Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
I'd also like to ask those who think representation isn't needed-why do you think women have so little presence in the hobby? Plenty of us know a woman or two in the hobby, but I'd wager that most of us know a lot more men who play 40k than women.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
that is general a problem with GW deciding to make a Space Marines game and add NPC factions
is if this "everything being Marines" won't turn off male people as well
yet for the message, I think that the Imperium has the male focus send a clear message of what the Imperium is, so newcomers don't get trapped into thinking they are playing the good guys
if Marines would just be one faction among many not the full game being all about them, it would be less of a problem
and why women don't like the 40k hobby but are fine with miniature gaming in general, might be a combination of mediocre rules, high price for armies, short lifespan, and bad writing and a setting that appeals to boys of a certain age who are excited to play space Nazis and pretend those being the good guys because mankind had no other choice to survive
or because GW is not selling female mass-murders so girls have something they can relate
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/04/17 18:31:36
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
women are telling you what makes us comfortable in the hobby, and in return, you're telling us that such things are unacceptable. so we're allowed to exist in the hobby, but only when it's hostile to us
I'm going to be 100% real here.
Is there being male only and female only factions genuinely hostile?
I don’t want to speak for Student…, but I found for me and my wife the main faction, the one that has all the flavors, almost of the new shinies and the novels and the epic series and new kits and old kits refreshed, the one on all the posters and all the video game covers, that one being explicitly “no women” comes across as hostile to women. Half of the setting is male dominated with some inclusion and some gender specific subfactions; the other half of the setting is Space Marines. It’s a lot to ignore.
This is kind of why I'm hesitant to engage on the subject too much. It feels like a damned if I do, damned if I don't for discussing it in the context I'd like to.
I feel like a genuine part of this is a feedback loop: people go in expecting to find Marines, they'll find Marines no matter what you show them. I could point you to the Minka Lesk series or a huge chunk of the recent Guard novels which have women front and center on them or the WH+ series Pariah Nexus, which had a Sister of Battle as the central focus.
not inherently, but with 40k as it exists (aka, the poster boy faction being loudly and inarguably all male), the lack of female diversity in other areas of the game is an issue. for example, AOS is a game where the box art faction has a variety of gender representation, which makes all-male armies like fyreslayers or kharadron (edit: iirc the new fyreslayer warband has some women but that's a recent unit so the army was all-male until recently) not an issue. it's not an inherent issue, but a contextual one. if we're talking about gender in the context of 40k, the all-male faction of space marines is an ever-present elephant in the room
And this is where I get lost in the weeds. I've explained it already, but I would way rather see existing factions lifted up rather than just slapping an "all-new inclusiveness!" label on existing ones.
I don't want to see males in the Sisters of Battle. I don't want to see females in the Astartes.
I want to see Sisters of Battle see a genuine uplifting to being a faction that could carry the franchise, whether they're on box art or not.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/04/17 18:32:15
Insectum7 wrote: No no no, jesus no. Don't paint with that broad brush. I'm perfectly happy to enjoy the hobby with women, I just don't think the background has to change to make that happen.
So you're perfectly happy for women to visit the hobby on your terms.
Bad faith much?
women are telling you what makes us comfortable in the hobby, and in return, you're telling us that such things are unacceptable. so we're allowed to exist in the hobby, but only when it's hostile to us
And the woman who likes the lore, paints up a Tyranid army and joins her local club is "just visiting" apparently?
There's a dissonance here.
I do think you are missing a bit here in that women and other groups have largely been pushed out of the hobby for decades and our thoughts on the development within the game ignored. Leading to the place it’s in now.
It’s why the lore being held up as such an important thing, but the actual themes and meaning to the setting often gets dragged down in these groups is such a big issue.
Men get to be cool, women need to justify their existence in the setting at all. It’s also why I don’t think sisters of battle are particularly popular with women, and sisters of silence don’t really do much to help.
Even if expanding the sisters of silence comes with issues within the setting, they could do it but it would be an undertaking of effort.
Also I think a big issue is a lot of men put gender issues into settings when they don’t really understand them, and don’t want to talk about them. Which leads to issues internally and externally.
I also think media for women try’s to tackle this often, it’s really common in books I read and shows trying to present it all thoughtfully.
It’s why I think space marines can actually work, but it kinda falls flat when every time we listen to discussions of lore it’s basically about how cool they are, and never any of the issues they present or what they may represent within the setting.
Sorry about my English here, hopefully it’s coming across ok. You made some good posts that I appreciate reading.
I kind of just want them because it adds more variety to models instead of it always being men. GW has made a little effort for stuff like women in the guard, but you have to go out of your way to accumulate enough head bits for an entire unit of them. Just hoping this time they put more effort into actually providing a way to show the variety
The novels have generally been better about inclusion than the games and codices. And books give an insight into people’s inner lives that make it easier to cross empathy gaps than with artwork or miniatures.
My wife enjoyed the Eisenhorn and first Ciaphas Cain omnibuses. But she got tired of the setting quickly, and prefers to read urban fantasy or harder Sci Fi. Urban fantasy has a lot more female leads, generally, and hard Sci Fi is more about the concept or puzzle than about the characters. Now that I think about it, she might like the Priests of Mars omnibus…
(Sisters of Battle also bother her because she had a bad religious upbringing, and finds the satirical theocratic elements of the setting more stressful than amusing.)
However, when it comes to painting minis, she only wants to paint her (female) characters for Shadows of Brimstone or monsters.
Apple fox wrote: I do think you are missing a bit here in that women and other groups have largely been pushed out of the hobby for decades and our thoughts on the development within the game ignored. Leading to the place it’s in now.
It’s why the lore being held up as such an important thing, but the actual themes and meaning to the setting often gets dragged down in these groups is such a big issue.
that is a problem for your "hobby" being 40k exclusive as this would already change if you look into other GW games like Lord of the Rings or expanding your hobby to settings from other companies
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
kodos wrote: that is general a problem with GW deciding to make a Space Marines game and add NPC factions
is if this "everything being Marines" won't turn off male people as well
yet for the message, I think that the Imperium has the male focus send a clear message of what the Imperium is, so newcomers don't get trapped into thinking they are playing the good guys
if Marines would just be one faction among many not the full game being all about them, it would be less of a problem
or because GW is not selling female mass-murders so girls have something they can relate
I don’t think I follow your logic here or you always mean Marines instead of "Imperium".
