discussion Female model representation in Age of Sigmar

[zilberfrid]

17 minutes ago, BrownDog said:

Forge World actually has a good collection of female stormcast heads, prblem is it's forge world and the kits rather small.

6 of these seem to be the exact same head with different hair, with only the lower right two and maybe the middle looking non caucasian.

They are also quite pricy; at about the same price of Frostgrave Wizards 2, which has 40 female heads with better diversity, 76 arms with various stuff in it, 8 bodies, 6 animals and a lot of fluff. And is plastic.

But yes, there are a few heads on Forgeworld.

Edited September 11, 2020 by zilberfrid

[Beastmaster]

20 minutes ago, Nos said:

 

The social history of the races of the Mortal Realms is rather different to the social history of Planet Earth.

I don’t think so. If it was, the motives and acts of the members of those races wouldn’t even be comprehensible to us, and we couldn’t feel with the protagonists at all. Actually, the motives and behaviors of fantasy races are more of a caricature, a specialization and exaggeration of motives and behaviors which are clearly and very recognizably human. So is their history.

Edited September 11, 2020 by Beastmaster

[BrownDog]

7 minutes ago, zilberfrid said:

6 of these seem to be the exact same head with different hair, with only the lower right two and maybe the middle looking non caucasian.

They are also quite pricy; at about the same price of Frostgrave Wizards 2, which has 40 female heads with better diversity, 76 arms with various stuff in it, 8 bodies, 6 animals and a lot of fluff. And is plastic.

But yes, there are a few heads on Forgeworld.

Games workshop definatly needs to up its game in that department

[Orsino]

29 minutes ago, Nos said:

No, I very much have attempted to answer the question.

I've made a very convincing argument about why the military history of our planet is of vanishing significance as an inspiration and foundation to AOS and why therefore the participation or otherwise of women within that history is totally irrelevant in discussing their participation within a fantastical creation .

Within the wider and far more significant foundations which establishe the laws and structural  integrity of AOS there is no reason why there should not be much greater female representation. 

I'm glad you find your own argument convincing, and I agree that there's no reason you can't have more female models. 

But when people talk about representation the implication is that fiction should be reflecting reality and that people are underepresented when fiction doesn't reflect reality. AoS is fantasy but our only possible objective reference point for male-female combat ratios is reality,  and by that standard it's a vast over representaion, so talking about female models being underrepresented doesn't really work. Discussions of representation presuppose some outside reality that can be looked at to say "We're falling short of this". If you reject reality, which is the only reference point we have, from where are you deriving your standard for what the ratio should be? 

 

Edited September 11, 2020 by Orsino

[Nos]

1 minute ago, Beastmaster said:

I don’t think so. If it was, the motives and acts of the members of those races wouldn’t even be comprehensible to us, and we couldn’t feel with the protagonists at all. Actually, the motives and behaviors of fantasy races are more of a caricature, a specialization and exaggeration of motives and behaviors which are clearly and very recognizably human. So is their history.

There is no intelligible  concept that any human can ever form which is not recognisably human. That's a basic ontological precept. It applies to literally everything humans can ever make, so it's not really a necessary caveat to ever bring up. Literally everything we understand we understand on the basis of what we deem comprehensible. Even deeming that  something is unknowable is still us attempting to exert knowledge over it. Of course a made up Fantasy World IP is not going to prove an exception to this rule. 

My point was historical cultures in reality tend to form on the basis of things like the crops available to them, the climate, the proportion of gender in their population etc. Mild differences in these can nonetheless create drastically different outcomes.

So I'm sorry but introducing DRAGONS etc into this equation absolutely creates a radically different different social history to one without them ie the one actual humans have only ever known.

[EccentricCircle]

Wizards 2 is one of the best model kits I've ever had the pleasure to build. There is so much variety in it, the only down side is that it has relatively few bodies. Its very easy to kit bash it with all the other frostgrave kits though.

To steer to conversation in a more productive direction (maybe...) why don't we unite behind something we all love* Wishliting!

