyone agrees with the schedule would become quite light lol (and they may never let me back on the show)
As you well know I’m pretty open to ideas and debates taking place on the condition that there is a well reasoned argument behind it. When it comes to opinion pieces there is no right or wrong often, so it’s important to have an adequate amount of detail behind the piece.
I’m actually not sure where I stand exactly on the issue myself (I see so much in shades of grey as I get older I find I dont take ‘definitive’ stances as often as I did lol)
But I had a moment this week infact where I was referring to Lizardmen (the next army I’m rebasing) and Savanna looked a little deflated, turns out she felt a bit excluded as I made it sound like it was for men only. After a little heart to heart I will try to refer to it as lizard people as she tells me if she was a lizard she would fight by my side.
She’s young (8) and has a whole life to get to grips with how the world works and she will, but I saw first hand there just a simple thing that I take for granted that had an impact I hadn’t expected.
Now while it might be nice if the companies take that into account my own principles make me take responsibility for the raising of my children. I don’t expect any company to take any stance that harms their bottom line (within the confines of law) they are welcome to if they want but it is not expected.
As a parent who likes to share the hobby it would be helpful, but certainly not mandatory. 🙂
Cass has experience in this issue well beyond what I have, both being a woman surrounded by gaming and having a little girl in those teenage years.
So when I read an article like this honestly I’m coming at it more from a perspective of I wonder if I can glean somthing from this to help me a few years from now lol
Because I clearly dont have all the answers 🙂
@warzan I find really strange this feeling of exclusion reported in the past decade, I am not doubting you at all, I am wondering though if it is something artificial injected in our society or something that is surfacing now, because when I was at her age I remember the girls who played with the boys having no issue playing with army men who were all male (I clearly remember my sister never said she wanted a female royal guard, but she always wanted the royal guard and be the hero defending the mansion), maybe back then only the more “tomboy” girls played with the boys and those did not have any issue while now the amount of boys and girls willing to play with each other is wider and such ideas are now expressed because of that.
Regardless, I think you can say to your girl that male and female lizard look the same (usually they do except some size variance), but the female lizards have different secondary colours from the male ones (say yellow/ violet?).
I wholeheartedly agree with you that all articles of all viewpoints need to be written and seen, as long as no viewpoint is censored and the discussion is civil all we can do is gain, even if no viewpoint is changed, this is what societies do, exchange ideas and viewpoints.
It is an interesting topic for discussion for sure, it has no solution but the discussion on the topic is quite important.
Hi mate
I think you are correct that view points are perhaps shifting. But it might also be a case of as our type of hobby becomes more mainstream we will see the effects of things we have just taken for granted more often.
Cass made a point about the original generation of gamers now being parents and wanting to introduce our children to the things we loved (that also includes movies and comics etc)
Well roughly half of those children are going to be female so there is certainly going to be an added pressure from that.
It doesn’t help the hysterics and pearl clutching in the media these days, as it means that any topic of substance is just seen as virtue signaling and we dont get to have discussions in any depth. (And remember all considered feedback is welcome, OTT should never become an echo chamber)
But personally speaking the generational thing has had more of an impact on my approach than any hyperbole on the media regarding gender etc. 🙂
I fully agree the media and to an extension the big companies that echo them have created a really troubling environment that does not help such discussions to be had at all, the forced entrenchment and the inability to accept either middle ground or coexistence of ideas and ideologies has hurt the ability to discuss such topics a lot.
I am really glad we are having this discussion here like humans used to do.
Agreed mate
In an era where discussion is being shut down and everything is hysterics I hope we can all take time to consider and just talk stuff out 🙂
Because having constructive opinions etc in the open helps everyone get a feel for where the land lies.
We all have to be aware though that all our perspectives are relative.
And my perspectives have changed over the years, in many different ways.
I’ll give you an example, I would probably have been considered more of a feminist in my 20s than I am today on some aspect but not on others.
2 quick examples…
I want my daughter to be able to have the same opportunities that she can graft for as anyone else of any gender.
Yet I also see the pressure my wife feels when she chose to be a ‘housewife’ (the term does her role as a mother and carer and manager of our family no justice whatsoever – hardest job I have ever seen)
I value the more ‘traditional’ choice myself and Andrea took in how we are as a family. But the pressure on her is very visible that choosing to be a mother and carer is somehow ‘beneath her’
Fairness is a funny old game and can often lead to a lot of unfairness in the process of forcing it through 🙂
Anyway I digress lol (Typical me!)
My own stance is that while I do love Infinity miniatures, even the females, I am not so attached that if they changed I would be upset and stop buying them. But nor do I feel strongly enough that I will be changing buying habits any time soon. I don’t personally like pinup miniatures in my games, like Kingdom Death (although I do like pinup art), but I have no problem with them existing nor do I worry about my daughter’s wellbeing as a result of sexy miniatures and artwork.
I also have absolutely no issue with Cass having her opinions or even voicing them and in a different context I might be prepared to cross swords with her and debate it. My issue here is entirely down to the manner in which the opinion has been voiced. This isn’t Cass voicing her opinion, it’s Beasts of War publishing their opinion because its been published by Beasts of War. Unfortunately this article definitely comes across as there being a right and a wrong and uses “the children” to try and persuade people that sexy female miniatures are wrong. It’s not a balanced article at all, it’s a call to action – it’s borderline propaganda and that’s what I find so disappointing. If this were on the forums as a discussion I wouldn’t have any problem at all. I read everything on the forums as the personal opinion of the person posting and I do not hold BoW accountable for opinions expressed there. This, however, is an article published by BoW and must therefore be considered the opinion of Beasts of War.
We may have to agree to disagree. I dont expect any team member to take responsibility for my opinions or those of any other team member.
I say what I say on the shows as me, not Ben, Justin or Gerry.
Your welcome to bundle us all into the same barrel but you’ve been around long enough that I’d prefer you didn’t 🙂
Because Justin doesn’t deserve to be held accountable for my opinions 😉
It’s about how and where you voice those opinions. If this were a forum topic that would not be the same as a news article. Similarly when you discuss something with Justin on a video that’s not the same as publishing an article. On the other hand if you posted a video of you doing a monologue about something that would absolutely look like the opinion of BoW. It’s about context and from the context of the videos like the weekender and CLBS, there are multiple opinions on display and none necessarily represents BoW so therefore they must be personal opinions. However the perception of a written article with only a single, somewhat one sided, opinion on offer paints a very different story. I would suggest that from the comments that I am not really alone in that. This isn’t me asking you (BoW, not Warren) to take the article down but I think you need to be much more careful in future when publishing articles in divisive topics that you present a much more balanced point of view. This article is anything but balanced and it’s not a particularly pleasant read for people who DO like the things that the author doesn’t like, many of whom (myself included) are in fact paying customers who subscribe to backstage. I want to be part of something that celebrates everyone’s interests, Whether that ladies in sensible shoes or Kabuki pinups. It used to be like that, this article is very much the opposite. It’s very critical of some people’s hobby and even goes so far as to suggest ways we can stop people making those things effectively stamping out someone else’s. It’s not an invalid opinion, but it is a bad article. You have every right to publish what you want, but I think you have made a fair number of people unhappy with this one and that’s not a positive step.
I know your a man who likes the last word mate so yes I get your point 🙂
Personally I don’t think it is any different from any opinion piece in any newspaper and when reading it I never considered it to be the the opinion of Beasts of War, just the opinion of the person who wrote it. Do you think Jeremy Clarkson’s opinion is considered the opinion of The Times newspaper just because they publish it every Sunday? Publishing an opinion piece, which this is obviously is, does not necessary mean its opinion of the publisher. Perhaps BoW should put a disclaimer stating the obvious.
I don’t particularly like “opinion pieces” full stop and I don’t really want to see BoW heading too far down that road.
I think they’re important to a healthy and diverse community. Considering that this viewpoint Cass put forth is one that is gaining more traction both in wargaming and the wider tabletop gaming community I think it’s worth talking about and sharing an opinion from someone embedded within that world.
I think our hobby community is quite healthy and diverse as it is, since it is expanding without any noticeable change and most importantly humans by their nature are diverse.
I would argue thought that this viewpoint is not getting traction in wargaming and wider gaming community, it is discussed a lot by opinion article writers so it shows there are individuals pushing for this viewpoint, but initiatives to this direction get either modest response or fail, so the actual response does not back up the idea that this viewpoint gets traction.
