Becca Scott

[AthlorianStoners]

3 hours ago, HollowHills said:

A lot of "nerd" areas of interest are diversifying in ways that don't ostracise their core audience and as such can be considered win wins.

For example adding ****** characters seems to be fairly popular in comics, video games and TV recently. I can think of a few examples for instance the ****** romance they had on the TV show Arrow a few years ago. The core male audience are fine with this because they find it erotic to see two attractive women in a sexual relationship as part of the media they enjoy. Likewise the show benefits by being able to say "we love diversity look at our ******". In this sense they get diversity without the same level of risk as if they added characters that make the core audience uncomfortable. 

GW get the win win here in that they can state they are being more diverse and show they care about female inclusion, while also appealing to their core audience. Because let's be honest, a lot of female figures related to "nerdy" persuits can use the fact they are fairly attractive as a big boon to their career. I might get called out as a sexist but I doubt a woman less attractive would have the same level of success and popularity.

Edit: apparently using lgbt terms is censored. 

Kinda messed up that’s getting censored.

[fredster4050]

Interesting topic for sure?

Agree that women should not be objectified in representation, either miniatures or presenting;  although opens an interesting item on personal freedom i.e. if a woman wears clothing that a man finds provocative and lears (or vice versa), are they exhibiting group tendencies or personal freedoms?

In regard to the hobby encouraging purchasing is good for a company by any and all means, but does the product have to appeal to men and women equally?

Sex characteristics are not defined exclusively by social or biological norms, they are a blend, but is there an end point in mind? Will GW have to think about Trans representation next?

I am not a fan of the social homogenisation occurring at present, difference drives us as much as similarity does, we should not be afraid of difference. The right to offend should exist alongside the right to be offended, at present the latter is in the ascendency and it stifles debate - Brexit anyone?

[Infeston]

@RexHavoc While I do agree that GW should bring more people into the hobby and focus more on people rather than on such things as gender or race I have to disagree with you about a certain point. Sometimes there are inequalities or differences in reality and I don't think we should ignore them.

If I look at videos or pictures of tabletop events I sometimes play the "spot the female" game. ? And you very rarely see girls or woman in this kind of games, because there are certain stigma associated with woman in this hobby. I don't think we should deny such things in saying "Let's do it like it was always done", because certainly there is a certain group which might be pushed away from the hobby, because of a certain mentality. I for myself would love there to be more woman playing tabletop games.

I also would love there to be all different kind of woman and man with all kind of different personalities in the hobby. 

And I don't think it is the hobby itself which drives certain people away, because there are so many things for everyone. I think it is more about a certain kind of mentality, which is often very subtle, towards woman. 

Females in gaming are very often stigmatised in games more often than men. And sometimes stigmatisation is very subtle. It can be found in subtle statements like "woman are not good at logical thinking" or direct sexist statements. I just don't think we would do anything good by ignoring the reality that there are less girls than boys in this hobby and to make something more attractive for more people (without excluding the group which "dominated" the game before).

I think we should be aware of the subtle mechanics and mentalities that contribute to the exlusion of certain groups. Respect their opinion and don't dictate people how they should feel or how they should behave as part of their social group or gender. Because the mechanics that contribute to exlcusion are more than often very subtle instead of direct sexism or racism.

[fredster4050]

35 minutes ago, Infeston said:

. I for myself would love there to be more woman playing tabletop games.

I come back to why? More players I can understand, why more women?

[Enoby]

3 minutes ago, fredster4050 said:

I come back to why? More players I can understand, why more women?

I'm not Infeston, so I don't represent their views, but I may be able to provide some insight for you. I think it's less that I would want more women full stop, but rather I would like the game/community to be more open to women (e.g. with more cool female characters, and representation in Warhammer Community) so that women would have a higher chance of enjoying it as much as men (which should lead to more women joining in the hobby). I know it may be tempting to say "but women naturally may not enjoy 40k", but have a look at some of the studies I cited further back in the thread, which shows that women like games for the same reason as men and are often put off by the gaming community.

So, why care? Well, to be honest, it's kind of just a nice thing to try and push for more people to have fun, so long as it's not at the cost of other's fun. As we've seen with the positive reception to female Stormcast, it seems like most male fans are happy with more female models, and I'd imagine that this may also make the hobby more welcoming to women - a win/win. As others have mentioned, even if you don't care about representation, it gets stylistically boring to just have male models; the more armies which look different, the cooler the games look as a whole. 

The larger and more welcoming a community to everyone, the more pleasant it is to be in the community for everyone. This diversity push isn't hurting anyone. 

[Screwface]

27 minutes ago, fredster4050 said:

I come back to why? More players I can understand, why more women?

Because diversity is generally a good thing. 