Because "the Imperium", despite being a fascist dictatorship with catholic Symbols doesn't have a male focus. The Imperial Guard is more diverse than any real life human Military, the Admech is a faction of non-binary Cyborgs, Sisters of Battle and Silence are women only, Assassins, Rogue Traders, Navy, Arbites, Knights and now Custodes are all mixed gender.
Even concerning just Space Marines you really think them being male only immediately shows an outside observer that this is a totalitarian faction? You don't think they rather see an army of Captain Americas, or maybe Space Romans, or hell, a poor man's StarCraft Marines ?
I get your basic approach for why you dislike the change and why you'd dislike female Marines. And I'd also like an explanation along the lines of: no women in Marines because according to this unreadable decree from 10K years ago our Master doesn't want woman Marines and who are we to question the Führer's orders?
But Marines and Custodes being men only is hardly the most important thing to give the Imperium away as oppressive.
Apple fox wrote:Men get to be cool, women need to justify their existence in the setting at all.
A very good post overall, but I want to highlight (and hence why I've only quoted this section) this snippet.
On the whole, people are *used* to the idea of only seeing men in their fantasy militaries and universes. It's not considered odd or out of place or even particularly noteworthy that a group appears all male. It requires no conceit, no justification, it is just... ordinary.
In contrast, a faction that is all-women or even *mostly* femme-presenting will be remarked on as being such most of the time. Them being women is a novelty, or something that needs explanation, or is otherwise pointed out. I could be very wrong here, but when people introduce the Sisters of Battle, them being all-women is usually mentioned in part of the pitch that people give. It's usually a long the lines of "they're an all-women group of warrior nuns with power armour, unshakeable faith, and love burning heretics". With Space Marines, it's never "they're an all-male group of genetically enhanced superhuman soldiers" - it's usually just the "genetically enhanced superhuman soldiers" part*.
As Apple fox says: women need to JUSTIFY their existence. I think that, for a lot of people, the idea of an all-women, or even majority femme, group is something which would be immediately noticeable in a way that an all-male group wouldn't be. There would be confusion, possibly outrage or laughs. And the group would need a *justification* to exist.
Yes, I'm aware that there are "justifications" for Space Marines being how they are, but let's not beat around the bush here - those "justifications" are not always mentioned in canon material, and can often slip notice. They're hardly front and centre requirements in the same way the Decree Passive is.
Let us not also forget that people don't tend to argue to justify the status quo - a status quo that benefits a predominantly male aesthetic. In this thread, we have plenty of folks saying "well, why should we change anything" or "justify your feelings to me" - instead of addressing the necessity of their own position, and justifying their own feelings first.
Ultimately, I've written a lot more than I need to on a very small, but incredibly salient point, and I'd like to hope that this highlights a little bit more of the "diverse gender" argument being made.
*I am making an assumption, but I don't think I'm far from the mark. When people pitch 40k factions, gender is only really noted in regards to the all-women factions and groups.
wanna focus on this little bit here to say, the admech are probably the most popular imperium faction among trans people i know. transhumanist themes like body modification really resonate with trans people, so it's not really a surprise, but i think it's a good example of how the imperium has a lot of themes outside of the reduction to "they're bad people", and in particular, how different people will see themselves in different things, and in doing so, will come away from stories with different themes in mind (necrons are equally popular for similar reasons)
if we're talking about gender representation, then the importance of factions being weird with it is also worth focusing on!
Apple fox wrote: I do think you are missing a bit here in that women and other groups have largely been pushed out of the hobby for decades and our thoughts on the development within the game ignored. Leading to the place it’s in now.
It’s why the lore being held up as such an important thing, but the actual themes and meaning to the setting often gets dragged down in these groups is such a big issue.
that is a problem for your "hobby" being 40k exclusive as this would already change if you look into other GW games like Lord of the Rings or expanding your hobby to settings from other companies
Because LotR and 40K are incredibly similar games and share many of the same themes and settings. Telling someone to find another game from the one your playing is straight up gatekeeping.
Apple fox wrote:Men get to be cool, women need to justify their existence in the setting at all.
A very good post overall, but I want to highlight (and hence why I've only quoted this section) this snippet.
On the whole, people are *used* to the idea of only seeing men in their fantasy militaries and universes. It's not considered odd or out of place or even particularly noteworthy that a group appears all male. It requires no conceit, no justification, it is just... ordinary.
In contrast, a faction that is all-women or even *mostly* femme-presenting will be remarked on as being such most of the time. Them being women is a novelty, or something that needs explanation, or is otherwise pointed out. I could be very wrong here, but when people introduce the Sisters of Battle, them being all-women is usually mentioned in part of the pitch that people give. It's usually a long the lines of "they're an all-women group of warrior nuns with power armour, unshakeable faith, and love burning heretics". With Space Marines, it's never "they're an all-male group of genetically enhanced superhuman soldiers" - it's usually just the "genetically enhanced superhuman soldiers" part*.
As Apple fox says: women need to JUSTIFY their existence. I think that, for a lot of people, the idea of an all-women, or even majority femme, group is something which would be immediately noticeable in a way that an all-male group wouldn't be. There would be confusion, possibly outrage or laughs. And the group would need a *justification* to exist.
Yes, I'm aware that there are "justifications" for Space Marines being how they are, but let's not beat around the bush here - those "justifications" are not always mentioned in canon material, and can often slip notice. They're hardly front and centre requirements in the same way the Decree Passive is.
Let us not also forget that people don't tend to argue to justify the status quo - a status quo that benefits a predominantly male aesthetic. In this thread, we have plenty of folks saying "well, why should we change anything" or "justify your feelings to me" - instead of addressing the necessity of their own position, and justifying their own feelings first.
Ultimately, I've written a lot more than I need to on a very small, but incredibly salient point, and I'd like to hope that this highlights a little bit more of the "diverse gender" argument being made.
