Aeryenn
-
Posts
1,200 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Aeryenn
-
-
23 minutes ago, zilberfrid said:
This could be because the big boy on the block in RPG's is D&D, which had about equal representation of women and existing representation of non-caucasian people in 3.0 in the Player's Handbook starting 20 years ago. Before that, it was very much a product of the '80's.
People aren't usually introduced into rpgs by buying a handbook. Most of the time their first contact with this genre happens when somebody else brings the book with him or invites you for a session. That way you are not aware of the handbook's content.
29 minutes ago, zilberfrid said:It could also be a host of different reasons, like less willingness to commit a lot of time and money if you're not sure the community is welcoming, lore/fluff not hitting the spot, model design, etc.
Or perhaps women are less interested in warfare theme. Like a lot less. And it's ok. We don't have to be identical, right? You can't make somebody happy by force if he doesn't want to. You know, I'm not living under the rock. Neither my wife, nor her or my female friends showed the slightest interest in playing AoS. It happened that those girls praised the miniatures for the painting and asked questions about that part of hobby but never ever they wanted to play it. The attitude of my male friends was completely different. Many of them showed some interest in rules and the actual play.
Things are a bit different when it comes to playing board games. It attracts far more females compared to AoS.
By this I'm trying to say that maybe we should consider that we are sitting in a boys' hobby and be ok with that. Sure, be welcoming to any women that want to enter AoS but don't be surprised if they don't want to.
I'm working in a female dominated industry which is jewelry. 91% of my company's clients are women. I have the actual data from e-shop. A large group of men buying jewelry buy it for their female relatives as well. There's no sense in fighting it by telling men they need to wear earings. We accept it and focus on our female customers.
-
4
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, Mattrulesok said:
What on earth makes you think pushing around little plastic figures and rolling dice is masculine?
Can you try to explain why men represent a vast majority of tabletop wargames?
-
12 minutes ago, dekay said:
To add to this, let's say we're still in WFB times and we're making the old world models. So we decide, "let's introduce army books and models for Nippon and Ind, find me some writers, sculptors and painters to make it happen, but make sure that a) we're not doing a caricature but something really inspired by finer details of Japanese and Indian mythology, and b) find me best people for the job".
Congrats, you just increased a chance of hiring someone with Japanese or Indian background while not being in any way racist. Being the opposite of racist, because if you hired some random brit who takes all his knowledge of source material from second hand sources at best and Wikipedia at worst, you're probably create something offensive (not only for people you're taking your inspiration from, but also for anyone knowledgeable on the subject ;)).
Yes, that makes sense. It's a valid argument but use of it is limited to shallow scope of positions GW could ask for.
7 minutes ago, dekay said:You claim that you don't intend to be provocative, so know that this comment is.
Now, this is ridiculous. I just changed black people for white people and drawing for car designing. If my sentence is inappropriate, so is yours.
EDIT:
I'm ending this because of Gaz legitimate note. Nobody however justified racial parities at GW or any other company. It's just evil to treat, perceive or look at people differently because of their skin color. Don't do it. It's wrong and hurts people. You won't help minorities by doing that.
-
3
-
-
1 minute ago, dekay said:
But if I want to sculpt African faces, i will find more black sculptors good at this than white ones.
That is a racist assumption.
What would you think if somebody told you that you should look for a car engineer among white people rather than black because they have longer history with this subject and more white people work in the industry? Wouldn't you be offended by this unfair assumption?
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Neverchosen said:
@dekay put it into very eloquent terms. It isn't about hiring someone simply due to the colour of their skin, but more about increasing their talent pool while also reflecting the world we live in.
@AryannI am sorry that we will not come to terms on this subject as we have differing ideological view points.I've just asked you to provide a way to hire more people of color by GW without discriminating white people at the same time. There is nothing offensive here. It would be beneficial for you and GW if you can come up with at least one idea. If you withdraw however I will respect that.
-
6 minutes ago, dekay said:
Not who you're asking, but I'll answer anyway ;): Ensure more of them apply for the job, mostly. Create a welcoming environment. Increase representation on models and artwork (like they're already doing, so it's quite possible the process is already underway), distance themselves from more controversial parts of the fandom (post that started this thread and recent World of Warships debacle show they're already on it), continue doing so, and wait.
Reach out to artists, sculptors and writers, because they're sometimes freelance and that's how companies hiring freelancers work.
Skin colour isn't everything but hiring artists from different backgrounds can give new ideas and points of view. I mean, up until recently, no women wrote from black library and now that they started, Rachel Harrison is pretty great and, yeah, among other things, she created some new interesting female character.
You're not hiring a black artist because he's black, you're hiring him because, for instance, you like how he paints black people and you want more illustrations like that.
Don't you see that the very idea of hiring people based on their skin color is racist? Even despite the means to reach that goal you start to divide people by their race. Skin color should never be brought up when we compare people for a job. What meaning does it have? Either we agree that skin color has nothing to do with a person's qualifications, or we implement diversification policies. If race doesn't matter, why should any company try to hire more people of certain skin color? It's a contradiction.