My opinion is that a big part of why this is the case is because such viewpoints are not allowed to get an organic growth in the community, with articles pushing for it and products released making a statement either by the publisher or by the small community that supports it, it gets the opposite reaction from what people pushing for this viewpoint expect, especially in this modern complicated stage of public discussion.
Agreed the numbers may just not stack up on this issue, so putting pressure on there having to be supply before demand.
It may well be something that shakes out given time.
Either way it’s a complex issue with a lot of viewpoints and I’ve appreciated reading them.
Acutely aware though that unless I’m mistaken we’ve been entirely men commenting. Which leaves me under no illusions that this comment thread has painted the full picture, but and I want to be very clear about this no one is under any obligation to comment on topics like this or even have a formed opinion on them.
I’m getting quite relaxed these days to just admit ‘I dont know and I dont have all the answers’:)
That probably is because the vast majority of the customer base is male, so while it may not be a complete picture it probably is a representative picture, this may never change because of the nature of the hobby, or it may need decades to organically change, so the children of our children may be the first generation to be born in a hobby that has a more mixed population as far as male and female gamers go.
And we may need to be prepared for the eventuality that the gaming population may never change, many traditionally female hobbies have not gained any traction on men and probably they will remain so, admittedly for some reason there is no push to include men in traditionally female hobbies, even though it would be in numbers roughly half the population of untapped market growth, or that only aspects or sections of the wider hobby will appeal to the female market.
Examples from the digital games market and boardgames seem to indicate on specific genres getting attention and others been ignored, or that new genres are created that are gathering only female attention, but personally, I hope, that this is because we are in really early stages and in a few decades time we will be in a more mixed environment.
Articles that present both sides of an argument are healthy. One sided opinion pieces like this are very divisive and are absolutely not healthy. I would say looking at the comments here you have definitely divided opinion.
It’s also interesting to hear that you think the opinion is gaining traction because this is what I think. There’s a very small and vocal number of people who think this way. There’s also an equally small number of people at the other end of the spectrum who don’t want change. Then there’s the enormous silent majority in the middle who actually don’t give a toss either way. However preachy arguments like this tend to push people away from the point of view being pushed and towards the opposite camp. People generally don’t care about whether female miniatures are sexy or not but they definitely care about being told what they should think and what they should buy and they probably object to being made to feel guilty for their preferences.
A call to action within an opinion piece isn’t a blanket ban on a particular subject. It’s just calling for a change. Doesn’t mean you have to change…no-one makes anyone do that…but for me, personally, I’d love to see that happen across the spectrum with companies offering up not realistic portrayals of men and women, as ‘heroic’ as our games might be, whilst also offering up options that cater to other tastes.
@brennon and here we disagree, I do not want the industry to change and it does not need to change and does not have to change, the industry can expand with new companies created to fill the demand and can diversify with new companies created to fill a demand and these companies can succeed or fail according to the demand actually existing and if the demand exists and it of sufficient quantity maybe the established industry may take a look.
Asking for the established industry to take the risk and change from their known and established revenue to chase a mythological “diverse” wider audience is in my opinion arrogant and catastrophic as the many examples of companies who did it in other industries show.
Want something new? do it yourself, don’t want to do it? advocate about it as a new product or as way for a new company to be established, someone does the new thing you wanted? support it and promote it.
Do not ask for the established industry to change to what you like, they have their established audience and they want what they are already getting.
The call to action is to stop buying female miniatures with emphasised or exaggerated sexual characteristics. If people stop buying them that represents a drop in demand which in turn will lead to a drop in supply. So while it’s not calling for a ban (which I didn’t actually say) it is definitely an attempt to push people to put pressure on miniatures makers to cease making sexy female miniatures through economic means.
It then couples this message by suggesting that we should all stop buying sexy miniatures because won’t someone think of the children.
If there is evidence that children are being negatively effected by ‘something’ then for some of us it perhaps is somthing we want to consider.
There is certainly no expectation for you to consider them though mate.
I’m not sure how body image is affecting my children, Cass though has a girl in the teenage years so she may well have more insight into this than I do.
I do however see a number of things that I consider to be negatively affecting my children (mostly some of the shallow crap on youtube)
The thing is it’s never just one thing and never isolated to just one industry, but if there is the possibility of some issue some folk may well want to consider that. And they have as much right to as you have a right not to. 🙂
We can choose to care or not. When I read this I try to remember that the writer is both a mother and someones daughter, I then asked myself, I wonder how I would feel about this issue had my daughter wrote this, would it make me any more likely to consider the salient points being raised.
I dont have to agree, and folk in the studio know that I disagree on a lot of stuff, but I am going to take the time to listen so I can understand and then… I may just disagree some more lol 🙂
If children are being negatively affected by something, don’t expose them to it. You wouldn’t (shouldn’t?) let your children watch Game of Thrones but that doesn’t mean nobody can watch it.
I don’t know if my little girl is going to grow up to want to play Wargames (and right now getting her into gaming isn’t exactly top priority) but I am reasonably certain that if she does I will be able to find a game to play that doesn’t involve pinups and boobplate.
There’s plenty of room in the current market for “sensible shoes”. They sell as many miniatures as there is demand for. When demand increases, so will supply.
I think you really need to remember that the overwhelming majority of people actually don’t give a toss either way. They neither support nor oppose boobplate.
I disagree…this article is 100% trying to tell you what to do in banishing female Armour and DD tits.
As it happens I don’t have many boob-armoured models, actually come to think of it I probably don’t have any!
The point is though if I want to buy an army of them then its an issue between me and the company who makes them and no one else. End of.
I have no problem with anyone disliking them but please, please lets not have any of this fashionable, pervasive politically correct, interfering bossiness
around our hobby.
I get the point and I don’t object to the point of view. Particularly as I have a 20 year old daughter I have brought up. In that regard and out of respect for her, and my wife and women in general I have never been one to bring “cheesecake” into my hobby. But that was my personal choice. Not something forced on me.
I really object to the idea that particular types of model should be boycotted or banned, and the inference that comes with that, that those who buy them should be looked down on or sneered at for having bad taste. Seriously.
If that was not the intent of this piece then I apologise, but that is how the tone of the article comes across I’m afraid. If it was tongue in cheek then I missed it, but really the article does come across to me as Cass telling us we should not buy or sell boob armoured models anymore. By definition, that “is” telling me what to do!
I love Annie’s models and own quite a few. A piece promoting the aesthetics of those would have been wonderful. A piece explaining why you don’t like boob armour would have been ok too. There is much humour to be had around much of the sillinesses in the aesthetics of our hobby.
But a piece campaigning to get boob armour “banished”, sorry that crosses a line. Do we campaign for the banishing of Nazi models from Hellboy because they are … well… Nazis? Do we campaign for the proper sizing of 40k gun barrels because shells that size could never exist in reality? Or dragons?
By all means express a preference and support greater diversity. But please, please lets not banish anything other than intolerance!
I don’t give a single flying fart about “realism” in my fantasy or sci-fi games. It’s escapism, fun and exaggeration. “Representation matters” – no it doesn’t, sorry, reality says you’re wrong. And you’ve never seen Catachans.
Go have a look at all the companies that have done their absolute best to pull in more female customers through “representation”, like Marvel (comics), Valiant etc. They’re failing, hard. Malifaux and other tabletop brands have tried hard as well. The results – still a sausage fest. What keeps you from playing a Guard army with a head swap from, for example, Andrea Miniatures?
Biology wins in the end. Men and women are different, on a spectrum.
And in the end, even women prefer looking at sexy women.
I’ve known so many guys who had tried their absolute best as well to get their girlfriends, sisters, you name it to play with them, to share the hobby. Tabletop gamers are one of the nicest communities I know, and I’ve never seen anyone try and run off a girl. Nerds are sometimes a bit smelly, but that’s generally the worst that can be said.
I believe the best way to get women to play tabletop games, is to play narrative games with them. Maybe that would be something for you? The guys over at miniwargaming offer a boatload of narrative campaigns for downloading. Maybe find one you like, in a setting you enjoy, get those minis painted and have at it?
Maybe you could explore in an article, why there are more women playing Pen&Paper RPGs than tabletop games? Maybe ask women you know who play P&P, why they aren’t playing tabletop games? Would be interesting. Thinking back, we’ve always had at least one girl in our P&P sessions, but almost never for tabletop games.
The tales of sexual harassment of women in the industry, at stores, and at Cons indicate that gamers/nerds may not be the paragons you seem to think they are.