*I am making an assumption, but I don't think I'm far from the mark. When people pitch 40k factions, gender is only really noted in regards to the all-women factions and groups.
This is an excellent point. Think of all the various fighting forces you can. Think about what stands out about them, and the first thing people think of when thinking about those forces.
Then apply that thought experiment to Amazons and see what happens.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/04/17 21:17:14
She/Her
"There are no problems that cannot be solved with cannons." - Chief Engineer Boris Krauss of Nuln
Kid_Kyoto wrote:"Don't be a dick" and "This is a family wargame" are good rules of thumb.
Apple fox wrote: I do think you are missing a bit here in that women and other groups have largely been pushed out of the hobby for decades and our thoughts on the development within the game ignored. Leading to the place it’s in now.
It’s why the lore being held up as such an important thing, but the actual themes and meaning to the setting often gets dragged down in these groups is such a big issue.
that is a problem for your "hobby" being 40k exclusive as this would already change if you look into other GW games like Lord of the Rings or expanding your hobby to settings from other companies
Because LotR and 40K are incredibly similar games and share many of the same themes and settings. Telling someone to find another game from the one your playing is straight up gatekeeping.
And? Not everything is for everyone for good reasons in many cases.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: I get your basic approach for why you dislike the change
you don't because I don't dislike the change or even care about it
I simply disagree with the standpoint that female Custodes (or female Space Marines) being to key change needed to get more woman playing 40k because this changes nothing about the game as it is
and if people think that a female Space Marine (or the Imperium as it is) is a good role models for girls, it makes things even worse as those are no role models for anyone no matter if male or female and switching gender does not change that
the overall setting of 40k is not there to feel represented, relate to a hero or find an idol it is the dark version of a future were everything went wrong and the galaxy is of the edge of destruction
in the best case it is a satire and wanting changes so you can point out the good points of the bad guys
big E made a galaxy wide google maps that needs 1000 people killed a day to run and they throw in woman in children because they wanted to use the grown man for war, but woman in his bodyguard are now a sign for representation of woman and make girls like the setting?
because "the Imperium", despite being a fascist dictatorship with catholic Symbols doesn't have a male focus.
everything big E created was male, except for those that are not allowed to talk, which should make it clear to everyone which person he was and this is the message that 40k sends out, the poster boys are not the good guys
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DeathKorp_Rider wrote: telling someone to find another game from the one your playing is straight up gatekeeping.
if someone is reducing "the hobby" to a single game and than complains that there are people out there not liking that game, it is not "the hobby" that is the problem
if you want more woman in "your hobby" and woman don't like 40k, it is on you to change and expand your hobby and not on the woman to start changing and liking 40k
this is not gatekeeping, pretending "the hobby" is 40k and 40k only is
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2024/04/17 21:24:07
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
Yes, I'm aware that there are "justifications" for Space Marines being how they are, but let's not beat around the bush here - those "justifications" are not always mentioned in canon material, and can often slip notice. They're hardly front and centre requirements in the same way the Decree Passive is.
Also, 40K is a fictional world. Those justifications for why space marines must be male are not actual biological reality, but fictional creations of a writer. In that way, they are completely arbitrary. If someone in GW's employ writes tomorrow that only humans with blonde hair and blue eyes with head circumference measurements of X" were capable of surviving the transition from human to space marine, it would have the exact same basis in biological, scientific reality as the requirement that they be male. That is to say, none whatsoever.
And those kinds of decisions and choices in a story can be questioned and challenged. That's what media criticism is.
because "the Imperium", despite being a fascist dictatorship with catholic Symbols doesn't have a male focus.
everything big E created was male, except for those that are not allowed to talk, which should make it clear to everyone which person he was and this is the message that 40k sends out, the poster boys are not the good guys
Further evidence for my "Emperor Is A Raging, Misogynistic Incel Who Loves Beefcake Dudes" lore hypothesis.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2024/04/17 21:34:58
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Yes, I'm aware that there are "justifications" for Space Marines being how they are, but let's not beat around the bush here - those "justifications" are not always mentioned in canon material, and can often slip notice. They're hardly front and centre requirements in the same way the Decree Passive is.
Also, 40K is a fictional world. Those justifications for why space marines must be male are not actual biological reality, but fictional creations of a writer. In that way, they are completely arbitrary. If someone in GW's employ writes tomorrow that only humans with blonde hair and blue eyes with head circumference measurements of X" were capable of surviving the transition from human to space marine, it would have the exact same basis in biological, scientific reality as the requirement that they be male. That is to say, none whatsoever..
Especially when the only reason they wrote it that way was because the hobby had tried to push female marines but no one was buying them. If it was a decision solely made on the basis of “people aren’t interested in female marine models right now,” it seems like now that we’re at a time when that ride is turning around it should be changed to fit this.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/04/17 21:45:07
I don't want to see males in the Sisters of Battle.
They've actually been there since 2nd ed and in every edition since, and you can bet that they'll be in the 10th dex when it drops.
Arcos, missionaries, preachers, named heroes like Jacobus and Kyrinov, PE pilots and Frateris Militia in the few editions that have bothered to include them. I know, it ain't a lot, but it's a stronger presence than femmes in Astartes, and it has been consistently present in every edition. In 10th, they even get to use AoF (which I personally think dilutes the lore, but that's not really a big deal in the context of this thread).
It is true that there are no men in Adepta Sororitas convents, and it's also true that the males aren't part of the Sororitas proper... But there have been male characters and units in every Sisters dex ever printed.
kodos wrote: that is a problem for your "hobby" being 40k exclusive as this would already change if you look into other GW games like Lord of the Rings or expanding your hobby to settings from other companies
Telling a woman who wants to play 40k that other games have stronger female representation a) isn't helping the player and b) proves that there is a 40k problem.
