Women in Minis - Page 4
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 61 to 78 of 78

Thread: Women in Minis

  1. #61

    Default

    think you have to see the reason benhind it though, perhaps the fact that afro-americans never was called for interviews and pretty broad discrimination? i feel at some point you have to step up and do something about it, even though i agree to have the interview just for the sake of an interview is waste of time for all persons involved. not the best thing but something obviously has to be done.

    as for "destroying of culture", i like to see it more of an evolution. i like diversity, it makes everything more interesting.
    but then i have never been much of a fan of my barbarian ancestors or swedish traditions

  2. #62

    Default

    I appreciate your perspective Skel, I truly do. It's interesting to hear what someone thinks who perhaps isn't subjected to the same "melting pot" that we encounter over here in the USA. I really wish I could be proud of some heritage with a deep history, but most American Caucasians really have no idea where their ancestors hail from. Nearly every American will say "I am 1/10 Cherokee" or some other nonsense. But fact is that we don't who or what we are, for the most part. The result is a lack of pride, the loss of values and culture, division and white guilt.

    Blacks make up around 13% of the population. Therefore, in the 30 team league it would take 4 coaches to exceed this number. There are currently three black coaches (though all of their jobs are in limbo after lackluster seasons). However, African Americans make up 70 percent of the players in the League. That's right, they demographically dominate the player pool, but only comprise 13 percent of the overall population. So why, then, not allow at least one white person to try out for each position? Because it's a ridiculous assertion. Hire the best person for the job. It is racist, in my opinion and anyone else who is rational, to consider race as a mitigating factor in employment, even for the purposes of mandating an interview. If you create artificial diversity, you don't have diversity, you have Neo-Fascism.

    I disagree reed that you have to do something. NFL owners are going to hire the most qualified professional. If this person as a consequence is black, great, but why do we even consider this? It has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with how well one coaches. This same reasoning applies to many additional examples of equal opportunity. If an employer is truly racist, then prosecute the employer, but don't mandate a false world where color trumps talent.
    ​You are ranked 1 out of 9149 artists.
    BloodFather's Axis of Chaos http://www.coolminiornot.com/forums/...f-Chaos/page17

  3. #63

    Default

    im with you all the way mate the problem is when people dont get to interviews just because of skincolor, oc. the job should go to the right person, im not rabiat
    i guess im relating to the problem we have in sweden is that a person with an arabic name applies for a job he/she has soooooo lesser chance of being called for interviews, just because for the name, and that is no secret here. that i feel, is something we have to do something about to be abel to deal with exclusion and racism (in both ways).

  4. #64

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BloodFather of Kharnath View Post
    I disagree reed that you have to do something. NFL owners are going to hire the most qualified professional. If this person as a consequence is black, great, but why do we even consider this? It has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with how well one coaches. This same reasoning applies to many additional examples of equal opportunity. If an employer is truly racist, then prosecute the employer, but don't mandate a false world where color trumps talent.
    In theory, I agree with you. But, if you have a long tradition of, let's say, male CEOs constantly appointing other men as CEOs or board members you can't just simply tell them "well, we're not going to enforce any rules upon you, but from now on you need to hire the most competent people even if they're women" and expect that to make a difference. Of course, they will claim that their study buddy from 20 years back IS the most competent person for the job. In Sweden we've had this debate about the very obvious gender inequality in company boards and management for decades and it is still more common that a board member is called John (or the Swedish version of the name) than being a woman. If you want to break these deeply rooted patterns you might need some sort of artificial measure to begin with to start real change. Hopefully, though, these will not be needed eventually, when old patterns no longer dictate how things work.
    Combibo vestri peniculus quod fio a melior pictor.
    My gallery - go have a look!

  5. #65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ritual View Post
    In theory, I agree with you. But, if you have a long tradition of, let's say, male CEOs constantly appointing other men as CEOs or board members you can't just simply tell them "well, we're not going to enforce any rules upon you, but from now on you need to hire the most competent people even if they're women" and expect that to make a difference. Of course, they will claim that their study buddy from 20 years back IS the most competent person for the job. In Sweden we've had this debate about the very obvious gender inequality in company boards and management for decades and it is still more common that a board member is called John (or the Swedish version of the name) than being a woman. If you want to break these deeply rooted patterns you might need some sort of artificial measure to begin with to start real change. Hopefully, though, these will not be needed eventually, when old patterns no longer dictate how things work.
    First, let's all admit we are going further and further away from the original discussion here. But that's fine by me, it all comes back full circle, and these principles apply even to mini painting.