And I have met a number of female gamers who I would not wish to spend much time with.
The hobby has a majority of great folks, and some serious oddballs of both sexes.
But crucially, the oddballs are not representative of the majority of gamers
“The tales of sexual harassment of women in the industry, at stores, and at Cons indicate that gamers/nerds may not be the paragons you seem to think they are.”
Sorry, but I don’t take that seriously, at all. Just last year there was this huge hubbub at GenCon. Guess what, the woman lied. One after the other male feminists turn out to be sexual predators of the worst kind, current example ProJared (lol, reset the clock!).
Nuance and context is of course also a thing. Socially awkward people, which are to a greater extent into nerdy hobbies, can get really awkward. That’s not sexism, though.
Can this stuff happen? I am 100% sure it can, and did. There are laws, and I encourage everyone who experienced stuff like this to go take it to law enforcement first, before they take it to social media.
“What keeps you from playing a Guard army with a head swap from, for example, Andrea Miniatures?”
Just on this point, GW stops you as in many events and stores you are not allowed to participate with other companies bits etc. (Some are more strict than others)
I’m also not sure that sticking Female heads on Male bodies is going to really do it justice. I suppose it comes down to can you tell the difference between a Male and female soldier in full battle fatigues. I generally think I can as generally there is a difference in the frame. But again that’s me generalizing.
GW is pushing quite hard to include females in their promotion and advertising these days, so I’m their specific case they should be following through on that and increasing the representation.
However I firmly believe this is a choice for companies to make, they need to do what they believe will give them success within the boundaries of the Law. Moral stances need to be a secondary consideration otherwise all the good will in the world will be wasted 🙂
I’d say you’d probably be hard pressed to notice the difference with the Cadian minis. Look at (I think it is) Artel W’s Arbites-like female squad. Really hard to tell they’re female.
I hear you on the GW thing with third party stuff. I’ve never had problems with just head swaps or weapons, but then I’m also not interested in the tournament scene. Parts sellers can provide GW female heads and parts to avoid that though, I think. Now that gave me ideas and I want to see how I can mix up Sisters of Silence and SM scouts.
When it comes to moral stances, companies need to be aware that getting involved in such highly contentious, political stuff will inevitably alienate parts of their customer base. The question is, will they gain more than they lose, and are these loud voices on the internet really representative of the majority of people? Or have the radical neo-puritans just succeeded the old religious puritans who we had to push against in the 90’s and early 2000’s?
Be that as it may, I am all for more options, for more female minis and the market will take care of the bad takes. I’m just worried about the collateral damage this will cause. Marvel Comics should be a warning.
Have to say I dont believe I have any boob armour in my board game mini collection, I do have Conan so I probably have loads of overtly sexualised content, but no actual boob armour. Not having any goofy games workshop stuff probably helps in this regard aswell and looking through my collection of Dust and CMON minis the female arour when present seems respectably realistic (in terms of boobs). Is there some definable split between what is produced for board games vs table top wargames?
It’s also worth noting that ridgid steel bikini tops are in fact near usless. I made a pair for one our re-enacting members years ago who was a starving uni student and couldn’t afford off the shelf protection to put under her gambeson. (we fight with steel so part of club rules). Sure they looked good, and we went through various adjustments to try get them to work but they just dont work all that well with the required movements. Sorry sausage fest lovers, if you want to keep her comfy and alive on the field they have to be bound up a little.
Yes there is a place for such silliness but it seems that when a miniture line is exagerated and fantastical enough to excuse it , its the only standard it holds.
Well thought out article.
Although there is no such thing as “bad hobby” it is important to be inclusive. For me, I would rather encourage more products like the Frostgrave female soldiers, a lot of the newer Reaper female figures, Victoria miniatures SF soldiers etc where they are clearly female, not wearing sacks, but also not turning up yo Hoth Or Felstad in a chain mail tanktop. “Will you not be cold Nora?” “No No, look, I have long gloves, long boots and a chain mail bikini…”
There is a place for cheesecake (showing men and women), and Elmore barbarians, Red Sonja, tight costumes etc and they are an important part of the geek culture that the fantasy and SF part of the hobby feeds off but maybe those will be crowded out by more realistic figures being more popular.
One thing I find creepy and uncomfortable, without naming the companies, are the ones where it has gone completely the other way with over the top depictions of anguished ‘slave girls’ carrying ammunition, women tied to dreadnoughts, etc etc. Again, no such thing as bad hobby and rarely such a thing as bad sexuality but I think those should stay on the shelf. If you wouldn’t have the publication featuring them on your coffee table, or read it on the bus, should you really be setting them out at a tournament…
Supposedly, North Star are working on a female wizard set now, which is great news!
Looking forward to that!
welcome to 2019, the year free speech died and telling a joke gets you a longer jail time then selling drugs.. and now this…. “people” trying to change the world or playing with toys to be more “correct”… Next it be not enough lesbian warriors on the table, or wheres the dark skinned folk, why all the fresh coloured paint… Yes its early saturday morning with half a cup of tea.. not awake fully.. so don`t mind me….
Just…. its a slippy slop.. look at Pc games on sexy woman, like MC11 the attacks on the people that have made changes to please a few…
I don’t think it’s an issue of ‘correct’ rather to be respectful and inclusive for the benefit of all.
I agree Brennon… i`m not a troll..!!! or a Orc.. Just it can be all one sided, Thor got fat in the new film and next it be fat shaming of Thor… Body image its a tough one……
Ps… had my cup of tea and now feel better….
@brennon Is it inclusive though? There is nothing inclusive in demanding, softly or not, for the world to change in ones worldview, moral, political, or aesthetic, it is by definition exclusive.
Frankly inclusive would be new things to be created in a new direction and nobody care about them exist and this has been the case for decades, for example, nobody cared that a new KS started last year with more “realistic” women figures and nobody demanded to be changed to more sexy versions, that is inclusive, demanding established products to change on the other hand is exclusive and will get the comments from the already established buyer base that has expectations from an already formalised brand.
As the many failures (catastrophic or not) of the comic books and digital gaming, industry have shown in the past changing a product to appease the magical and non existent “wider audience” that values, the various inclusive buzzwords alienates the already established consumer base does not bring in anybody new and the champions of “inclusiveness” are both a really niche market and they tend to not buy a product that changes to their demands.
Of course admitting that the market search and (the worldview were this market search is based) is wrong is too much and potentially would cost the jobs of the people championing it (and prove their world view wrong) so better accuse the scarecrows for the failures, gamers, males, whatever else, because attacking the customers and dividing the customer base is after all “inclusive” creating new products to cater to other people instead of changing already established products diversifying and adding to the customer base is… apparently not?
I have to add this though the past decade has shown a few interesting things I feel needs to be pointed out, first of all “traditional” products sell really well, there are examples of products done by individuals selling better than “products changed to be “inclusive” by companies, this shows the large buyers base has not shifted and given the vilifying rhetoric against the “traditional” behaviour the past decades have produced it is unlikely it will shift, probably because the vast majority of people just want what has been shaped to be the “traditional” products, secondly and more importantly while there is a really niche buyers base for non “traditional” products, when a new product is done to cater that buyers base it just exists, nobody really takes a stance against it and as far as comics go at least, there are some really good products examining many non traditional subjects of morality, sexuality and ideals just avoid the big companies if you want to find them.
In my opinion a really good example of inclusiveness would be KDM and its male pinups, the short story is Mr. Puts refused to have male pinups, not because he felt they would not sell, or because he was against the idea, but because he had not find an artist of a sexual orientation that would produce proper male pinups when he found one he produced them, That is the proper way in my opinion, do not change the product, add to it in a proper way and make sure the new product is done with the same care and standards the other products are made.
@brennon inclusive means to have options that will bring in all walks of gamers. This articles talks about eliminating aspects of modeling…that is the opposite of inclusive.
For the benefit of people who don’t like current depictions of women. It has zero benefit for anyone who likes sexy female miniatures and fantasy artwork
Agree fully with the text. I want to introduce my daughter into the hobby and it is not easy finding even acceptable sculpts of females… Hopefully the new Sisters from GW will continue the path they seem to have taken and set the new standard.
I think it’s also incorrect to say that muscle cuirasses were rarely used in combat. The historical evidence suggests that they were widely used by the Greeks and used by officers and other VIPs in the Roman military even into the Byzantine era.