And though it's not relevant to this thread, Lord of the Rings, love it or hate it, isn't a GW Game; it's a Tolkien Game that happens to be manufactured and produced by Games Workshop. Personally, I wish some other company had made it, because I'd rather see that production space and those White Dwarf pages devoted to actual GW IP. If not for indulging in other people's IP, who knows- we could have had EC for two editions by now, or maybe been done with Finecast for every faction already, or maybe we'd have BFG back or a new Warhammer Quest game for the 40k setting- heck, they might have even felt they had the resources to develop LI as a 40k game with a full suite of factions, rather than confining it to 30k and excluding Xenos. Sorry, tangent, but one of my pet peeves. Not saying it's a bad game, or that I don't like the models... I just don't think of it as GW product because it doesn't exist in a world they created.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/04/17 22:48:37
I don't want to see males in the Sisters of Battle.
They've actually been there since 2nd ed and in every edition since, and you can bet that they'll be in the 10th dex when it drops.
Arcos, missionaries, preachers, named heroes like Jacobus and Kyrinov, PE pilots and Frateris Militia in the few editions that have bothered to include them. I know, it ain't a lot, but it's a stronger presence than femmes in Astartes, and it has been consistently present in every edition. In 10th, they even get to use AoF (which I personally think dilutes the lore, but that's not really a big deal in the context of this thread).
It is true that there are no men in Adepta Sororitas convents, and it's also true that the males aren't part of the Sororitas proper... But there have been male characters and units in every Sisters dex ever printed.
Which means nothing, because you don't call the Ecclesiarchy items "Sisters of Battle" in a colloquial terminology. Don't try to pretend like the intention of my statement is vague there. You could run an entire Sisters of Battle army, now, with zero males in it.
It's also worth mentioning that those same "male units" you mentioned? They aren't. Arco-Flagellants are mixed gender for the plastic set. The Penitent Engine pilots are the same mixed gender setup. Missionaries and Preachers are using the same models that they were when I first started paying attention to them, and Jacobus and Kyrinov are both gone from production.
because "the Imperium", despite being a fascist dictatorship with catholic Symbols doesn't have a male focus.
everything big E created was male, except for those that are not allowed to talk, which should make it clear to everyone which person he was and this is the message that 40k sends out, the poster boys are not the good guys
Further evidence for my "Emperor Is A Raging, Misogynistic Incel Who Loves Beefcake Dudes" lore hypothesis.
I like to go with the theory "the Emperor didn't know what he was actually doing, and just nodded along to the people in the room that he thought were smarter than him".
It goes along with the idea of the "Carrion Throne" too; with the Emperor basically being a vulture who was able to push out the other scavengers and get the choice bits first...while also making him absolutely clueless about what to do with those choice bits!
Basically, I like to imagine that the Emperor is Mr. Bean. Constantly failing upwards.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2024/04/17 23:06:50
Like, how do you think this interacts with the idea of target demographics? Can products be made for certain sub-demographics and retain those aims? I'm no expert, but I imagine Barbie has a pretty small array of male dolls compared to its female line, and that just seems like a reflection of the typical purchasing consumer. There's all manner of products and media that are aimed at specific audiences, and I think it's healthy to have those sub-ecosystems sitting alongside other products/media that are aimed more at "general" audiences, where I'd expect to see more inclusivity.
This is a really simple question that rapidly spirals out of control in complexity, ultimately becoming unanswerable.
My gut is that I don't mind things having a niche. So long as entertainment products the world over are not a single hand-sized grey ball that says "Fun" there will always be different types, and so long as there are different types they will appeal to different people. Even along gendered lines to an extent. However I think the targeting is where it becomes problematic. Because all forms of purchasable entertainment are forms of art (most toys can be said to be sculptures of a sort, media is stories / pictures, so on and so forth) and art says something about the people which create it and the society which created them. And that often leads to problems because of the choices made from Barbie's figure, to representation in comics, and the boys-only club of SM.
To kind of draw that back to the topic at hand, let's address the "Emperor wanted it that way," justification: The justification of the Emperor only wanting male supersoldiers to prevent reproduction is totally valid and understandable.. If the Emperor is a real person. But he's not. He's a fictional character, which means that someone made that choice and decided it was okay. That passes on and carries weight. And that doesn't even make it inherently bad; there's plenty of media which has racism / sexist / otherwise awful characters making choices along those lines. However those forms of media are often times attempting to explore that and conveying a message. Satire is also a thing. 40k is not; it's making no attempt to explore gendered issues nor is it particularly interested in being a satire of that nature. It used to be interested in being a satire about fascists and religious extremists, but frankly it's come close to dropping the satire element there.
TLDR: 40k was made by straight white guys who had their own bias (if you disagree, go look up the pgymies from WHFB) and made un-ironic choices along those biased lines. This created a product which uncritically presented various norms and, in doing so, helps to cultivate that same bias in its viewership while also giving them a (bad) justification to argue that it should not be changed, while pretending that they themselves do not have such bias' and neither did the creators. The only way to counter-act that bias is to include it's opposites.
It's pretty much schroedinger's minority with these people. Only those who kowtow to or match their narrative of what they see matches with the ills of the hobby is acknowledged, anyone else who is able to enjoy it and doesn't make a fuss about the lack of females in the subfactions THEY want to change is conveniently ignored. Which is funny for people who like to profess hating stereotypes stereotyping themselves into seeing that women only want to play factions that have explicit women in them.
While my experience is again anecdotal, it has been incredibly consistent: The factions which my various nerd girlfriends have shown interest in is firstly Tyranids, then Necrons, and lastly Dark Eldar. Basically genderless animals, genderless evil undead, and equal opportunity BDSM sex elves.
While the reasons they've given have had a bit of variety they've hit a lot of the same points. And frankly, the unifying factor is less wanting a faction which is built "for women" so much as it is liking the ones which are NOT built "for men".
Space Marines are a teenage boy power fantasy. They're massive dudes with big guns and bigger muscles who shoot the bad guys real good and crush their skulls with their hands when they come close. Sure there's some nuance in the depth but that's not what's presented; they are sold on their being big manly men who do manly things for men, and appeal to men for that reason. The same is very much true of IG and, if we're being honest, Sisters of battle. They're built on male power fantasies of being soldier that're supposed to appeal to little boys who like playing soldier.