[Urauloth]

1 hour ago, fredster4050 said:

Agree that women should not be objectified in representation, either miniatures or presenting;  although opens an interesting item on personal freedom i.e. if a woman wears clothing that a man finds provocative and lears (or vice versa), are they exhibiting group tendencies or personal freedoms?

Sex characteristics are not defined exclusively by social or biological norms, they are a blend, but is there an end point in mind? Will GW have to think about Trans representation next?

I am not a fan of the social homogenisation occurring at present, difference drives us as much as similarity does, we should not be afraid of difference. The right to offend should exist alongside the right to be offended, at present the latter is in the ascendency and it stifles debate - Brexit anyone?

A couple of things here.

1. I don't think framing creeping on women based on their clothing choices as a matter of personal freedoms is conducive to anything good for the hobby community or this discussion, but hey.

2. An "end point in mind" for whom? This almost sounds like the borderline conspiracy theorizing about ill-defined "forces" pushing diversity into hobbies in service of nebulous agendas. If GW did include a transgender character in one of their settings (unlikely, I think) your assumption here seems to be that they couldn't possibly decide to do that under their own agency, it would only happen as an escalation of some process already affecting them. I'm not trying to be disrespectful here, but this honestly sounds like it's either the thin end of an argument tied into a much bigger set of politics, or just... kind of inconsiderate of GW's actual ability to steer its own policy and create the content it wants to.

3. Yeah, like I said, the thin end of a bigger set of politics. I've heard these talking points before and in the spirit of this forum I'm going to refrain from cynicism about their intent here. Nobody here is talking about women Stormcasts or women presenters because we're afraid of difference or trying to stifle debate. I think we should probably move on from this.

[RuneBrush]

21 minutes ago, fredster4050 said:

I come back to why? More players I can understand, why more women?

Why not?

Our hobby is great in that there aren't any real barriers to it - you can get involved pretty much from any social background and regardless of gender or other such social segmentation.  What we've been bad at is showing to the world that it is open and accommodating

[Screwface]

1 minute ago, RuneBrush said:

Why not?

Our hobby is great in that there aren't any real barriers to it - you can get involved pretty much from any social background and regardless of gender or other such social segmentation.  What we've been bad at is showing to the world that it is open and accommodating

I get where you're coming from in that the game can be played by anyone of any age, gender etc and so in theory it should have a more diverse group attached to it, but I don't think in practice the scene has been all that welcoming to diverse groups in the past. Walk past most GW stores and you see a overwhelming demographic that might put off some people. GW is now trying to make it more open and inviting, and kudos to them for that.

[Still-young]

6 minutes ago, Screwface said:

I get where you're coming from in that the game can be played by anyone of any age, gender etc and so in theory it should have a more diverse group attached to it, but I don't think in practice the scene has been all that welcoming to diverse groups in the past. Walk past most GW stores and you see a overwhelming demographic that might put off some people. GW is now trying to make it more open and inviting, and kudos to them for that.

That was RuneBrushes point, if I’m not mistaken. 

[CaptainNippon]

53 minutes ago, fredster4050 said:

I come back to why? More players I can understand, why more women?

Because it's a major political/social trend to advocate diversity and change your product/message/company structure accordingly. 

Does it make much sense from an economic perspective? I'm not sure, but at least they won't get harassed for lack of diversity in their product line.

[Screwface]

2 minutes ago, Still-young said:

That was RuneBrushes point, if I’m not mistaken. 

He said there aren't any real barriers. I'm saying for certain groups there actually are.

[Still-young]

1 minute ago, Screwface said:

He said there aren't any real barriers. I'm saying for certain groups there actually are.

What he meant is, the game itself doesn’t fundamentally have any barriers to specific groups. The community are where the barriers come from. 

[Screwface]

Just now, Still-young said:

What he meant is, the game itself doesn’t fundamentally have any barriers to specific groups. The community are where the barriers come from. 

Ok, I was responding to what he wrote.

[amysrevenge]

Two minor points 

1. Regarding diversity. Arguing to support the status quo  (ie. "don't change anything") is just as much a political statement as arguing to change things.

2. We (ie. people who post on TGA) are not the target demographic for these How to Play videos. They are targetting the next group out from us - people interested in tabletop games in general, but who aren't already dedicated GW/AoS customers. A video for us would require different standards of gameplay, and a different type of presenter behaviour. So the videos might seem a bit... off when viewed as if they were meant for us.

[RuneBrush]

Just now, Screwface said:

He said there aren't any real barriers. I'm saying for certain groups there actually are.

That's not what I meant, so sorry if that's how you read it.  What I was trying to say is that there isn't any reason why the hobby won't accept a more diverse range of people.  GW and communities such as this are doing the hard work to try and encourage that diversity, which is actually amazing when you think of it!