There’s a significant body of evidence that points at armour being used to emphasise the desired aesthetic of the day all the way through the ancient/classical and medieval periods. Not everyone would wear such armour, normally only the wealthy elites, but it was certainly quite common. So in a fantasy setting where women fight alongside the men, the armour designed for their wealthy elites would do something similar. The problem with fantasy settings is that they don’t have their own aesthetic, they have an aesthetic that is artificially designed by someone from a culture that has its own sets of cultural norms which are then transferred into the fantasy setting.
I can’t say I have ever thought that much about overt sexualisation in my mini collection. I know there are examples of it in some brands but then again there are examples of more balanced representation in others.
I think it’s easy to notice the figures that offend and pass over the ones that do not and it’s important to avoid confirmation bias. Thinking on my own collection I have a couple of positive examples;
Star Wars Legion by FFG represents female and male characters in much the same way. The Leia model is almost disappointingly androgynous and all of the Rebel units include male and female minis in exactly the same uniforms. The Imperial troops also include female members, notably the Imperial Officer and Death Trooper Squad Leader upgrade. The latter of which I only know is female because it references her gender on the unit card.
I’ve also been painting my Dark Souls minis recently. Some of the heroes in that game are female but you can only really tell from the accompanying art work, so no ‘breastplates’ there.
I know at the other end of the spectrum you have collections like ‘The Toughest Girls in the Galaxy’ but you have to vote with your wallet. If you don’t like it, don’t endorse it by buying it.
the problem with ‘voting with your wallet’ is that the alternatives need to be a viable option.
And as @cassn says it does get tiresome if you run into the same situation often enough.
I do think that it isn’t as bad as it used to be.
I just hope that there continues to be room for both the ‘realistic’ and the ‘fantastic’ variant.
I agree to some extent but no one is forcing anyone to buy miniatures and simply not participating in games that do not conform with ones idea of ‘acceptable’ is a viable option.
If you feel a company like GW weren’t doing due service to the female gamers out there (and I’m not saying that is the case), then don’t support them by playing their games and buying their product.
‘force’ is tricky … GW are such a big company that not buying effectively means that you don’t get a chance to be part of a (great) local community.
I also wouldn’t want to speak for what anyone else wants, especially if they are a different gender/ethnic group/species/etc.
If things make me feel awkward then I don’t buy/play, but there are times I’d rather support an unpopular opinion whenever I feel the creators are unjustly treated by their opponents.
And that sort of thing does unfortunately happens as creators have been threatened and harassed because they dared to produce content that wasn’t 100% politically correct …
I agree whole heartedly with this sentiment, and creators should have their freedom to create protected too.
GW I have some personal expectations of them purely because their current marketing is very gender and race neutral (their booklets have very specific imagery of diverse young people)
So I hope they push to live up to that sentiment and build in more diversity into the range etc. (Carefully and expertly of course – although they cant please everyone)
Otherwise the advertising looks like box ticking and lip service.
But as a market leader and with the incredible talent pool they have, I have high Hope’s they can pull it off well. 🙂
I think context is important. And where that context is flexible, it can be respectful or at least egalitarian. Barbaric, medieval, historic, some fantasy the mistreatment of women is contextual. For some games like Conan, if you want that flavour you pretty much have to accept the package it comes in. I own Conan. For Kingdom Death I was completely turned off by the portrayal of women. A beautiful game I passed on. But I defer to critisize the designer in part because it came across to me as ‘his art’. I don’t really know what that means other than it seemed he had some justification at least. In the second kickstarter he went a long way to balancing the books with the male pinups. Paolo Parente uses a deplorable representation of women in dust (less a very small number). Some will say its contextual. I would argue that the painting on the side of a WWII bomber is not sufficient grounds for that representation, especially given the very valuable role played by women in WWII including combat.
Probably most telling for me is that there are plenty of games that represent women so well, some even maintaining a degree of sexiness for those that need that. Myth managed to show us that fantasy figures for women can look just as cool as their male counterparts. Infinity is a contrast between some truly well and respectfully presented strong women and those that fit better into the traditional ‘Manga’ theme. From my view an unnecessary and unfortunate choice on their part. (I admit I know very little about manga other than that I really don’t have much good to say about it)
And personally that is where I find the representation of women most shameful. Where games are set in the present or the future, where there is no context or equality in representation, where cool and viable alternatives exist, where there simply is no reason … can we please stop running into battle in high heels with our boobs bursting out.
Body Image: Men in war gaming are just as badly represented in body image as women…this article is really a flat argument and doesn’t hold weight. How many “Barbarians” in our games have a beer gut and are 25% body fat? Men are just as unrealistically modeled as women.
Armour: Both genders in games, for the most part, exaggerate that genders form. Either massive unrealistic biceps and pecs….or DD tits…no real difference. Just because those parts are accentuated…doesn’t mean it is being sexualized or demeaning to that gender. I am 5’11 230 lbs and about 26% body fat….i don’t feel shamed at all…nor do i feel depressed i cant look like Conan. I wish i had blonde hair, i wish i was 5% body fat and had an 10 inch pecker. Nope…dont have any of those. (and if this post is deleted b/c i talked about a pecker…than that is just a sad double standard since we are on the topic of tits).
Art: The aesthetics of our games are awesome! When we look at new games everyone looks first and foremost at the beauty of the sculpts of the models. Who the hell wants to play a mini that is modeled after a middle aged, balding, overweight person? The beauty and artitic value of the models is just as much a part of the game as the rule set and people we enjoy these games with over a beer and some laughs.
Pushing an Agenda and opinion: The things that make the free world such a great thing are now breaking it apart. If i want boobs…i should have the opportunity to buy models with DD tits and play them on the table. If i want beer..i will go buy it and drink it…if i dont want beer i wont buy it or drink it. Its as simple as that….but no…we have reached a point in society that everyone must talk about such a morale high ground and deny others things that they enjoy. We, at least me, game to escape the stupidity of current society…yet here we are dragging social issues into our gaming. FFS….if you dont like models with massive tits…don’t play with them. That’s the beautiful thing about the free world CHOICE. Dont deny other people they things they enjoy in their free time and hobbying just because it offends you or a handful of people. I hate cigarettes and cant stand walking around people who smell of it…should i embark on some crusade to eliminate it from our world? NO!!! i choose not to smoke and destroy my body or inflict others to the retched smell of it. Its not my place to deny people choices they want in their lives. Stop pushing your own agenda and forcing others to abide by it.
Beats of War/On Table Top: I really wish these topics would go away. I have been a backstager now for 6-7 years. I am done with it once my subscription is over in Dec. This place has devolved so much from what it once was. This social justice topics is point in case. I game to not have to hear of this rubbish…yet now it is getting into my gaming. BoW used to be place that did not talk of politics or social issues. Now we are having topics of depression in gaming…tits of excessive sizes. And the content is anything and everything Games Workshop/Warhammer/AoS/etc. Every topic on the Weekended or Backstage turns into something about Warhammer. I dont play those games…so it doesn’t interest me at all. Sadly a lot of the content for other games (other than the KS reviews) are of stuff that is already released. SW: Legion articles are published after i have the stuff in my hands. You hardley see anything on Infinity anymore. I can only assume that relationship might be over since CB is doing their own release week videos on their own channels. If i had to guess….Games workshop is subsidizing this channel in some manner since every conversation brings their games into it. This last topic isn’t to request for change…that would be hypocritical of me to say that based on my above view points. Nor am i looking for people to say “no dont leave”…which no one really cares if i stay around here anyway…it doesn’t bother me one way or another. I am just pointing out that for my taste and enjoyment of this hobby…BoW is evolving into something that is not what i want out of my hobby.
To put your mind at ease on the Infinity stuff, our big work is scheduled for later in the year with some big launches 🙂
So worry not on that front:)
And GW dont subsidise here (we wouldn’t meet the demands they expected)
We fund pretty much as we always have trying to create a balance of revenue streams (none earth shattering) to give us what we need to try and cover the Bills this all generates.
I won’t say anything on the other points but you’ve been here as long as I have or longer and GW is no friend to OTT. Remember the C&D letters? The channel being deleted? The loss of sponsors? I doubt Warren would hold a grudge but GW has shown itself to not be a friend to places like OTT or MiniWargming.
I actually feel the opposite about the Weekenders. I feel like there is a lot more Historical Gaming content in them than GW stuff.
As this topic has triggered a lot of response (perhaps due to the lack or weekender) it would make sense for the creator of the topic to respond to the some of the points made.