    So, what you both speak of is oligarchy, or the monopolized power of the few. Or the very basic and ancient tenant of "it is not what one knows, but rather who one knows." Here in 'Murica, you need only look as far as the nepotism practiced by the Bush and Clinton dynasties, although even these result eventually from a democratic process (heavily influenced by economics). However, I would argue that, in the cases that I have mentioned the very idea that racism or sexism is at play is often spontaneously produced as a means by which to give oneself an advantage. I will strongly posit that the likelihood of an NFL owner choosing not to hire a black person because he is black is ludicrous. Just as the income disparity that exists between men and women in America is more a result the realities of the family structure than of an evil male conspiracy to reduce the wages of women. That's right, if a large segment of the population as a rule generally take several months to many years off of work in order to raise a family, then they are unlikely to earn a salary commensurate with that of males.

    As far as Arabs having difficulty finding employment, if there is any actual data supporting this, it may be the very natural and logical wishes of the employer to hire people with a strong control of the Swedish language. An unfortunate disadvantage, but hardly the result of racism. And my frustration is a direct result of this mode of thinking.

    I enjoy the debate
    ​You are ranked 1 out of 9149 artists.
    BloodFather's Axis of Chaos http://www.coolminiornot.com/forums/...f-Chaos/page17

  6. #66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BloodFather of Kharnath View Post
    As far as Arabs having difficulty finding employment, if there is any actual data supporting this, it may be the very natural and logical wishes of the employer to hire people with a strong control of the Swedish language. An unfortunate disadvantage, but hardly the result of racism. And my frustration is a direct result of this mode of thinking.

    I enjoy the debate
    to shut eyes and think that its a language thing only is pretty naive thinking imo. there have been many tests with people handing in papers showing exactly the same merits, with devastating results in which were called in for interviews. and people that have been dismissed, handed in exactly the same papers but changed name from Ahmed to Andersson and was called in. for me its hard not to see the racism in this.

    Afterall there are lots of people called muhammed that have been born and raised here with swedish as native language.

    i wish i could experss myself better in english... yaya

    Edit; and yes there have been studies in this. didnt found anything in english though
    http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/arb...arabiska-namn/
    in short it describes what ive written above. its an article from 2006 but i can guarante thinks have not improved from there.
    Last edited by SkelettetS; 02-27-2015 at 05:09 AM.

  7. #67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BloodFather of Kharnath View Post
    That's right, if a large segment of the population as a rule generally take several months to many years off of work in order to raise a family, then they are unlikely to earn a salary commensurate with that of males.
    What you describe above is also a deeply rooted pattern, that while probably not formed by any evil intent, still constitutes a mechanism that preserves inequality in the job market. In Sweden, parents have a common period of parental leave which they can share among themselves. The effect is that women usually use more or even all of this period. The reason being that the man usually earns more. So, a mechanism that prevents women to reach equal salary levels is caused more or less by the fact that men earn more. Thus, maybe something more is needed than just the possibility to share the responsibility for the children? It's not an easy question as you don't want to introduce any overly heavy-handed rules.
    Combibo vestri peniculus quod fio a melior pictor.
    My gallery - go have a look!

  8. #68

    Default

    More examples: http://news.yale.edu/2012/09/24/scie...le-study-shows

    There was a study (and also the same thing on a TV-program IIRC) in Sweden where the same person wanted to know if there were apartments for hire with perfect Swedish. If they said a foreign sounding name from some they got totally different reactions than if they said a swedish. Some claiming there were no apartments for rent for the same person with a foreign name but that there were apartments for rent for the person with the non foreign name.

    We have a structure to fight here which is condescending towards anyone who doesn't fit the norm, and the overall norm is white, male, heterosexual. It's not white males being evil necessarily. But we are not objective beings. These kind of structures of course also exist with women, about men being able to care of kids... or have feelings etc. It's just limiting to those of us who does not fit the norm. It's of course extremely complex when you go into specific cases, but the structure tells an overall tale. How it looks on the aggregate and honestly the facts are there on the table if you care to look at them.
    Last edited by Avelorn; 02-27-2015 at 05:57 AM.

  9. #69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SkelettetS View Post
    t

    i wish i could experss myself better in english... yaya
    Din engelska är lika bra som min svenska
    1. 'Painting is a companion with whom one may hope to walk a great part of life's journey.' W. Churchill
    Thank you for asking but I don't do commissions.