There's nothing wrong with this. It can absolutely exist and be unproblematic, and some women will even be drawn to that sort of thing. Different strokes. The issue comes along when everything is that, which almost all of it is in 40k. As I said in my above response to someone else, art / media has downstream effects based on the people and culture that produces it. And this is the entire point of art; we seek out art to be effected by it in someway. Each of us here enjoys 40k because it makes us feel and think things, and we like those things. The issue comes into play when the entire message is "Big muscly men doing men stuff while the ladies stay at home unless they're also big muscly men", as that creates an environment which is hostile to anyone who doesn't enjoy that. And that becomes an issue because making that environment is a CHOICE; 40k is not a historically accurate retelling of, say, Spartan and Athenian conflicts of ancient Greece, where there historically were not women. Someone decided for 40k to be the way it is.
Now Warhammer at large, and even 40k, is actively striding to correct this. It's happening whether people like it or not. And that's a good thing.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2024/04/17 23:44:55
I don't care how people model their minis, its your hobby do what you want. However where people are coming from in WHY they want female marines/custodes/etc is usually nonsense.
1. "Less of a boys club!/More women in the hobby!" Look, I got female nerd friends, we play video games, board games, dnd, they've even painted a model or two and have expressed interest in fantasy. But 40k? There are few exceptions but orks fighting super marines is like female kryptonite. Adding female marines and custodes isn't going to make women suddenly want to drop thousands of dollars on sci-fi wargames. Sure you might get a couple more painters since women tend to skew towards the painting aspect, but as far as sales you are wasting your time. No amount of marketing is going to make knitting a less-female centric hobby either. People like what they like, and thats fine. Not everything is a 'problem' that needs to be solved.
2. "The lore is stupid!" Yes, yes it is.
3. "Space Marines are the poster boys!" Yes, as others have said its a marketing thing mainly. However changing the poster boys to include women is again, not going to drive women to buy 40k in a meaningful capacity. Does Halo have a significant female playerbase? They had spartan women from the start. Did Gears of War 4-5 bring in a lot of female players? What about Starship Troopers? How many women rank that in their top 5 movies of all time?
4. The fetish people that just want dommy-mommies. No, I am not making it up, its where a lot of people advocating for this stuff on social media come from. Porn artists and just people that want to be spooned by amazon women. Nothing wrong with that, but like, that's got nothing to do with 40k, wargaming, or lore in general. There are a lot of weirdos on the internet.
All in all I just see a lot of people wanting change for the sake of change. Nobody is stopping you from making your models the way you want. 40k is fine the way it is.
"People say on their first meeting a Man and an Ork exchanged a long, hard look, didn't care much for what they saw, and shot each other dead."
Which means nothing, because you don't call the Ecclesiarchy items "Sisters of Battle" in a colloquial terminology. Don't try to pretend like the intention of my statement is vague there. You could run an entire Sisters of Battle army, now, with zero males in it.
Sorry Kan, didn't mean to offend. When you said "I don't want to see males in the Sisters of Battle" I genuinely thought you meant you didn't want to see males in Sisters of Battle armies, so I felt that I should point out that you can, and always have been able to include at least some men in SoB armies.
I agree with you that the few males who do appear in the dex aren't true sisters- I even said so in my post and you quoted me saying it. To expand on that a bit: in all of the editions where a Keyword system has been used, the units that include males have always lacked the Adeptus Sororitas keywords, meaning they could not use AoF. This reinforces the separation of these units from "True" Sisters; I always kinda liked that- men were in the army, but they didn't truly appear as equals. But 10th ed changed that: every single unit in the Index has the Faction Keyword: Adeptus Sororitas, and therefore they can use AoF. Like I said in my post, I'm not so sure I like that- I suspect you don't either, so again, we agree here.
It's also worth mentioning that those same "male units" you mentioned? They aren't. Arco-Flagellants are mixed gender for the plastic set. The Penitent Engine pilots are the same mixed gender setup. Missionaries and Preachers are using the same models that they were when I first started paying attention to them, and Jacobus and Kyrinov are both gone from production.
Look, again, I didn't mean to offend. You said you didn't want to see males, and by definition, mixed gender groups include them, and that's why I included those units in the list of ways that male models can be included in a Sisters army.
Also, regarding Missionaries and Preachers: while the classic models are still available, the loadout of both the 9th and 10th ed units makes it clear that Taddeus the Purifier and Pious Vorne could be used to represent them, and Pious is female- meaning you can choose to represent preachers with either a male or a female model. I also think it would be cool to add a female missionary option.
Anyway, in trying to figure out how to respond, I reread both of our posts a few times, and I think probably the line I should have paid more attention to is this one:
I want to see Sisters of Battle see a genuine uplifting to being a faction that could carry the franchise, whether they're on box art or not.
I couldn't agree more. Generic HQ with a jump pack, bikes, bike HQ, drop shrine, an Aircraft, a plastic Repressor, a superheavy and a named character from each of the five subfactions that don't already have one. Hell yeah! Git on it GeeDubs!
And you know what? Bring back armies of Faith! These (along with Torchbearer Fleets) were my favourite rules in 9th: they let you take a mixed force of Sisters, Marines and Guard, much like the 9th ed trailer and Pariah animations. I think that using the three together provides a diverse and unique collection that allows for very intricate narratives. In such an army, Space Marines need not compromise their maleness, because the army includes women and Sisters don't need to include boys from their book because the other factions in the army have more and better boys to choose from.
Anyway man, I think we're pretty much on the same side, and sorry if my tone made it feel otherwise.
morganfreeman wrote: while the ladies stay at home unless they're also big muscly men
So before I begin, I want to say that I think the post this line comes from is excellent, and agree with everything in it except this. Now certainly, there ARE people who choose sisters based on the preference you describe here... But for me, the defining characteristic of sisters is their Faith, not their muscles or their armour. And if pressed for a further marker of their identity, I would probably say Martyrdom before I'd say strength and armour. Add to that the nuance of army construction that Kan and I were discussing above, where Ecclesiarchal units can really alter the feel of a Sisters army. I think the faction is far more nuanced than you make it out to be.