Ahhhh gods. What a great article! Well researched and incredibly well written. You’re entirely right Cass. I think we should expect better of companies and also vote with our wallets when it matters.
Those last couple of paragraphs had me in stiches!
And here is where I get to disagree lol 😉
A purpose of a company is to survive and meet the demand of those who own it.
Corporate responsibility extends only so far as the law (wherever they are effected) demands.
Any additional moral undertakings are a choice for the company to make, often based on demand.
And that is the key (and in fact somthing Cass has been very astute on) it’s about highlighting an opinion and perhaps those who share that opinion will go out and help generate that demand.
Putting demands upon creators just impinge on their freedom of expression IMHO.
So for me at least…
Call out to consumers to see if demand can be stimulated = fair game 🙂
Placing expectations on companies and creators outside of their legal responsibilities = care must be taken.
Creators have a right to make what they want and do what they want to earn a living.
There is a certain amount of chicken and egg to this argument, but the reality is demand is the key, supply does not necessarily create demand 🙂
The other Avenue is to have the law makers and politicians get involved, again in a democracy that is fair game and then companies and creators follow whatever laws are passed 🙂
Shouldn’t you all be drunk at a wedding right now?
and miss an opportunity to discuss boobs! 😉
In my experience there are plenty of boobs at a wedding… and not just drunken men making boobs of themselves…
I would argue that for companies that are de-facto (sp?) monopolies within their field (Facebook and GW to a certain extent) the situation changes quite a bit.
At that stage we should expect more from them.
However forcing creative people to do something they don’t like in order to satisfy a demand that may not be there is counter-productive (to say the least).
Its only a “well written” if you share the point of view of the author.
It is scientifically and historically inaccurate when trying to suggest “boobplate” should not exist or would be ineffective. Much of what is said about female armour is speculative.
It tries to suggest people compare bikini chain clad female warriors to armoured Knights when they tend exist alongside their loincloth wearing menfolk.
It also suggests that the believable female miniatures produced by Bad Squiddo is pioneering. It’s not, Annie simply identified a niche in the market and is exploiting it. There’s absolutely nothing pioneering about it at all unless you cannot tolerate any other depiction of females than the sensible shoes variety.
It uses an appeal to emotion (“think of the children”) backed up with some fairly weak evidence to then try and sway the reader to the author’s point of view by presenting as the moral right. Think of the children is almost an admission that your arguments hold very little weight on their own.
This response…was not well written.
Well, I would point out that I am not a paid writer so I doubt very much that there should be any expectation that my comment should be of the quality becoming of a professionally authored article. However, that said, at least I had a go at summarising why the article was poor, not necessarily poorly written, but that the content itself was lacking in quality. In summary it is a fallacy (appeal to emotion) backed by inaccurate, incomplete and/or weak research data.
Definitely an interesting conversation.
I am surprised how little Wyrd and Malifaux have been mentioned in either the article or the comments.
Yes, they have their sexy lady models with heftier chests (they also have sexy man models with heftier chests too), but looking across their whole range of models they have one of the widest range of models and artwork for representing women in a wargame. They have ladies of all rankings, from leaders to lackeys with a variety of body shapes too.
This is unlike one particular company that (largely) has their female models as either infrequently encountered in a faction or effectively “Amazonians” – consisting solely of women.
As for other wargames, I haven’t played Infinity or Wild West Exodus, but a brief look they do seems to be trying for some representation. Similarly Warmachine/Hordes did have a more representative range of Leaders but this did not seem to pass its way down to the foot soldiers (as memory serves – I haven’t played it in approx 10 years)
Warmachine does have a good number of female leaders and solos.
You’re right about the rank and file being mostly men… however, in war-games the rank and file are pretty much irrelevant as they tend to be on the table for a very short time… they are cannon fodder to protect the leaders and elites.
The major exceptions as far as I recall being Circle Orboros and Cryx, which both have female units.
The Circle have Tharn which are basically savages in ragged armour and cloth, not really ‘boob armour’ (although I think chainmail bikini sounds better)… but you can see curves.
And Cryx have Satyxis… fair bit of skin on them, but they are a vicious bunch of pirates…
Both are lightly armoured, but are dangerous foes.
But we’re not talking tactics are we… this is all about how women are depicted in war-games… and I have never met a female war-gamer… role-player yes… but not war-gamer.
RPG’s have a narrative and war-games have tactics (I know they call it narrative play in 40K and AoS, but that doesn’t stop it from being a turn based battle of wits and dice).
In my experience it’s the RPG’s that interests female gamers, not war.
I need to dig out the source for this but I believe there is some evidence I believe that supports the men are interested in things vs women are interested in people argument. (Generally Speaking)
I’m not entirely sure but in recent years the world seems to be trying to move away from generalisations – which is fair enough and honorable in it’s own right. But… (and there is always a but) it makes discussions quite difficult and very protracted for the likes of me atleast. (but again that’s probably outside the scope of all this)
Not sure how you old are @warzan, but I’m part of an older generation where generalisations were more common. Now a generalisation can become an -ism (sexism, racism, etc) if you say it to the wrong person.
To see how things have changed, look back to the popular shows of of the 70’s and 80’s where casual comments in sitcoms were the norm.
Take Only Fools and Horses as an example, there are lines of dialogue in that which you couldn’t get away with now… you can’t call a corner shop run by an ethnic minority a… well if I type it… someone will get offended.
And ‘Love Thy Neighbour’… well… better leave that one alone.
In general, as you said, there is as a generalisation on what men and woman like, as long as one understands that this is averaged as a whole and not what each individual does or is supposed to be doing then we are fine.
Moving away from generalisations is fine when we talk on an individual basis, but not holding them when trying to understand a wider group can be detrimental to our understanding and expectations.
agreed 🙂
(we’ve agreed a lot this weekend lol)
It’s not just you, I don’t think it’s possible to talk about demographic groups without generalising. Rather than telling people to stop using generalisations I would rather people accept them as necessary but that it’s ok to fall outside of those generalisations.
People absolutely love generalisations what they hate is negative generalisations or positive generalisations of people they hate.
People have no issues with “Oh we need a woman for this job because they bring x,y and z to the table that a man doesn’t” or when people say “Everyone who believes X is Blank-ist and full of hate” it’s only when generalisations are used against someone or for someone they dislike that it becomes an issue. Guide and Ranger positions at National Parks are set aside for Indigenous people because they are supposed to have a deeper understanding and connection to the land despite the majority living in cities and suburbs and no one has an issue but make a negative generalistaion and you can be put in front of a judge if they think it’s bad enough.
As human beings we can’t think without generalisations. It’s how we formulate ideas and judge plans, humans themselves are a generalisation. When we look for IRA members we look for Irish not Jamaicans. Never judge individuals by the generalisations but groups can be judged by nothing less.
Generally that’t the case @warzan. Studies have been done with newborn babies that show the preference is a biological one and not a learned one.
This isn’t that study but a study showing the same thing.
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2009-19763-004
its an interesting insight that when there are women not portrayed in a sexist way (Eg: shieldmaidens in vikings kicking as much ass as men) or soviet female snipers – miniatures follow – purely because it’s the rule of cool.
in that way one avenue can change views and ideas in another.
I for one like that there is now a wide breadth of female miniatures as i always felt abit awkward of the old school style ‘fantasy’ outlook on female warriors. I don’t want pretty much nude females in my collection – with ‘armour’ on.
I think this comes from:
– purely if people see my collection (of which i have many friends and family outside of the hobby) it seems odd to have a wide veriety of men but only the women are loincloths and big ass swords (at the extreme but you get the idea).
Furthermore if i ever had a daughter i would want her to see all forms of femininity on offer not just a very visualised version.
bring on as many normal female miniatures as possible if even if for the small reason that it gives more diversity to individual miniature sculpts.
for example when done well it can really add to a theme on the army, eg: bad squidoo land army etc (if you want to collect a home guard themed army etc)
Fighting and war, however, are not considered a form of femininity they’re considered a form of masculinity. Traditionally women didn’t do the fighting, something that has remained entirely unchanged in the whole of human history and is unlikely to ever change.
the russians had a fairly different view to that in WW2 which caused the germans to not only under estimate ‘male’ forces under russian control but ended up drastically under estimating due to the females in the employ of the military..
also at the end of the day its pushing little men around a table – why not open to a wider audience considering when you step back how silly this hobby is to begin with…
It’s already open to everyone. Not being to everyone’s tastes is not the same as being exclusive.