  10. #70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ritual View Post
    What you describe above is also a deeply rooted pattern, that while probably not formed by any evil intent, still constitutes a mechanism that preserves inequality in the job market. In Sweden, parents have a common period of parental leave which they can share among themselves. The effect is that women usually use more or even all of this period. The reason being that the man usually earns more. So, a mechanism that prevents women to reach equal salary levels is caused more or less by the fact that men earn more. Thus, maybe something more is needed than just the possibility to share the responsibility for the children? It's not an easy question as you don't want to introduce any overly heavy-handed rules.
    And therein lies the quandary. How to address these issues without being too heavy-handed, as you say. I cannot speak for Europe, but I will state definitively here that in America race is used for very devisive and downright incomprehensible reasons. We see the systematic takeover of actual liberties, and violations to our constitution (a holy document to me), all in the name of racial equality. Our President makes an executive order that suddenly allows millions of illegal immigrants to not only legally reside and work in the US, but also to receive "Earned Income Credits" exceeding $30,000. It is furthermore considered racist to require anyone to produce identification in order to vote. The very sectors and boundaries by which our voting blocks are organized are drawn to bring advantage to racial minorities. The Nation is divided over a police officer whom acted verifiably justified in using force to kill a criminal whom threatened his life. Here the President stirs the violent fervor and unrest, rather than supporting the policemen and women that keep us safe. The President provides cell phones to minority citizens in a late bid to send more of his minority constituents to the polls in 20012. Talk show hosts are fired for suggesting that dred locks are distasteful. Terrorists are tried like citizens, their rights and religious sanctity preserved at all costs, even as their compatriots plot to behead women and children in the name of God. The very collapse of the US economy with the financial crisis of 2008, with the fall of the housing market and subsequent crumbling of economic infrastructure in the US and abroad, is the result of racial legislation; starting with the Clintons, our government insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lend to minority families, even when they could not afford a home. George Bush attempted to stop this practice on 17 different occasions, but the Leftist cronyists would not let it pass, and so our system crumbled from within as the minority's housing bubble burst.

    With such a narrative existing in our times, how can we stomach any more spoon-fed diversity? Please, no more!!! Leave my minis out of it!!!!
    Last edited by BloodFather of Kharnath; 02-27-2015 at 08:13 PM.
    ​You are ranked 1 out of 9149 artists.
    BloodFather's Axis of Chaos http://www.coolminiornot.com/forums/...f-Chaos/page17

  11. #71

    Default

    I would say that both sides of the isle are wrong,.. each in their own ways. And that's the problem. We are really only ever given two wrong choices,.. you can either vote for "the corporate crony",.. or "the government goon". And then, when we don't go to the polls,(because we know that both options are wrong), they try to blame us for not participating. But that's like trying to make a man choose between being burned at the stake, or being skinned alive,... and then blaming that man for not choosing which horrible way to die. What we really need here is a 3rd option. And I firmly believe in setting term limits for congress. At the very least, it would keep the major corporations from "buying their way to power". Or at least,.. make them have to bribe a whole new set of people every few years.
    It's only a flesh wound!!!


  12. #72
    Superfreak!!! Dragonsreach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Bolton, Lancs, UK (A Geordie in Exile)
    Posts
    17,303
    Rep Power
    38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Webmonkey View Post
    I would say that both sides of the isle are wrong,.. each in their own ways. And that's the problem. We are really only ever given two wrong choices,.. you can either vote for "the corporate crony",.. or "the government goon". And then, when we don't go to the polls,(because we know that both options are wrong), they try to blame us for not participating. But that's like trying to make a man choose between being burned at the stake, or being skinned alive,... and then blaming that man for not choosing which horrible way to die. What we really need here is a 3rd option. And I firmly believe in setting term limits for congress. At the very least, it would keep the major corporations from "buying their way to power". Or at least,.. make them have to bribe a whole new set of people every few years.
    Something I happen to believe as well.
    I also don't think we will have a 'True Democracy' until voting is mandatory, but the option to Abstain. I.e. None of the Above is included in a ballot.
    I believe in Karma, what you give, is what you get returned. Affirmation; Savage Garden
    Oh look my IQ results came in:-
    , and proud of it.