What's important to remember is that changing how other people view any hobby will take many years to achieve.  

17 minutes ago, Screwface said:

I get where you're coming from in that the game can be played by anyone of any age, gender etc and so in theory it should have a more diverse group attached to it, but I don't think in practice the scene has been all that welcoming to diverse groups in the past. Walk past most GW stores and you see a overwhelming demographic that might put off some people. GW is now trying to make it more open and inviting, and kudos to them for that.

Completely agree, I can remember my Mum and sister hating it if I wanted them to pick up something from a GW store at one point.  Now either of them wouldn't have an issue to walk into a GW store and know that they'll get decent service without being made to feel uncomfortable.  That's down to good training from GW - what's even nicer is that this attitude has diffused onto other people in the store, you don't get everybody turn round and stare anymore because a woman has walked into the shop anymore!

[CaptainNippon]

1 minute ago, amysrevenge said:

Two minor points 

1. Regarding diversity. Arguing to support the status quo  (ie. "don't change anything") is just as much a political statement as arguing to change things.

Good point.

The obvious solution is to acknowledge that neither diversity nor homogenity are inherently good or bad. 

What makes communities good are good people, no matter their gender or ethnicity. 

 

[Screwface]

6 minutes ago, CaptainNippon said:

Good point.

The obvious solution is to acknowledge that neither diversity nor homogenity are inherently good or bad. 

What makes communities good are good people, no matter their gender or ethnicity. 

 

I think that a diverse community of fundamentally decent people has benefits over a homogenous community of fundamentally decent people. I think it's good for people to learn about the "other". 

[Vasshpit]

Not sure what the hell's going on in this thread but Becca, keep "Learning to play" the ****** out of things!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.........

 

 

!!!... !

[Ar-Pharazôn]

1 minute ago, Vasshpit said:

Not sure what the hell's going on in this thread but Becca, keep "Learning to play" the ****** out of things!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.........

 

 

!!!... !

You okay?

[Enoby]

1 minute ago, Vasshpit said:

Not sure what the hell's going on in this thread but Becca, keep "Learning to play" the ****** out of things!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.........

 

 

!!!... !

Totally off topic, but I find it quite fun to guess what random word is behind the asterisks. You get some really random words sometimes. 

[Screwface]

5 minutes ago, Enoby said:

Totally off topic, but I find it quite fun to guess what random word is behind the asterisks. You get some really random words sometimes. 

The word he used was clearly *****.

[Twitch of Izalith]

The following is simply an attempt to present an alternative opinion and is not aimed at any individual - I mean every word of it but please read it in the light hearted way it was written - unless you are a crazy political activist/SJW - in which case get triggered and enjoy your self righteous indignation at my expense. 

I agree its great to see some more variety above the scantily clad warrior princess trope but at the same time I would hate to see it disappear.  I mean we have Dwarves wearing thongs - and more buff topless dudes than you can shake a copy "Mens Health" at. I don't hear this being discussed as GW's attempt to attract more players who are  ****** men - or persons of short stature. Why is it important that the female warriors are covered up and not the male ones? If I was a woman I think I would find it utterly patronising to have a bunch of men deciding that all the female models need to be sculpted according to the prevailing left wing political views of the time.

Personally I like scantily clad warrior princesses and I'm not in the slightest bit embarrassed to admit it. Is there really anyone out there that thinks a woman that kicks ass wearing  overalls is cooler than a woman that kicks ass wearing a bikini? really? I work in medical procurement and recommend a number of adheshive products for reattaching someones testicles.... 

Its a wargame! Gender politics and social diversity are about as relevant to it as an umbrella catalogue is to a haddock. I say this repeatedly, but its hilarious how we are quite happy to accept themes of murder, genocide, human sacrifice, torture & cannibalism but the minute a game is seen to depict a woman fighting in a short skirt everybody gets all outraged about the injustices of society! 

As for Becca Scott - she is professional both in her presentation and in the delivery of the material

I'm glad they gave her a job  I'd give her one  

 

 

 

[CaptainNippon]

Just now, Screwface said:

I think that a diverse community of fundamentally decent people has benefits over a homogenous community of fundamentally decent people. I think it's good for people to learn about the "other". 

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but I've yet to see evidence for it. 

If it's just a gut feeling or the experience you've made in the past, fair enough, but this whole "diversity is better" argument is often presented as a non-arguable fact, when it's actually not. 

I believe that the sooner we stop putting people into categories, be it gender, sexual preference, ethnicity, warhammer faction of choice (even though we might have to make an exception for that) the better.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Screwface]

9 minutes ago, Twitch of Izalith said:

Why is it important that the female warriors are covered up and not the male ones?

 

 

 

For the same reason it was not cool for a black kid to be modelled wearing that H&M hoodie.