If it really is “just pushing little men around a table” why do people care about whether there’s boobplate or sensible female miniatures. That statement is as much a justification to make no change at all as it to make changes- that is, it’s no justification at all
The Russians are an outlier case. They were also desperate, they had no choice but to put every body they could on the line or face deceat. That sort of situation is exactly the time you would expect to see women fighting. However women are rarely sent off to war beyond their homelands.
Had Hitler landed in Britain I actually think women would have taken up arms.
Couple of things first.
Context is CRITICAL. Anything Historical and a woman won’t look any different than a man in Full Plate because they wore it so incredibly rarely that it wasn’t custom made.
Breasts are 100% a Sexual thing. They aren’t for feeding babies they’re for cucking men and extorting resources out of them. That’s not a political or personal statement it’s currently the best evolutionary explanation for breasts. Very briefly women are one of the few animals who ovulate secretly and women once only had breasts when they were needed which meant men were repulsed by breasts since there was no point “getting involved” (we’re talking about hunter gatherers with a short lifespan here there wasn’t exactly a lot of dating) with someone who couldn’t produce an offspring that would pass on your genes. Long story short women developed permanent breasts so that men could never tell if they were fertile or not and men’s evolutionary urges took the easiest way forward which was just to change our “Code” from “Breasts = Repulsive” to “Breasts = Fantastic”.
Boob Plate isn’t any less protective than any other type of plate. You talk about the Ancient example’s being not valid because “these cuirasses were developed during the bronze age – at a point when the most extreme armour piercing weapon was an axe” doesn’t really make sense. We know armour was ornamented (via paint and sewn bronze decorations)and if you’re wearing a Bronze Cuirasse you’re already well off enough to afford a bit of decoration on it. Armour was made out of linen or more commonly leather in the Ancient period.
Some evidence from Theucidities:
“Salaethus having himself ceased to expect the fleet to arrive, now armed the commons with heavy armour, which they had not before possessed”
“The Aetolian nation, although numerous and warlike, yet dwelt in unwalled villages scattered far apart, and had nothing but light armour”
Having a full suit of armour was a symbol of status and made you a member of the ‘elite’ in some cases.
“Nevertheless, upon receipt of the news, the Athenians manned twenty ships and called immediately a first assembly in the Pnyx, where they had been used to meet formerly, and deposed the Four Hundred and voted to hand over the government to the Five Thousand, of which body all who furnished a suit of armour were to be members”
There’s plenty of good reasons we don’t have examples of Greek Ab Armour. A quick reason could be that Bronze was very valuable so if you died while wearing it people would most likely steal it, melt it down and sell it for scrap and your family wouldn’t want to just bury you with the modern equivalent of at least a hundred grand unless they were very rich. Very few Bronze statues survive for this reason yet no one denies their prevalence.
Having breasts in armour doesn’t weaken or strengthen it. A lot of modern people especially since WWII have become obsessed with “Shot Trap” equivalents on Medieval armour so that’s why they can’t have breasts yet we see “Shot Traps” all over Plate Armour so that argument isn’t valid. See the Waist of a Medieval Plate for an example.
“There are no records of shaped female armour in medieval times. So let’s just dispel the myth for once and for all. There is no practical, historical, or social reason for boob armour. It’s a fantasy object.”
Not really a valid argument. By that same logic there’s no practical, historical, or social reason not to have boob armour. It’s a fantasy concept.
There is a very clear Social Reason to make boob armour. It’s the same reason that Male Armour has a giant codpiece and a tiny waist. That which was seen as desirable was incorporated into armour. Greeco/Roman Abs, Late Medieval Codpieces and waists are one and the same only from different cultures. The Waist having the shape it does is far more compromising that a bump or two on the chest would be.
Remember armour was well padded and well away from the body so it had cavities anyway.
Also I’ve seen a few people here talking about how the Roman’s feared Barbarian women. Yes they did but anyone who tells you it was because they were fierce warriors is misunderstanding the author. They feared them because women meant settlement not because women were better fighter. A few thousand men raiding you was manageable a few thousand men with women looking to take your land was a serious threat.
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/04/01/battle-sister-bulletin-4-seraphim-first-look/
Not massively different to the originals. Still have sculpted boobs.
I’m a huge fan of the SoB and I’d definitely pick them up if Conquest hadn’t come along. Their armour doesn’t look compromising it actually looks very ornate and suitable for the Sisters.
I’ve done a 180 in the past few months, after watching the Shadiversity explanation of armour aesthetics I accept far more boob plate than before.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBtvS5yhTA8&t=349s
I love Bad Squiddo Games and the various genres they cover. I bought the NorthStar Frostgrave Female Soldiers box and have enjoyed using these minis. I feel the options that have come out recently tread a sensible line and the trend away from bikini armour appears to have begun.
I wonder what the final Sisters of Battle army will look like in comparison to their metal original incarnation. I suspect that will be a standout moment as to how far have we come and whether women gamers feel the trend is moving fast enough.
I don’t know how much women’s body image is based on tabletop wargaming, but I concede I am under qualified to know.
I know that forcing the balance too far too fast can be bad for business and jarring. The WW2 first person shooter computer game Battlefield 5 (digital gaming filth) put women in theatres of war they were never frontline involved in for political correctness reasons. The cardinal sin for me was the missed opportunity to tell some of the real stories of heroism that women were genuinely involved in. Having female characters running around the streets of Rotterdam etc. was ruining the emersion because they kept putting female voice acting exclamations, screams of agony when they were shot and general over abundance of women around me in a WW2 game ruined some games for me.
I will place my vote with my money. I have to be accountable for what I put on the table in front of my friends. I don’t want to be seen as a juvenile immature person by fielding inappropriately near naked models on the battlefield, but I also collect and paint with the rule of cool in mind.
e.g. This model in the link is not politically correct or body image virtuous but I want it in my life because it is cool.
https://wargameexclusive.com/shop/chaos/space-warrior-cypheria-the-fallen/
When you have to put Black Female German Soldiers into a WWII Game while removing the Swastikas you know PC Culture has gone too far.
Battlefield is a game where you can drop a tank on someone’s head through a building or fly a plane so low on the ground you kill people by running them over…I don’t think it was ever very realistic, at least in the new version of the game anyway.
So, by including more soldier types I think it’s less to be ‘PC’ and instead because why not? Their games are so far removed from what WWII was/is that they might as well just making it so it’s everyone playing war rather than trying to be realistic.
It’s basically soldiers in green uniforms vs soldiers in grey uniforms in reality.
As for removing the Swastikas from the game, it’s a video game that is sold around the world and of course in Germany, plus a powerful hate symbol, so best not to include it in games, remembering of course that the game isn’t really trying for realism anymore.
If it was in Hearts Of Iron, for example, I could understand it…it’s looking to realistically portray the nitty gritty of WWII. Battlefield V: Throw A Tank At A Dude, not so much.
That is not really a good excuse, however unrealistic the game mechanics may be, the game was marketed as a WW2 game and people expect a WW2 game, they could have market it as alternative WW2 and be done with it.
Now Swastikas are internationally ancient symbols and currently religious symbols and in my opinion the fact the western world decided to give its heritage to a bunch of lunatics is absurd make them mainstream again, take them back from these bad people and deny them another symbol.
That’s the way the world must work.
I don’t deny that it was a bad idea to market it as WWII. But, in a game with so many absurdities…I think there’s a bit more that could be picked at other than the fact that there are some female soldiers in the mix.
It shouldn’t matter as much as people keep making out considering how off the wall the game is. As I said if it was something more serious and ‘true to life’ I could see why people would get their knickers in a twist.
As for the Swastika…I don’t want to deviate into it more than we already have, but I’m pretty sure we’re never seeing that reclaimed by anyone.
The Major part of WWII was the Germans and their Ethno-Supremacist Nazi State and the most recognisable symbol of that which they loved to plaster over everything was the Swastika.
It’s not about being true to life it’s about being set in WWII yet literally nothing has to do with WWII.
To have Female, Black Soldiers fighting for the Racial Supremacists makes less than no sense it defeats any sense at all. Are these Nazi’s not Racial Supremacists? They literally put millions of people to death for being of the wrong race but are they not doing that in this setting? There is no rationality to it.
We shouldn’t reclaim the Swastika just acknowledge it for what it was. If you’re making a WWII game it should be included out of historical accuracy not excluded for fear of causing offense or distress.