-
1
-
-
Just now, zilberfrid said:
This is really putting politics in the thread. Please don't. Your replies fit too well with your username, and I'd really rather not be pushed to that correlation.
I didn't bring up this topic. I share my opinion. I will rename my nick as I keep hearing it disturbes people. It's not an argument though. If you think I'm wrong with what I wrote,please provide an argument.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, Neverchosen said:
They could actively pursue working with sculptors and writers, which is something they currently do anyway. Giving one artist a job does not necessarily take the work away from another.
@Overread I do not know their hiring policies, but a lot of companies are exploring different avenues of outreach and are being more transparent about their approach. I do not think that GW is going to do a perfect job but it would be nice if they indicated what if any practices they maintained in regards to diversification.And they should choose those sculptors and writers based on their skin color?
-
And they should choose those sculptors and writers based on their skin color?
-
Just now, Neverchosen said:
I never said "force", I think there is a lot of projecting going on here.
Go on. Explain me how GW should hire more people of color without treating them special while they apply for the same position as a white guy.
-
Just now, Neverchosen said:
I never said anyone should be fired, just that they should be more inclusive with hiring policies if they want to truly reflect their statements.
You can't force hiring more people of color without doing what I've mentioned above. You either treat everyone equally or you discriminate one group by hiring based on race.
-
1 hour ago, Neverchosen said:
If GW is taking the notion of diversity seriously it is something that they need to institute in hiring policies and creative decisions. The representation of BIPOC individuals in the games and narratives is important but it is important to have that reflected in the company as well. If they hire more diverse writers, designers and management it will likely be reflected in the game as a whole and encourage more people to enter into the hobby.
I find it ridiculous that people are arguing that women in the military lack a historical precedent but are okay with magic, demons and trolls. Female soldiers have existed in history, so it is a little embarrassing that slightly better representation than what has existed in history or contemporary society is where people's incredulity begins and ends. 😅This is exactly why leftist ideologies are so dangerous and harmful.
You don't see the obvious that your expectations are extremely racist. You want GW to fire white people and hire people of color. You want to treat white people worse just based on their color of their skin.
If you don't ensure equal chances for each person to apply for a workplace and want to apply parities you are in fact discriminate a certian group of people.
Qualifications (education, expierience, etc.) of a person should be the only criterion for a job. Not their gender, race, religion.
If you want people of color to have special reliefs or additional points while applying for a post you are looking down on them with superiority because you suggest that they need special treatment and unfair help to get a job. This is absolutely racist.
If I were from a minority and got the job just because company wanted to implement leftist ideologies I would feel ashamed and humiliated.
-
5
-
3
-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, BoneHeart said:
Can we not have these kind of topics here please? I feel that they are add no value to our hobby, nor to the discussions. Please do not bring real life politics into a hobby forum. Thanks
GW is the one who brought up the topic.
I wouldn't mind this statement if it was posted independently from american events we are all aware of. Diversity in miniatures is great. I'm always pleased if I don't have to paint an army of clones.
It disturbes me however. Everyone can have their opinion on BLM thing and if GW signs it with their name in a way, I'm afraid they may take an wrong route of mindlessly applying parities in their range. What could this mean in exaggeration? Each and every faction would have to include every skin tone and 50% of the models would have to be female. Or, even forced to include transgender characters. Is it wrong? You are obliged to have your own opinion. For me it's exactly the opposite of diversification. For me diversity is when I see a 100% male Kharadron Overlords army vs 100% female army of DoK and 100% army of hermaphrodite orks (right?) than seeing 50% of man and women across all of them.
6 hours ago, Mcprowlington said:Lol abbey wasn't trans, and most people just don't like how her inclusion in the story was handled more than anything.
This situation is not so simple. I used to work out at a gym for 2 years 4 times a week while being on diet and with using nutrients for bodybuilders. Even though I'm male I wasn't as shoulders wide as Abby in TLoU2. I you think gender doesn't have an effect on muscle gain please read biological coursebooks or ask yourself a question why men and women don't compete together at Olympics. A women living in a post-apo environment, with food shortages is looking more muscular than any other male character in the game. Highly unbelievable without taking hormones by a woman.
13 hours ago, Chikout said:As for the last of us thing. The last of us 2 is the best selling game of the year on the uk despite the full details of the controversy being known far ahead of the game's launch. The vocal minority clearly doesn't represent the majority opinion.
Some people bought the game unaware of the controversy. I was one of them. Didn't read anything prior to premiere being afraid that it will spoil the story for me. Naughty Dog lost me as a client. Not because of Abby which in the end I like better than Ellie and they did a good job to tell her story and fit it well in TLoU2 setting. It's because of a "leftist lecturing" which I truly hate and believe it to be one of the most destructive practice nowadays. They implement "minority stuff" in a way that puts a player against the wall with obvious leftist liberal narration that turns out to be poorely executed propaganda. The gameplay is great on the other hand. If you don't mind being indoctrinated, try the game.