One of my favourite Sisters builds is the Penitent Legion (hence the forum handle). The build changes from edition to edition, but it's always heavy on Missionaries, Priests, Battle Conclave units, Morties, Pennies and Repentia. I want a Repentia Superior style Cannoness to lead it, but a Dogmata can work. Karamazov + Arbites fit nicely with the theme too; the repentant units are those Karamazov has judged, and the Arbites are the Agents he uses to impose and enforce the sentence, be it flagellation, entombment in an engine or the Penitent Oath.
The only "sistes" in such an army are Repentia, Morties and the mandatory HQ.
I'm not saying it's competitive, but I don't care if I win or lose as I tend to play Agendas, which don't confer VP, but grow the army and drive the story of the Crusade.
kodos wrote: that is a problem for your "hobby" being 40k exclusive as this would already change if you look into other GW games like Lord of the Rings or expanding your hobby to settings from other companies
Telling a woman who wants to play 40k that other games have stronger female representation a) isn't helping the player and b) proves that there is a 40k problem.
if a woman already wants to play 40k you don't need female Custodes either to convince her playing 40k (yet if yo tell a woman who wants to play 40k that she now finally can play the game because female Custodes are canon, that is sexism)
it is telling the people who want woman in "their" hobby, but woman don't like "their" hobby, that the easy solution is to not limit the "hobby" to the things the woman don't like
If no woman want to date me in the spider house, screaming online that the spider house need to change and add kittens so more woman will go there is an option, but woman who don't like spiders won't date me there no matter how many kittens are running around.
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
Insectum7 wrote: No no no, jesus no. Don't paint with that broad brush. I'm perfectly happy to enjoy the hobby with women, I just don't think the background has to change to make that happen.
So you're perfectly happy for women to visit the hobby on your terms.
Bad faith much?
women are telling you what makes us comfortable in the hobby, and in return, you're telling us that such things are unacceptable. so we're allowed to exist in the hobby, but only when it's hostile to us
And the woman who likes the lore, paints up a Tyranid army and joins her local club is "just visiting" apparently?
There's a dissonance here.
I do think you are missing a bit here in that women and other groups have largely been pushed out of the hobby for decades and our thoughts on the development within the game ignored. Leading to the place it’s in now.
It’s why the lore being held up as such an important thing, but the actual themes and meaning to the setting often gets dragged down in these groups is such a big issue.
Men get to be cool, women need to justify their existence in the setting at all. It’s also why I don’t think sisters of battle are particularly popular with women, and sisters of silence don’t really do much to help.
Even if expanding the sisters of silence comes with issues within the setting, they could do it but it would be an undertaking of effort.
Also I think a big issue is a lot of men put gender issues into settings when they don’t really understand them, and don’t want to talk about them. Which leads to issues internally and externally.
I also think media for women try’s to tackle this often, it’s really common in books I read and shows trying to present it all thoughtfully.
It’s why I think space marines can actually work, but it kinda falls flat when every time we listen to discussions of lore it’s basically about how cool they are, and never any of the issues they present or what they may represent within the setting.
Sorry about my English here, hopefully it’s coming across ok. You made some good posts that I appreciate reading.
First off, I want to say that I'd like to revise my statement "I'm perfectly happy to enjoy the hobby with women, I just don't think the background has to change to make that happen." to "I don't think too much of the background has to change to make that happen." I'm on record as advocating for the Custodes change, and I think it's a good/helpful one.
I would argue that women have been part of the setting for a long time, both as grunts and as figures of authority (Inquisitors in particular come to mind there). It's just that their representation has almost never been readily apparent, and if it is there it can often look like tokenism. (I'm pretty sure that accusation has been leveled at the SoBs, an entire faction too.) I tend to chalk much of that up to 40K being a product mostly designed by boys/men and targeted at boys/men, and I would defend that as mostly being an OK thing on principle. Imo it should be acceptable for sub demographics to make products designed for their particular niche. What's clear though, is that 40k is not the small niche hobby it once was. Having seen it's growth for the 25+ years I've been in it has been quite something. But my point is really that, much of the foundation for gender equality is already there in the lore. There are female planetary governors, assassins, infantry, pilots, etc. that are generally treated no differently than their male counterparts. The problem is that most of the time, historically, we haven't seen it. So when you say "women have been pushed out of the hobby for decades", yeah, that resonates too. I get it. I don't think it was intended, it's just a byproduct of it's history and probably some poor managerial decisions.
And some of the issue in the past is certainly because there were very few female models in what should have been more integrated armies, such as Guard. But of course a lot of it is because of all the god&$*# focus on Space Marines. Obviously in terms of representation, Space Marines just tend to be front and center, over and over again. So even if in the background gender equality is part of the setting, it's those "saviors of humanity" which are always stealing the show along with their female-exclusionary identity. I can 1000% get why that's very obnoxious. Space Marines are my main army and I'm tired of it too. The other issue with Space Marines is that they've just been better. For a long time they held the spot as humanity's top-notch warriors with very few exceptions (assassins being a potential counterpoint, but again, very niche). So yeah, I get that having a fictional world in which only men can be the elite of the elite is off putting.
Which is why I support the Custodes change, because on the one hand, while I'm irritated at yet another "Marine+1 or 2 or 3" Imperial subfaction, it does give that gender equality at the best-of-the-best level. It means women have a spot at the top-tier, which is just good optics for the brand, but also kinda nice as way of setting the Custodes apart too. I feel like it's a reminder that Custodes are individually made, hyper-special entities, and gives them a bit more gravitas as symbols of authority.
But circling back, I think another thing it does for Marines is give them more breathing room as a male-only faction (the part of the background I wouldn't like changed). It means, and I hope GW recognizes, that Space Marines don't always have to be front-and-center as the poster child for 40k, because Marines can be up there with other visually-high-impact "heroes", sharing the space with more gender inclusive factions. But at the same time GW can keep Marines as that designed-by-men/boys and aimed at men/boys power fantasy faction identity that so many obviously love.
Apple Fox writes: "Also I think a big issue is a lot of men put gender issues into settings when they don’t really understand them, and don’t want to talk about them. Which leads to issues internally and externally.
I also think media for women try’s to tackle this often, it’s really common in books I read and shows trying to present it all thoughtfully." I confess I don't know what you mean by this, but I'm interested in hearing more.