Well with that excuse we can claim that since warlords bolt action does not mechanically represent properly historical accuracy its ok to put female soldier models, a setting is a setting, if it is marketed as such it should be as such and it is not only multiplayer, they said they would give untold stories from WW2 and managed to say fictional stories of WW2, the Norwegian campaign was particularly… interesting…
There is a difference here they proclaimed it would be a historical WW2 game that would say untold stories and instead gave stories that never existed and an multiplayer that was as far from WW2 as possible.
They could have proclaimed they intent to make an alternative history shooter based on WW2 and anything goes have fun! and not many would object.
For the Swastika many use it Buddhists, it is in other religions since it is an ancient symbol and at least in my country we never defaced the many historical buildings that have it or care much about it, it can be reclaimed and it should be reclaimed.
it is my opinion that we should not give to hate groups ancient or everyday symbols because they start using them, we give them power they should never have.
Totally understand the points raised, but the emersion was ruined for me. If the theme is so unimportant why pick an era at all? They picked ww2 because it is popular, but it is popular because of the weapons, tanks, protagonists and settings. Adding women to the frontline made the game less enjoyable for me.
Have no problem with the game not trying to be a ww2 simulation, have no problem with the swastika being removed if that makes it more marketable, but feel they didn’t make heroes of the females in the game they just made it compulsory to survive by shooting women, slitting their throats or setting fire to them. Even when it is just blue vs green and pixels against pixels I just feel that’s not something I want to see and didn’t expect or need to see in a WW2 first person shooter.
Great article. Important topic, and you’ve skilfully combined knowledge and humour to raise an important issue.
Keep up the good work!
With Jason becoming a whizz at 3D printing and with “design your own mini” websites progressing, could OTT explore making some more realistic models to show how women can be portrayed without ridiculous outfits.
excellent idea, really excellent
One thing I am seeing in the comments is the idea that people don’t want to be forced to not buy boobarmour miniatures. Which is fine, you buy what you like.
However, there is an opposite point to this. That, due to the lack of alternatives, many people are forced to buy sexually provocative figures in order to participate in some games. If someone wishes to field a female force in Warhammer 40,000 they are left with the Sisters of Battle, all in boob armour. Or if they want to field a force of Sigmarines in Age of Sigmar, the only ones are those with a literal sculpted “breast” plate.
Alternatives are starting to become more accessible, but these are rarely supported by the publishers of the big games people might want to play, something @warzan pointed out earlier in the comments.
It might be then said that “if people don’t like the miniatures in those games they should play something else.” This isn’t always possible and depends on your gaming group. I would love to play more Carnivale, but no one I know locally has it so I can’t play that game. It’s why I have a 40k army, despite it not being my personal game of choice (Middle-earth for the win!). By telling someone that if they don’t like it they should just not buy it, that person can find themselves excluded and with no other alternatives to choose from.
Miniature gaming is a fantastic hobby and one I want to share with many of my friends. But I know plenty who feel that it is not a friendly space for them.
I don’t think the Sigmarines are particularly offensive – they have a swell in the chest region and this would likely have been the case in the real world for female armour, had there ever been a need for such a thing. And some of the more recent models such as the Sequiturs (I think that’s what they’re called, the magic users) actually have vestments that cover their chest so that the only noticeable differences between them and their male counterparts is the faces/heads and the size of the frame.
Sisters of Battle are an established army with an established aesthetic that does involve sculpted boob plate. Explanations have been set and Deviating from that would potentially fail to meet those expectations and thus the range may then fail to sell. Don’t forget the largest customer base for Sisters of Battle is still going to be males. Changing the look from what is expected of a Sister of Battle is a massive risk and not one GW was ever likely to take.
I think GW is doing a good job in terms of producing a wider variety of female miniatures and they’re doing so at a sensible pace. Sure, there’s outcry over the fact that their range doesn’t do this or it doesn’t do that however I think GW are managing that against their existing customer base. They’re not risking losing their existing customers making sweeping changes across all ranges to please a few people who may not actually buy stuff anyway. It’s a sensible tactic and one that fits with their aim to try and be more family friendly. I don’t think that every single army they make will ever please everyone – people who want sensible female miniatures are probably never going to like Daughters of Khaine but that’s fine. Not every army is made for you and there’s plenty of stuff that I don’t like and I have no particular hangups about nudity. Ultimately while it’s fine to go with a something for everyone approach, which is what GW seems to be trying to do, we all have to accept that something for everyone isn’t the same as everything for everyone which simply isn’t possible.
I would also say that while someone may feel excluded from a hobby because there’s bits of it they don’t like, I would ask why people feel entitled to have the world change to suit their preference. And this is where companies face a real dilemma. Should they change in order to accommodate more tastes or does making changes push more people away than it draws in. Change means risk and businesses, especially large businesses with share holders, don’t like risk.
Carnevale is not a game I would recommend you play against woman… especially if you run Rashaar… the slaves are not in armour… they’re in hardly wearing anything at all… you could spray paint them flesh, add a few dabs of cloth colour, a bit of metal for the shackles and you’re done.
A lot of Carnevale female figures are scantily clad.
@dracs the simplest argument is people are attracted to the game for the whole package, lore, aesthetics miniatures, and the games presentation comes in reverse order miniatures, aesthetics, lore, so if someone was interested to play 40k they would love the models and aesthetic anyway, changing the aspects of the product to, potentially, attract a fictional wider base while potentially alienating the already established base is not a good idea and we have plenty of examples to showcase that.
I do not get why people feel the already established and profitable products need to change and take the risk of changing instead of calling for new products? take for instance your loved Carnavale, do you think a change to a more politically correct and “wider audience” friendly line would bring more people in, or seem both out of place and alienate established the player base?
I dispute that there are people that see the already established products of our hobby and sit just outside thinking, “oh these are great if only they would be more politically correct in their representation of woman I would join with all my money” it sounds and is an excuse either to not join or to force a change, the other industries or our wider gaming hobby has shown that this mythical “wider audience” always ready to join in if only we changed what sold the product so far to conform to some ideology of political correctness does not exist and when excuses need to be made for the failures it is never the changes, but the behaviour of the already established consumer base, because accepting the failure of an ideology of forced change is not an acceptable option to those that advocate it.
I reiterate again, what something done, make it yourself, ask for something new, do not try to force change on already established and profitable product.
Breaking News…
The average UK Bra Size is currently 36DD. So actually busty female miniatures would appear to be representative of the average woman…
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/fashion/style/britains-average-bra-size-has-gone-34b-36dd-best-labels-catering/
I shall be monitoring this situation to ensure female miniatures continue to have big ti… Ahem, I mean continue to be representative of the average female. It’s a burden but one I shoulder willingly, for the good of the hobby of course
lol I shall add to your responsibility (for the sake of fairness) and ask that you monitor male figures to have my bust size too (which tbf is pretty much 36DD at least at the moment) 😉
If there’s no women volunteers then I ok, fair’s fair
Interesting topic ….
For a lot of historical periods the question is moot,for C17th – late C20th female warriors were considered a rarity, most if they did fight, tended to to hide their sexuality for fear of being sent home or worse!.
Terry Pratchetts ‘Monstrous Regiment’ takes the idea to extremes with whole units of women pretending to be men for various reasons. If this was not the case they tended to civilian rebels so pretty much wore traditional womens clothing, or men’s clothing for practical reasons, and on the whole apart from a tendency to be smaller than the male, In many cases you would be hard pressed to tell any difference in a 28mm figure. Therefore dress and larger chests are perhaps one of the more lazy ways of depicting miniature women.
For modern and ultra modern games, troops if full war kit, again possibly on the stature front it would be hard to tell men from women , imagine how far away your little 28-32mm figure would be away from you if it was that size in perspective, if looking a group of civilians at that sort of distance would you be able to tell men from women by just their breast size, probably not it would be clothing and hair styles that would be more likely to give it away.
So would we be able to tell much difference between male and female warriors etc if similarly dressed , which is a question more than a statement would they?????
. I do have some female figures in my Hammers Slammers units wearing various types of DPM and don’t think many of my group actually notice much difference.
I wont go into the pros and cons of the boob armour in figures, think its be gone over
Just a few thoughts which are not meant to promote either view :
The figures which tend to be overtly are often set in fantasy settings or alt history, that sexuality may be over the top and seen as the norm in world based on the writers world view, and don’t necessarily represent our world views.