What would be good female heros (or troops) for the various armies that are lacking in them? What models would fill nice gaps in the ranges, or compliment what's already there. And then how could we go about kitbashing them?

For me I'd love a female version of the battlemages kit. The frostgrave wizards are great, but they are not geared towards the Warhammer colours of Magic system. I've thought in the past about which 3rd party wizard models best represent the classic looks of the different colleges, and have painted up a few reaper figures. However, and official kit would be great.

I'd also like to see more female chaos stuff. The gender balance in warcry leaves me wanting female marauders, and figures for the god specific armies. It would be great to have a male and female version of each of those troop kits like frostgrave is moving towards, or just newer versions of the older kits with a mix of genders in them.

 

 

* Maybe not everyone loves wishlisting, terms and conditions apply.

[Beliman]

6 minutes ago, Orsino said:

I'm glad you find your own argument convincing, and I agree that there's no reason you can't have more female models. 

But when people talk about representation the implication is that fiction should be reflecting reality and that people are underepresented when fiction doesn't reflect reality. AoS is fantasy but our only possible objective reference point for male-female combat ratios is reality,  and by that standard it's a vast over representaion, so talking about female models being underrepresented doesn't really work. Discussions of representation presuppose some outside reality that can be looked at to say "We're falling short of this". If you reject reality, which is the only reference point we have, from where are you deriving your standard for what the ratio should be? 

 

That's not true. At least not in any creative project.
You chose "how much" of the reality you want to be based on (or use as reference,  to copy or make a tribute), and how many will be transformed and changed to create your own product/project.

If you want to create a product with only female armies based on a WWII, you can;  if that's the best way to go, that's another point.

[Beastmaster]

10 minutes ago, Orsino said:

I'm glad you find your own argument convincing, and I agree that there's no reason you can't have more female models. 

But when people talk about representation the implication is that fiction should be reflecting reality and that people are underepresented when fiction doesn't reflect reality. AoS is fantasy but our only possible objective reference point for male-female combat ratios is reality, so talking about female models being underrepresented doesn't really work. Discussions of representation presuppose some outside reality that can be looked at to say "We're falling short of this". If you reject reality, which is the only reference point we have, from where are you deriving your standard for what the ratio should be? 

 

It’s just our rationality. We, as people living in the 21st century, know of (and thus can imagine easily) women that make talented fighters. Thus, it seems highly irrational to us that a culture should leave these capable fighters behind, just because they are women. There may be reasons, but we want to hear them.

Pretty sure that just 30 years ago people wouldn’t even have asked that question. But we do. Different rationality. 

[Enoby]

3 minutes ago, Orsino said:

I'm glad you find your own argument convincing, and I agree that there's no reason you can't have more female models. 

But when people talk about representation the implication is that fiction should be reflecting reality and that people are underepresented when fiction doesn't reflect reality. AoS is fantasy but our only possible objective reference point for male-female combat ratios is reality, so talking about female models being underrepresented doesn't really work. Discussions of representation presuppose some outside reality that can be looked at to say "We're falling short of this". If you reject reality, which is the only reference point we have, from where are you deriving your standard for what the ratio should be? 

 

I don't think anyone's argued for a specific ratio (the OP mentioned the necessary work if  we wanted a 50/50 split, but didn't advocate for it).

I believe the general argument for greater female representation does not aim for a specific ratio or try base itself off realism, but rather of the wants of the customer base. As seen in the previous posts, a few women have come out and said (or been referred to as saying) that they have been attracted to armies with more female representation.

If greater representation gets more people involved in AoS and certain groups enjoying it more, then is this not a good a good thing? Maleness isn't necessary for (m)any factions in AoS, and so including more female models shouldn't ruin the lore for anyone (and if it does, they should probably introspectively ask why).

I would argue we don't need a reference point or specific goal, just the general idea of having more  as it does appeal to a real life demographic. I know some may accuse that of being pandering, but by that argument adding anything in the game could be pandering as it's designed to appeal to a particular market of their audience.