Apple Fox also writes: "It’s why I think space marines can actually work, but it kinda falls flat when every time we listen to discussions of lore it’s basically about how cool they are, and never any of the issues they present or what they may represent within the setting." I very much agree with this, but I do think that a little but of interpretation gets us to really interesting places, see the response below.
Like, how do you think this interacts with the idea of target demographics? Can products be made for certain sub-demographics and retain those aims? I'm no expert, but I imagine Barbie has a pretty small array of male dolls compared to its female line, and that just seems like a reflection of the typical purchasing consumer. There's all manner of products and media that are aimed at specific audiences, and I think it's healthy to have those sub-ecosystems sitting alongside other products/media that are aimed more at "general" audiences, where I'd expect to see more inclusivity.
This is a really simple question that rapidly spirals out of control in complexity, ultimately becoming unanswerable.
My gut is that I don't mind things having a niche. So long as entertainment products the world over are not a single hand-sized grey ball that says "Fun" there will always be different types, and so long as there are different types they will appeal to different people. Even along gendered lines to an extent. However I think the targeting is where it becomes problematic. Because all forms of purchasable entertainment are forms of art (most toys can be said to be sculptures of a sort, media is stories / pictures, so on and so forth) and art says something about the people which create it and the society which created them. And that often leads to problems because of the choices made from Barbie's figure, to representation in comics, and the boys-only club of SM.
To kind of draw that back to the topic at hand, let's address the "Emperor wanted it that way," justification: The justification of the Emperor only wanting male supersoldiers to prevent reproduction is totally valid and understandable.. If the Emperor is a real person. But he's not. He's a fictional character, which means that someone made that choice and decided it was okay. That passes on and carries weight. And that doesn't even make it inherently bad; there's plenty of media which has racism / sexist / otherwise awful characters making choices along those lines. However those forms of media are often times attempting to explore that and conveying a message. Satire is also a thing. 40k is not; it's making no attempt to explore gendered issues nor is it particularly interested in being a satire of that nature. It used to be interested in being a satire about fascists and religious extremists, but frankly it's come close to dropping the satire element there.
TLDR: 40k was made by straight white guys who had their own bias (if you disagree, go look up the pgymies from WHFB) and made un-ironic choices along those biased lines. This created a product which uncritically presented various norms and, in doing so, helps to cultivate that same bias in its viewership while also giving them a (bad) justification to argue that it should not be changed, while pretending that they themselves do not have such bias' and neither did the creators. The only way to counter-act that bias is to include it's opposites.
It's pretty much schroedinger's minority with these people. Only those who kowtow to or match their narrative of what they see matches with the ills of the hobby is acknowledged, anyone else who is able to enjoy it and doesn't make a fuss about the lack of females in the subfactions THEY want to change is conveniently ignored. Which is funny for people who like to profess hating stereotypes stereotyping themselves into seeing that women only want to play factions that have explicit women in them.
While my experience is again anecdotal, it has been incredibly consistent: The factions which my various nerd girlfriends have shown interest in is firstly Tyranids, then Necrons, and lastly Dark Eldar. Basically genderless animals, genderless evil undead, and equal opportunity BDSM sex elves.
While the reasons they've given have had a bit of variety they've hit a lot of the same points. And frankly, the unifying factor is less wanting a faction which is built "for women" so much as it is liking the ones which are NOT built "for men".
Space Marines are a teenage boy power fantasy. They're massive dudes with big guns and bigger muscles who shoot the bad guys real good and crush their skulls with their hands when they come close. Sure there's some nuance in the depth but that's not what's presented; they are sold on their being big manly men who do manly things for men, and appeal to men for that reason. The same is very much true of IG and, if we're being honest, Sisters of battle. They're built on male power fantasies of being soldier that're supposed to appeal to little boys who like playing soldier.
There's nothing wrong with this. It can absolutely exist and be unproblematic, and some women will even be drawn to that sort of thing. Different strokes. The issue comes along when everything is that, which almost all of it is in 40k. As I said in my above response to someone else, art / media has downstream effects based on the people and culture that produces it. And this is the entire point of art; we seek out art to be effected by it in someway. Each of us here enjoys 40k because it makes us feel and think things, and we like those things. The issue comes into play when the entire message is "Big muscly men doing men stuff while the ladies stay at home unless they're also big muscly men", as that creates an environment which is hostile to anyone who doesn't enjoy that. And that becomes an issue because making that environment is a CHOICE; 40k is not a historically accurate retelling of, say, Spartan and Athenian conflicts of ancient Greece, where there historically were not women. Someone decided for 40k to be the way it is.
Now Warhammer at large, and even 40k, is actively striding to correct this. It's happening whether people like it or not. And that's a good thing.
Ok ok ok, that was a great post and I like a lot of what was said, but I also don't know how to respond to it and address everything that's there. Much of my response to Apple Fox above addresses some of this, I think. So I invite you to take a look at that first. I also fully acknowledge that 40K was originally penned by a bunch of white dudes from the 80's, and there's just gonna be some aspects of that that'll be in the fabric of the created thing, for better or for worse.
I do wish 40K had more of it's satirical beginnings still present on it's face. Or just more reminders that the Imperium is bad/evil/oppressive and that Space Marines are really not the heroes they're so often made out to be today. I do think its a setting which wisely chose, for the sake of a gritty-action-movie war game set in a universe of perpetual conflict and mass casualties, to create a society which was crude, barbaric, and wildly violent Not just wildly violent, but worshipping it. Rogue Trader went hard, and it's imagery didn't pull punches.
Trigger Warning: Space Marine parade illustration compared with nazi parade historical photo (swastikas removed)
Spoiler:
But we have what we have now. Space Marines are marketed as the "Saviors of Humanity" and they're all men. And even though the all-male military has it's historical resonance, yeah that's problematic in the context of the 40K poster child. As I mention above, this is why I like the Custodes change. Both men and women can be the golden representatives of the Emperor himself, and the pinnacle of human science and biomanipulation, etc. And they can all exist together in the promotional material. I think that's very helpful.