There is one more thing I would like to talk about. People here speak that they would like to see more female models. I'm okey with that. Just one point - do we treat AoS setting as a full high fantasy where everything is possible or we want it to be some kind of reflection of the real world? If the second is the case you all perfectly know that history of mankinds wars was written by men. it's not a sexist's opinion, that's a simple fact. Men were the soldiers (in 99,99% cases?) while women played equally important role of running the countries, households and keeping care of the children during war times. It was dictated by our biology which for me is a fact and should not offend anyone but I'm not forcing this on anyone. Be happy to have your own opinion and say it out loud. Men being stronger physically and more aggresive due to testosterone are more suited for swinging swords which was reflected during our history among all races and cultures. If we agree on this (no obligation on your side of course) should we really want 30-50% of women representation among AoS armies? It might be natural for specific armies (DoK being 90% female or any other you can think of that make sense to you) but should it be stretched across each and every army? It would me more natural in my opinion to have female archers or mages rather than warriors wieldieng two-handed swords on the frontline in a full plate armor. I was carefull not to offend anyone but still know this: I'm a guy who gladly painted I guess 80 dryads, Alarielle, Drycha and is happy to paint my female Idoneth models. I'm not sexist, racist or whatever. If you feel that I hurt your feeling, please tell me about, don't report or ban me mindlessly. I'm open for discussion. Have a nice day.
-
2
-
3
-
-
There is a huge demand for human factions other than Stormcasts according to this forum. Even if GW didn't have any designed before, now I believe they are working on it. They've already proved to be listening to their customers. It might take a few years but eventually they will introduce new human faction.
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, Laststand said:
Who are the inhabitants of the grey shelf of shame?
In order of purchase: Idoneth Deepkin, Gloomspite Gitz and Kharadron Overords. Untouched. Have some plastic Ogors from 2x boxes of Feast of Bones as well and maybe I will start with them after I paint my last three models from Ossiarch Bonereapers (2k) since Ogors are low model count army. 2k fully painted - Nighthaunt and Sylvaneth. 1k painted - Khorne and Stormcasts. If I manage to paint one more army this year it won't be that bad. Two armies a year is a good score in my opinion. Do you have a grey pile of shame as well?
-
OK, just ordered my Lumineth Box. I don't know what is wrong with me. I really don't need it since there are still unopened 3 armies on my shelves each worth at least 2000 points. I am comforting myself that there are worse, more expensive addictions out there.
-
4
-
-
1 hour ago, Neverchosen said:
I think an important question is do we want a new starter set or a 'collector set' like 40k is getting?
What do you mean by saying collector set?
-
11 minutes ago, Black_Templar_Lad said:
Not that I've read unfortunately. Only thing I suppose is that the current rumour engines seem to point to a new possible Warhammer Quest box.
In terms of future releases I reckon we'll see AoS previews next week. We still have one more PA book which I think will be previewed today. Then the 40k box is july so hopefully we'll see the Sons at least before then. I can't think of what other planned releases we have still to get through?
Welcome back :).
Any word on the new General's Handbook?
-
Sorry to interrupt but I really rather don't want to read 100+ pages of my absence on tga: are there any rumours for future releases? The last thing I know is that Giants are coming after Lumineth.
-
2 hours ago, Boar said:
There is interesting tidbit from todays 40k article:
Curious if when time comes for AoS there will be some shift like that?
I'm not sure what to think of it.
Yes, there is the benefit of easier access for new players and for old players to start a new army but what about those players that have already optimized their armies, made their list, and most important, spent their money on models that now are redundant? It's one thing when they increase in points one unit, decrease another and totally different when they just say to their customers "thx for your cash but you needlessly bought those 15 last minis for Orkz, 20 for Tyranids and 5 for Eldar."
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, NauticalSoup said:
You could find giants in a variety of armies for pretty much their entire history until quite recently. Also, this is actually more unique, no? Being confined to a narrow allegiance like every other faction wouldn't be unique at all, it would be bog standard for AoS.
If it was up to me I would even erase allies mechanic. Just like when armies are monofaction.
3 hours ago, NauticalSoup said:Also, gonna be that guy - it's lose not loose.
Thank you actually. I use written English far too seldom.
-
I don't like that giants can be taken by any army. They loose their uniqeness.
Anybody knows what happened to Aleguzler Gargants Colossal Crushers box? It seemed like a good deal. Hope it returns or GW creates a similar box.
Does anybody know how tall are new Giants? Like 4 liberators one on top of the other? Predictions in inches/mm?
-
Giants are awesome. Can't imagine not to buy at least one. I wonder how many will be possible to be put on table at once and still be competetive. Three like in Nurgle case with GUO?
On the other hand Lumineth don't really float my boat which is unexpected since I loved High Elves (but it was before AoS with its cool, unusual minis lunched though). Too simple, not anything special.
-
1
-
-
I would be satisfied if GW showed rest of Lumineth and just size comparison of Giants to any existing units.
Edit
And I still think it would be weird if they didn't make Tyrion.
-
1
-
How will Games Workshop push diversity in AoS?
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted · Edited by Aeryenn
Why should we try? Why should social engeering be the right path?
Isn't just natural that different people, different genders, different nations focus on different things? Why would artificial parities be better than natural distribution?