[Orsino]

2 minutes ago, Beliman said:

That's not true. At least not in any creative project.
You chose "how much" of the reality you want to be based on (or use as reference,  to copy or make a tribute), and how many will be transformed and changed to create your own product/project.

If you want to create a product with only female armies based on a WWII, you can;  if that's the best way to go, that's another point.

You can absolutely do that, but you can't also say "this group is undersrepresented in this game" because underepresented compared to what if not reality? 

[Nos]

15 minutes ago, Orsino said:

I'm glad you find your own argument convincing, and I agree that there's no reason you can't have more female models. 

But when people talk about representation the implication is that fiction should be reflecting reality and that people are underepresented when fiction doesn't reflect reality. AoS is fantasy but our only possible objective reference point for male-female combat ratios is reality,  and by that standard it's a vast over representaion, so talking about female models being underrepresented doesn't really work. Discussions of representation presuppose some outside reality that can be looked at to say "We're falling short of this". If you reject reality, which is the only reference point we have, from where are you deriving your standard for what the ratio should be? 

 

The only possible objective reference point for armies fighting is between humans. 

That dosent stop you cheerfully committing to a universe in which rats and lizards meet in battle.

You are presupposing an outside reality to do this. You have not and will not ever see it in real life. It is in total violation of the objective reference point you seem to feel is only applicable to one subject matter. 

[Whitefang]

Are we gonna enter social philosophical debate here? I’m ready to make some references from Wittgenstein and Russel XD.

[Orsino]

2 minutes ago, Beastmaster said:

It’s just our rationality. We, as people living in the 21st century, know of (and thus can imagine easily) women that make talented fighters. Thus, it seems highly irrational to us that a culture should leave these capable fighters behind, just because they are women. There may be reasons, but we want to hear them.

Pretty sure that just 30 years ago people wouldn’t even have asked that question. But we do. Different rationality. 

The reason the vast majority of fighting in history has been done by men is not because people in the past were irrational, prior to modern weaponry/vehicles/aircraft which reduce the importance of physical capabilities and prior to improvements in infant mortality which reduce the need for people to have lots of babies ot made sense to have all male armies. Which isn't to say all their reasons were pragmatic of course. 

[Beliman]

2 minutes ago, Orsino said:

You can absolutely do that, but you can't also say "this group is undersrepresented in this game" because underepresented compared to what if not reality? 

What do you think a good gender-equality ratio should be for a 2020 product? 

Btw, Imho, I don't think that ratios would help in this thread.

[Beastmaster]

9 minutes ago, Orsino said:

The reason the vast majority of fighting in history has been done by men is not because people in the past were irrational, prior to modern weaponry/vehicles/aircraft which reduce the importance of physical capabilities and prior to improvements in infant mortality which reduce the need for people to have lots of babies ot made sense to have all male armies. Which isn't to say all their reasons were pragmatic of course. 

Good points. How fare those reasons in the different AoS cultures, with magical weapons/exotic beasts/unknown medical skills? That would be nice starting points to give relatable answers to the question where the women are in most armies, and how many, if any, should be there.

Edited September 11, 2020 by Beastmaster

[Orsino]

18 minutes ago, Nos said:

The only possible objective reference point for armies fighting is between humans. 

That dosent stop you cheerfully committing to a universe in which rats and lizards meet in battle.

You are presupposing an outside reality to do this. You have not and will not ever see it in real life. It is in total violation of the objective reference point you seem to feel is only applicable to one subject matter. 

But no one is complaining that lizards are underepresented. Again,  my point is not that there shouldn't be female models, it's that you can't say female models are underepresnted when, by the only available standard you could judge it on, they would be overepresented. You can choose not to use reality as a standard to measure, but you can't then argue women are underrepresented. 

[Mattrulesok]

22 minutes ago, Orsino said:

Again, you haven't attempted to answer the question there, what is your yardstick for deciding that there aren't enough female models if not reality?