But while the marketing is all heroic, I do think that the all-male lore of the Space Marines gives us an interesting opportunity for interpretation and critique.
So you have this self titled Emperor of Mankind see? And he goes on to create this hyper-patriarchy in the form of the Primarchs, right? And those Primarchs lead legions of all-male, separated-from-families and given poor role models by being indoctrinated into rigid hierarchies promoting supreme levels of violence, then given the best weapons and equipment that humanity had to offer and let loose on the galaxy in an orgy of conquest "for humanity!". Surely, what could possibly go wrong? . . . Well it created the greatest catastrophe that humanity has ever suffered, in the form of the Horus Heresy, and humanity is still feeling the repercussions of it. So like, "go men"?
Probably the best way to destabilize any society is to have a surplus of weapons in a population filled with disaffected young men, and the whole story of the Horus Heresy basically maps right on top of that. And it's great. Imo it's art. And again in my opinion, Space Marines being all male makes that resonate in a way that it really wouldn't if they were integrated. Like, it's street gangs on a galactic scale. It's a lesson. And I love that one of the first things Guilliman did after the Heresy was say "F that", we're gonna split everything up and make sure that can never happen again, while incidentally boosting power of the more integrated military branches. You can have these hyper focused groups of super-male aggression, and try to use that where appropriate. But you can't allow that aggression to have too much power because it's gonna go sideways.
So you get your designed-by-men/boys and aimed-at-men/boys power fantasy faction, but it comes with what I would consider to be a very masculine lesson. I think this is compelling in a good way, and I would argue for it's preservation.
And though it's not relevant to this thread, Lord of the Rings, love it or hate it, isn't a GW Game; it's a Tolkien Game that happens to be manufactured and produced by Games Workshop. Personally, I wish some other company had made it, because I'd rather see that production space and those White Dwarf pages devoted to actual GW IP. If not for indulging in other people's IP, who knows- we could have had EC for two editions by now, or maybe been done with Finecast for every faction already, or maybe we'd have BFG back are a new Warhammer Quest game for the 40k setting- heck, they might have even felt they had the resources to develop LI as a 40k game with a full suite of factions, rather than confining it to 30k and excluding Xenos. Sorry, tangent, but one of my pet peeves. Not saying it's a bad game, or that I don't like the models... I just don't think of it as GW product because it doesn't exist in a world they created.
This reminds me of 14year old me looking through the WD 20 years ago and be like: man, why is there only 5 pages of lotr and the rest are those fugly Warhammer and 40K minis nobody cares about. I get your position from a today's perspective where lotr is hardly supported and someone like Archon could do wonders with it. But 20 years ago noone but GW could have pulled that of what they did with lotr up until about 2010. And they produced their best minis back then, I'd say the warhammers needed at least 7 more years to reach minis of the lotr quality.
So, I'm highly triggered by your post, also seeing how little support lotr got the last 2 years(you could even make that 10 and not be wrong) the notion about HH and LI getting little support because of middle earth makes no sense at all. Lotr shares a position with the Old World in that the only things we get are occasional FW characters and otherwize have to rely on 20 year old kits.
funnily enough that Lord of the Rings is still GWs best game, and one could say because they are just the distributor and not involved in either model design nor background
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
Further evidence for my "Emperor Is A Raging, Misogynistic Incel Who Loves Beefcake Dudes" lore hypothesis.
This idea is a secondary reason that I'm glad for women characters getting into every class and subfaction in 40k
The initial, bedrock reason that women in all subfactions is good is the same as the DnD combat wheelchair. It's obligatory, it's non-negotiable. Of course we have a berserker in a wooden wheelchair and we be a woman in any and all chapters of the space pigs. This is a very good thing.
But the incipient fact of women in the custodes also corrects this quote about the emperor, and the notion all over the thread that somehow being all-men shows that Marines are bad. That's a very obfuscatory concept to be propagating through a piece of mass media.
There are hundreds of Sabrina Harmans in the world. Harman and Lynndie England got convicted for things they did as prison guards but there are women doing bad stuff during combat and not getting charged, because you usually don't get convicted of stuff that happens in combat. The banality of evil applies just as well when there are some women involved.
And obviously for many people, Marines being all men has absolutely no connotation of being villains, they just think it's the natural state of things. People point out all the time that warfare is mainly about carrying the most weight in bullets.
It's much more straightforward if you want to portray Marines as bad to just show them doing bad things. You can have a villainous character be for any Chapter. There are already captain Vilyard, Stibor Lazaerek, all characters from the Space sharks, Iron Hands, and most from chapters of the blood. They team kill and they kidnap civilians. Just put character models for them in the army list. People already play bad guy armies in historical, and belive it or not, they play bad elves orks and chaos armies in 40k.
to the extent that guard are the stand in for people who like historicals but only know 40k players, if you're a character in the guard you're much more likely to either commit or be subject to sexual assault. There's a lot to be said for being in a unit like custodes or Marines where we have decided to just eliminate that part of reality from the fiction.
StudentOfEtherium wrote: i'm a big fan of breaking down the barriers between genders. there's no meaningful differences between men, women, or anything else, anyway, so it shouldn't really matter on the tabletop, either
That is just a big fat lie. There are MASSIVE differences between men and women in terms of physical capability. For example, punching: the weakest-hitting male still hits far harder than the strongest-hitting female. There is literally no overlap (and that was a study of college kids, not trained athletes where differences would be even greater).
Men have larger hearts and larger lungs, which means that they can sustain high degree of effort for longer.
Men have different muscle insertions, especially in the upper body and shoulders. This means that they can exert larger forces in terms of punching, grappling and carrying.
Lower body structure is also significantly different. Structure of the hips and knees in particular means that women are more capable of e.g. sideways movement, but men are better and more efficient at running and jumping. And this increased range of motion women have is not necessarily a good thing, as it leads to more injuries.
All and all, it is frankly a better idea to employ early pubescent men in combat than it is to employ adult women.
And if you say "but this is fiction"!!! Yes, it is. But if you think that is a permission to do anything, why would it matter that Space Marines are all male? You already have female Space Marines anyway, and they are called Sisters of Battle.
?