Lets remember that its only in the last century that its perceived that invading and conquering less developed parts of the planet is not actually a cool thing to do. Old Julius used it go give himself political clout in the politics of Rome for instance.
But if we wish to bring a wider audience to the hobby our current moral views do need to be take into account, and as much as the over the top female models are , they can make people uncomfortable (and help stick us a hobby of being in the bobble hat brigade) and I think Cas’s article from a Lady’s point of view is valuable.
We can use the argument if you don’t like it don’t buy it, but if we want to appeal to a wider audience ……..
Hi Cass,
It’s an interesting article but I have some concerns about the evidence you are providing, in two cases you cite evidence or research but in both your link only refers you onto another blog post (one with no actual evidence or information, the other with only a cursory reference to another survey with no direct link).
In the first link to evidence however you do link to an actual piece of research, although the research itself is a bit confusing regarding its own outcome. Their conclusion is that Instagram is positively associated with self-objectification among young women, is flawed. There was no control group so therefore there would be no supporting evidence that Instagram itself was the cause of the self-objectification, without further information this is surely just a correlation at best but not a positive conclusion that one follows the other.
In the results given in the study it shows that the most common respondent to the Mturk survey is 24.26 years old, slightly overweight, checks Instagram between once a day and every few hours, spends over 30 minutes a day on Instagram, is more likely to compare their body image to their friends than celebrities, they were in fact on average only found to view fitspiration images sometimes (2.62 out of 5 from 1 being never to 5 being all the time), of which they compared themselves to people who they consider more attractive at a rate that is only slightly higher, internalisation is rated only at they would agree with the fact that they would like their bodies to look like models who appear in magazines (27.76 out of 45 showing an average response rate of 3 out of 5 using their earlier methodology for answering), they are found to compare themselves to people they consider “more attractive” more often than not (3 out of 5) with no information about how often they compare themselves with people “less attractive” than themselves, body dissatisfaction is only slightly above sometimes (rated at 3.33 out of 6), the same for drive for fitness (3.18 out of 6) and finally on self-objectification (the core point of the conclusion) they found that on a scale of -25 to +25 the mean response was -2.61 showing a slight bias towards considering their appearance more important than their competence. This could be read to show that of the 526 respondents (not a great level of accuracy) that use Instagram, on average their response is that they compare themselves sometimes, are slightly concerned about their weight and that 24 year old women rate their physical appearance slightly higher than their competencies? Therefore I don’t think this kind of statement “A recent study concerning images on Instagram has proven what people have known for years; if people are consistently exposed to unrealistic body images, they start to believe their body is the problem” is particularly helpful as the study potentially proves nothing of the sort.
I think if this kind of opinion-based reporting is where roll-for-insight is going it may be worthwhile having an editor go over the articles as the evidence provided for them is flawed at best and could show at worse a writer’s bias.
On to realistic women in wargames, I think it’s a great thing. I was very disappointed when games workshop re-created the Orlocks and in the gang book there was this great picture of a female ganger but the sprues did not include a single model, although both the delaque and Van Saar gangs do have female models. I think that inclusivity in models is not a bad thing and that it needs to come from demand not presumption (you are correct if you ask for Victoria miniatures in your local store you are more likely to get them). The problem is that if you use poorly executed and potentially misleading evidence then the article themselves can seem more like a hit piece on one opinion rather than potentially a request for change. A much better way of presenting this may have been to talk up representations of women that you like for different games, OTT have covered bad squido on several occasions but not once in this article or in the last article about women did you mention Victoria Miniatures, Brother Vinis, Anvil Industries, Hasslefree or any of the other manufacturers.
Sadly Boob armour is real. It’s not fantasy art real, but it existed. There’s heaps of archaeological evidence, although it largely seemed to rely on the occupants breast size. I could bore you all with photos and examples but inevitably in most cases female armour was made. The narrower shoulders and waist as well as breasts meant that men’s armour was simply the wrong shape for most women.
Some aberrant cases existed where the female warrior could fit into male armour (perhaps she was particularly broad shouldered or small breasted), but leather, chain and scale mail had to be fitted to the female form, all of which didn’t accentuate breast the way fantasy armour does, but didn’t attempt to hide them either. There is also examples of female ‘muscle cuirass’ from both Europe and Asia. Later armours, such as plate armour had geometric strengths add (like the pointy bit at the front of a cuirass) to assist deflecting blows, which would have hidden at least average size breasts, but in reality, the female warrior was a rarity in Christian Europe(due to cultural constraints) by this stage compared to other cultures such as the Ancient Celts, Vikings and Amazons. It’s one of the justifications the English used to burn Joan of Arc to death.
The Amazons were said to have chopped a boob off to be able to use bows properly, however this seems unlikely given the medical tech of the day, and strapping them over with leather, which perhaps gave the appearance of single breasted women is far more likely.
If you would like to see some tasteful examples, Angus McBride did a number of great illustrations for Tim Newark’s book ‘Women Warlords’. Published in 1989 it’s probably well out of print, but is historically sound and you could probably find the pictures online.
Hey @horus500
Looks like people can get a used copy or even a new copy (very expensive new), or perhaps I should say unread:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Women-Warlords-Illustrated-Military-Barbarians/dp/0713722622
@cass As some example’s of what you’d like to see more of would GW’s LOTR Range. Eowyn (the everyday version not the version where’s she trying to dress as a man), Arwen, Galadriel, Lobellia and the Mirkwood Rangers fit the bill?
I understand where you’re coming from, Every time I see a mini holding a spear overarm I want to grab the sculptors and shake them.
My response is not at all on topic, but I feel a kinship as I too suffer from the “shake a sculptor until they learn” issue with over arm spears. Unfortunately there is a lot of following of this in academia too unfortunately.
I’ve been thinking about this article quite a lot and having read it multiple times I am now starting to struggle to understand what the problem really is. Initially I got caught up in the same thing most people get caught up in – trying to disprove some of the things that were said; why boob plate is possible, why it might exist in a fantasy setting etc etc. However that’s probably not the best approach (similarly I don’t think it was the best approach to try and explain why boobplate is impossible, impractical or would not exist either). The article seems to present two issues that I actually think are separate from each other.
1) Boobplate
2) Oversized breasts (I’m not going to say DD because in this day and age, you’re probably looking at F+ to be considered Large/oversized).
And so it’s better to really ask, what are the specific issues with both. I have generally found them to be mutually exclusive – models with boobplate tend not to have overly large breasts, models with overly large breasts tend not to be wearing boobplate (or much of anything at all for that matter). Now I can understand why, as a woman, someone may not want to play Kingdom Death. It’s very clear that sex and sexuality were part of that game long before the first Kickstarter ever appeared, it’s always had a penchant for pinup style miniatures. So that’s a perfectly understandable position – not every game is for every person. As long as people can at least accept its right to exist and people’s right to buy it I am more than happy to respect people’s right not to like it.
Boobplate on the other hand is a little more complicated. What is it, specifically, that drives the dislike of boobplate? It’s generally just a device used to distinguish in an obvious way between masculine and feminine, men and women. Again I can understand why people might not like Infinity miniatures because although they have largely done away with some of their older pin-up style miniatures (I love Infinity but there’s definitely miniatures in their past that I wouldn’t really have wanted to buy), their current miniatures still have some hints of pinup art to them with the high-heeled shoes and crop tops for women and the general broad-shoulder, narrow waist for men. So again I can understand why, in that context it’s not for everyone. But the issue there isn’t really the boobplate so much as the overall styling and design aesthetics of the game. As with Kingdom Death, not every game is for every person. The boobplate itself is actually, for the most part, quite restrained, and the women have a more athletic build with reasonably proportioned breasts, even if the boobplate does draw attention to them. As with Kingdom Death, not every game is for every person. If we move on to GW and things like House Escher, is there an issue there? Most of the gangers are no more outlandishly dressed than House Goliath, sure you can see their chest area but it’s covered and none of them seem particularly top heavy – there’s just enough definition on them to allow them to be a feature of the model. The new sisters of Battle still have boobplate but they don’t seem to be particularly large or prominent, are they a problem? So I think the question here is more is the issue the boobplate itself or is the issue the fact that attention is being drawn to the breasts? because they are two very different conversations.
Self-love is what we all lacking. Guess we all need to be more confident and there is no better way of doing that than start dating other people. Online dating can be a good start for you. Just read all the reviews about these boston dating sites and start dating right now. I’m sure that everything is gonna be fine.