  13. #73

    Default

    I agree with this as well, but the reality is that people, in the US at least, are truly polarized along party lines. Very often I encounter people that proclaim proudly that they are neither democrat nor republican, but a free-thinking Independent. It is then that I quiz them by asking a number of questions concerning the issues of the day, i.e. their thoughts on gay marriage, welfare, taxes, foreign policy, etc. I find, almost as a rule, that they fall strongly on one side or the other. This is why government is so stagnant and useless today.
    ​You are ranked 1 out of 9149 artists.
    BloodFather's Axis of Chaos http://www.coolminiornot.com/forums/...f-Chaos/page17

  14. #74

    Default

    Well,.. in that vein, I say :

    Gay Marriage: yes. Because the world is an ugly enough place already and you should take love wherever you can find it. Besides, its none of my business what you do with your body, or who you choose to do it with.

    Welfare: yes (with a couple caveats) I think its good for people to help take care of people. However, I do have a problem with women who become a "baby factory" just so they can get a bigger check from the government. Also there's the drug user issue. So in essence, I believe in welfare,.. but not as an "eternal free ride". The rules governing such things need to be addressed and re-written.

    Taxes: taxes are a necessary evil for society to function. But the rules need to change. The tax laws are too complex. They should be simplified to the point that any reasonably intelligent person can easily understand them. And all the loopholes that allow billionaires and business to avoid paying their fair shaes need to be closed.

    Foreign Policy: for the most part,.. I say we should keep our nose out of foreign affairs. The USA is not the worlds police force. The rest of the world needs to learn how to deal with their own problems. In the middle east, for example,.. those people have been killing each other over same 3 miles of land for centuries. I don't see why its any of our business. And as for the current state of things,.... they keep telling me that we have to keep bombing them because they hate us,... I wonder if its ever occured to them that maybe they hate us, because we keep bombing them. I think most americans have it all backwards.

    So whatcha think?? Which side of the isle do I fall on? (Just curious,.. no judgements about any answers you may give)
    It's only a flesh wound!!!


  15. #75

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dragonsreach View Post
    Something I happen to believe as well.
    I also don't think we will have a 'True Democracy' until voting is mandatory, but the option to Abstain. I.e. None of the Above is included in a ballot.
    This is why i have went to the polls several times in my life and turned in a blank ballot as a protest vote. I would like to see an option like this, "all of these candidates suck".

  16. #76

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Webmonkey View Post
    Well,.. in that vein, I say :

    Gay Marriage: yes. Because the world is an ugly enough place already and you should take love wherever you can find it. Besides, its none of my business what you do with your body, or who you choose to do it with.

    Welfare: yes (with a couple caveats) I think its good for people to help take care of people. However, I do have a problem with women who become a "baby factory" just so they can get a bigger check from the government. Also there's the drug user issue. So in essence, I believe in welfare,.. but not as an "eternal free ride". The rules governing such things need to be addressed and re-written.

    Taxes: taxes are a necessary evil for society to function. But the rules need to change. The tax laws are too complex. They should be simplified to the point that any reasonably intelligent person can easily understand them. And all the loopholes that allow billionaires and business to avoid paying their fair shaes need to be closed.

    Foreign Policy: for the most part,.. I say we should keep our nose out of foreign affairs. The USA is not the worlds police force. The rest of the world needs to learn how to deal with their own problems. In the middle east, for example,.. those people have been killing each other over same 3 miles of land for centuries. I don't see why its any of our business. And as for the current state of things,.... they keep telling me that we have to keep bombing them because they hate us,... I wonder if its ever occured to them that maybe they hate us, because we keep bombing them. I think most americans have it all backwards.

    So whatcha think?? Which side of the isle do I fall on? (Just curious,.. no judgements about any answers you may give)
    Web, while the issues I chose aren't neccessarily the best examples to form a justification, they aren't a bad cross-section of both social and fiscal planks, and so I think I can state definitively that you, Sir, are at least a moderate Democrat, if not a Progressive Liberal. You answered 4/4 Left. Some of your explanations point towards an even further left of left, though. For example, the apologist or America guilt mind state that suggests that it is America's fault for inspiring hatred and provoking attack. Or the belief that the wealthy somehow do not pay their fair share of taxes, when ten percent of the population pays for 80 percent of the budget, and a millionaire pays 40% in taxes, versus the 10-15 percent paid by low wage earners. (Just showing the other perspective with these examples, I am not saying you are right or wrong-though I am sure you can tell what side of the spectrum I fall on).
    ​You are ranked 1 out of 9149 artists.
    BloodFather's Axis of Chaos http://www.coolminiornot.com/forums/...f-Chaos/page17