The actual reality is that we live in the year 2020 and this game is purely fiction. The actual reality is roughly 90%+ of posters in this thread are advocating for more female models so stop using the disingenuous argument of history and historical accuracy when it has little to no bearing on a fantasy game made in 2020. If you truly believe (which I don't think you do) that AoS has to be based on history which therefore limits design choices I'm not sure you're going to like it when you find out about games workshops biggest game, 40k, which has no possible historic basis. 

 

Also i'm going to leave this comment again as you chose to ignore it last time and it still feels relevant. 

"Claiming that women are over represented due to historical inaccuracies but seemingly having no problem with any other historical inaccuracies like seraphon and skaven really makes it seem like the problem being presented is not one of historical accuracy but instead women. "

[Orsino]

11 minutes ago, Beastmaster said:

Good points. How fare those reasons in the different AoS cultures, with magical weapons/exotic beasts/unknown medical skills? That would be nice starting points to give relatable answers to the question where the women are in most armies, and how many, if any, should be there.

 

That was a bit of a historical sidenote, I'm not sure you really need to account for these realities in AoS lore, though it might add some nice depth. 

[Enoby]

1 minute ago, Orsino said:

But no one is complaining that lizards are underepresented. Again,  my point is not that there shouldn't be female models, it's that you can't say female models are underepresnted when, by the only available standard you could judge it on, they would be overepresented. You can choose not to use reality as a standard to measure, but you can't then argue women are underrepresented. 

I don't think many people are arguing women are underrepresented in the lore, but rather underrepresented for the customer - in this thread, women have said they'd like more female models (not that they aren't represented properly from a lore perspective). 

My argument would be real life women may want (and judging by this thread seem to want) a greater representation of fantasy women in Warhammer as it would increase their enjoyment, and I think that should be reason enough to increase the number of female models. Realistic representation numbers aside, Warhammer's a game designed for people to enjoy (and to make money), and many people would enjoy (and buy) more female models.

[Overread]

We also have to consider that increasing the options for female warriors doesn't have to translate to a blanket increase in female models. Crafty sculpting and optional parts could allow for alternative parts within kits to allow you to pick and choose. Letting you go for more women or more men or all of one gender within certain unit types. Granted this is easier with armies ilke Stormcast where armour will hide most body differences; whilst with armies with less armour it might be harder to achieve. 

Encouraged diversity through optional parts makes it a win win for all because those who want a certain style or theme can achieve it and "both sides" can take the extreme approach without any issues. 

Of course its not likely to happen for many kits and not even practical for some. 

 

[BrownDog]

5 minutes ago, Enoby said:

I don't think many people are arguing women are underrepresented in the lore, but rather underrepresented for the customer - in this thread, women have said they'd like more female models (not that they aren't represented properly from a lore perspective). 

My argument would be real life women may want (and judging by this thread seem to want) a greater representation of fantasy women in Warhammer as it would increase their enjoyment, and I think that should be reason enough to increase the number of female models. Realistic representation numbers aside, Warhammer's a game designed for people to enjoy (and to make money), and many people would enjoy (and buy) more female models.

Yes thank you. Warhammer is a piece of media for us to have fun with. If you want historical or more historcaly inclined media there are plenty out there, AOS dosn't need to be one of them. Enough of the pendatic arguments about historical ratios.

[Kadeton]

13 minutes ago, Orsino said:

But no one is complaining that lizards are underepresented. Again,  my point is not that there shouldn't be female models, it's that you can't say female models are underepresnted when, by the only available standard you could judge it on, they would be overepresented. You can choose not to use reality as a standard to measure, but you can't then argue women are underrepresented. 

You seem to be having some kind of allergic reaction to the term "underrepresented". There's no "ratio" of representation that is objectively "correct". You just have to ask yourself whether you're satisfied with the diversity currently represented in the game. Personally, I would like to see more - hence, for me, women feel underrepresented. The yardstick against which it can be measured is whether or not I feel it's enough. You have your own such yardstick, and you seem to have chosen to calibrate it based on your knowledge of military history, but that's simply your subjective choice. Other people are free to make different choices which are no more or less correct, but will cause them to feel differently.

Rather than derailing by endlessly and pointlessly arguing the semantics of the statement "Women are underrepresented", perhaps you could engage with the topic of the thread, which is that Games Workshop could do better at representing women in its games. Do you agree with that? If so, where would you particularly like to see those improvements made?

[MitGas]

I'll echo my own post but obvious approximations to RL historical units would look off with women, it's just a fact (you didn't seem to be bothered that in Game of Thrones very few armies had female soldiers... cause it's unusual) - not that this is of much consequence as armies like CoS will probably be phased out and the newer figures that will replace them will likely be more fantastical, thus allowing for more room for women in said units. That said, they need to find a good balance and put women where they "fit" (no, not the kitchen or some joke). I don't wanna see a single female Chaos Warrior personally as "hulking brute" gets done better by men, it's just the nature of things (yes, i know that there are also female bodybuilders). I'd like to see more female Kairic Acolytes (we only got 1) though or new barbarians with a lot more women in there. Or special characters, heroes, sorceresses, whatever. But find a good spots and don't enforce a general 50/50 mix, as that would just feel tacked on. I'd rather have all-female armies, armies with lots of women, some 50(50, some with almost none and something exclusively male ones depneding on their personal flavor. But all in a 50/50 ratio  just to fulfill some quota would be lame.

[Orsino]

1 hour ago, Enoby said:

I don't think anyone's argued for a specific ratio (the OP mentioned the necessary work if  we wanted a 50/50 split, but didn't advocate for it).

I believe the general argument for greater female representation does not aim for a specific ratio or try base itself off realism, but rather of the wants of the customer base. As seen in the previous posts, a few women have come out and said (or been referred to as saying) that they have been attracted to armies with more female representation.

If greater representation gets more people involved in AoS and certain groups enjoying it more, then is this not a good a good thing? Maleness isn't necessary for (m)any factions in AoS, and so including more female models shouldn't ruin the lore for anyone (and if it does, they should probably introspectively ask why).

I would argue we don't need a reference point or specific goal, just the general idea of having more  as it does appeal to a real life demographic. I know some may accuse that of being pandering, but by that argument adding anything in the game could be pandering as it's designed to appeal to a particular market of their audience.

Saying that a group is underrepresented requires you to  know what you think the correct level of representation is. And I suspect GW's market research is a truer indicator of the level of demand for female minatures than some anecdotes in this thread, GW is unlikely to say no to money so it's reasonable to assume that the number of female miniatures is broadly reflective of the level of demand, allowing of course for the fact that producing new models isn't a quick process. 

[Orsino]

43 minutes ago, Kadeton said:

You seem to be having some kind of allergic reaction to the term "underrepresented". There's no "ratio" of representation that is objectively "correct". You just have to ask yourself whether you're satisfied with the diversity currently represented in the game. Personally, I would like to see more - hence, for me, women feel underrepresented. The yardstick against which it can be measured is whether or not I feel it's enough. You have your own such yardstick, and you seem to have chosen to calibrate it based on your knowledge of military history, but that's simply your subjective choice. Other people are free to make different choices which are no more or less correct, but will cause them to feel differently.

Rather than derailing by endlessly and pointlessly arguing the semantics of the statement "Women are underrepresented", perhaps you could engage with the topic of the thread, which is that Games Workshop could do better at representing women in its games. Do you agree with that? If so, where would you particularly like to see those improvements made?

At no point have I suggested people can't want or shouldn't have more female models, my problem is with the presentation of personal preference as some sort of moral issue or failure on the part of GW. You demonstrate this in your phrasing that GW need to "do better at representing women in its games" which presents the subjective preference of how many female miniatures you want to have as a failure to meet some standard of representation by GW, a standard which you've admitted is entirely arbitrary. 

Edited September 11, 2020 by Orsino