  17. #77

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BloodFather of Kharnath View Post
    Web, while the issues I chose aren't neccessarily the best examples to form a justification, they aren't a bad cross-section of both social and fiscal planks, and so I think I can state definitively that you, Sir, are at least a moderate Democrat, if not a Progressive Liberal. You answered 4/4 Left. Some of your explanations point towards an even further left of left, though. For example, the apologist or America guilt mind state that suggests that it is America's fault for inspiring hatred and provoking attack. Or the belief that the wealthy somehow do not pay their fair share of taxes, when ten percent of the population pays for 80 percent of the budget, and a millionaire pays 40% in taxes, versus the 10-15 percent paid by low wage earners. (Just showing the other perspective with these examples, I am not saying you are right or wrong-though I am sure you can tell what side of the spectrum I fall on).
    Fair enough, and I would even agree that I may be more democrat then republican. Though, I think the whole system is broken, and needs to be scrapped and rebuilt from the ground up.

    Though, as for the taxes I would argue several points. First, it's a fact that millionaires qualify for a variety of tax breaks that common people don't get. Second, for decades, businesses have been shifting work overseas. This not only lets them pay less wages (and pocket the difference), but they also get to avoid paying taxes (and pocket the difference) on the work since it didn't happen on US soil. And then, since they are a US based company, they technically aren't "importing" their goods, which means they don't have to pay tariffs,.. so again,.. they can pocket the difference.

    When you look at the percentages, such a you stated, I can sort of see where you are coming from. However, lets look at the actual dollar amounts. When I lose 30% of my 20K per year paycheck,.. it only leaves me with 14K to live on for the whole year. The millionaire may get taxed 70%,.. which, up front, sounds a whole lot worse then my 30%. (which he doesn't actually pay because of tax breaks) However, in terms of actual dollars, he's still left with 300K to live on for the whole year. So then the question becomes "who's worse off?" me at my 30% or him at his 70%?

    Plus, I would also argue that the military is the province of the rich,.. so they should have a higher stake in keeping it functioning. See, when I'm hungry on the street corner, nothing at all happens. However, when some rich Wall Street fat-cats and Oil Tycoons are going to lose their shirts, that's when we go to war. Sure,.. they dress it up as though there's some other reasons,.. but we all know better. This all leads back to a famous quote,.. "When the rich wage war,.. it's the poor that die". And there's some truth to this. If you can convince people that the war is for liberty, freedom, anti-terrorism, etc,.. then they go and fight for these ideas. However, the truth is that they laying down their lives for no other reason then to keep those in power, inside their seats of power.

    I often hear the word "democracy" used by Americans, and even used about America itself. Problem is, we don't live in a democracy,.. we live in a republic. In a true democracy, everyone gets a vote,.. on every subject. In a republic, a small handful of people (usually rich aristocratic types) get to make the decisions, and force the rest of the population to live by those rules. It really isn't that far from a monarchy when you think about it. Instead of one rich snob (the King, for example, that we were trying to get away from) making the rules to suit himself,.. we now have 300 rich snobs, making the rules to suit themselves. In both cases, the people "en mass" are left behind and their wants and needs get summarily ignored,. and there's not much we can do about it. (short of all-out revolt at this point)

    I can see how my answers may seem "left-ist"... but they stem more from the fact that I'm "anti-behavioral-control-ist". The people don't need to be controlled (IMHO), however business and government do,.. lest they take advantage of the people.

    I may be more of an Anarchist then a Democrat after all
    It's only a flesh wound!!!


  18. #78

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dragonsreach View Post
    Oi, I may be old but I object to being called Grown Up.


    THere is a viewpoint that the "scantily clad female miniature" appeals to the classic Basement Dweller image of gamers/painters and some manufacturers have played on that, but equally there is a high number of well sculpted/proportionately accurate/finely dressed miniatures , I'll name Sebastian Archers "Guild of Harmony" as one of the best Boutique and Reaper as one of the Mainstream who have taken the option to clothe remake miniatures.

    AND let me say I appreciate the Human Form, both Male and Female without prejudice.

    Take a look a Arena Rex miniatures. Their female models are extemely well done.
    The odds of succesfully finishing this miniature is 3720:1





Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Privacy Policy  |   Terms and Conditions  |   Contact Us  |   The Legion


Copyright © 2001-2018 CMON Inc.

-->