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.

@epronvost

Well stereotypes changing to current state of knowledge is a good thing (though some misconceptions may have a function) and all power to you, GW could obviously up their game here or there (though I dont think it's really necessary). The thing is, I have serious doubts that there is enough out there for the gender or racial stereotypes discussed here to be changed.

Stereotypes wont change because GW become more ethnicaly diverse but GW wont be calling to stereotype anymore, unnecesarily dulling the simple visual mesage.

It's funny but what you say was exactly my point at some point here (I think heh), nothing significant will change if GW does this or that, it's not shaping anything anywhere to anyone and we can safely leave the screaming bald white men also never mention more women in contex of 40k again heh.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Yes but if you slap too much on your reference, it might get silly or unrecognisable or sth.

So why does adding female knights just cross that line and make the reference silly or unrecognizable, while adding things like Land Raiders and chainsaw swords is just fine? By any reasonable standard those other changes are much more significant. So where's your campaign to get rid of bike marines and replace them with horses, because otherwise they aren't really knights in space?

We're talking in circles btw.

Yes, because you keep making absurd claims and never defending them with more than "it's a reference".

I anwsered /defended that already I think, changing gender or race has more implications than just changing weapons or transport.

Both are 'what would happen if we had future knight" affairs but you rather have to change weapons, you dont have to dull it further then.

@plumbumbarum

I think we are comming to the same conclusion:

1) stereotypes won't change because of GW products

We also agree on the sources

2) GW product are inspired by some stereotypes linked to the medieval era.

3) These stereotypes are sometime missused, false or to simplistic.

But we disagree on a the conlusion

You think adding more diversity will make the product more dull and further away from it's source. I think the opposite. That GW product would be less dull with more women and people of various races and that would hardly affect their distance from the source material because even niched in those stereotypes there is more variaty than one might think. Second, by placing them in a different univers, against different ennemies, with different allies with different technologies and consequences, GW has produced something that is very far away from their inspiration.

We do have some things in common. You did agree on female Space Wolf and a Valkyrie kind of unit. You did agree on an elite unit of amazon-like Ultramarine/Imperial Fist. We also agree on more ethnic diversity for Catashans (black, asian, white, just strange). I think you were not opposed to child soldier models (many think they would be insensitive and while this may be true, they would fit the fluff of many Imperial Guard regiments). I think you were not opposed to Black Kriegsmen since WW I counted a lot of black men under the uniforms of both French and German soldiers. I think you were not against female Cadians (since 76% of the planet population is supposed to be in the Guard, that would imply a lot of women too.). I think you love, or at least tolerate, diversity a lot more than you give yourself credit for. In fact you are inches away from reclaiming more diversity in GW products like most people in that thread. Maybe next time the subject comes up (it inevitably comes up once in a while) it should be in the form of a poll to see how much of us would like to have greater ethnical and sexual diversity in GW model range and novel protagonist/antagonist, same has now, lesser or don't care either way. This way we could see what we really want has a community.

+epronovost
Real question how do we know that most kriegsman are not already black?

@The Home Nuggeteer

Your right we don't know. I withdraw that comment.

The only description of a Kriegsman without his mask is that they're extremely pale.

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
Did GW ever adequately explain why Imperial Knight pilots can't ever be female?

Haven't read the new Codex but from what I gather from the previous one plus The Red Waagh, Knight Households are quite socially backwards, bound by customs and traditions that even the average imperial citizen would find absurd, and relegating women to wives and housekeepers seems to be one of them. Besides, to pilot a Knight one has to be accepted by its Throne Mechanicum, which houses the fragmentary remnants of the minds of the thousand prejudiced bigots that sat on it before you, what makes the chances of a woman (or a lowborn, for what matters) being able to pilot a Knight close to nil.

However, the explanation itself leaves room for exceptions. Back when I still considered getting a Knight I had this idea about a noblewoman who escaped her family's terrible fate at the hands of a corrupt inquisitor. In desperation, she sat on the Throne of her father's Knight, swearing to use the machine to bring revenge on those who had betrayed and murdered her kin or die trying. Against all odds, she was accepted, and now roams the Galaxy as a freeblade, concealing her identity to those she works with, in an effort to kill the men responsible for her House's downfall and restore its lost honor.

Yea, think Arya Stark/Brienne of Tarth in space. In a big stompy robot.

Salamanders?

epronovost wrote:
@Gridge

Then give me better paint to make darker shade of skins and tutorials for me (an idiot of an artist) to do it more quickly and better.

I personally don't know how good Scale 75 paints are as I haven't been able to buy them, but this set might help you with that. This is one of the ones I've been eyeballing as a first purchase, actually. It's supposed to come with a guide for painting different skin tones and (hopefully) has one for darker skin, too.

 Satchmojones wrote:
Salamanders?

Oh yeah, because in 17 pages that hasn't even come up once. Pretty sure that got brought up on page one and it was quickly pointed out that it didn't really "count" anyway because they're technically mutants. They're not black humans, it's coal black like a drow elf.

@epronvost

Yes I have nothing against diversity like that valkyries example or catachan or a whole black men regiment, it's how GW does it already and no reason to oppose that. I'd hate fifty fifty females in Cadia tbh and Id still leave dkok alone but in the end the masks seem to be a good cop out as everybody is free to believe that theyre all black or mixed or whatever.

There's one more issue when it comes to female Cadians and guard in general though. Look at 4th edition IG codex art at the face of the guy on the left. He's a vicious, war rotten bastard and kind of personification of what I think grimdark grunt is. Now look at FFG IG gals, they imo fit a prom more than grimdark field of battle, let's not be sexist and give women a chance to look like a proper war criminals. If GW introduced them like that (and I know they are capable of) screaming, bald, scarred with bad teeth and vicious stares then I could actualy be in.

But yes we can take your conclusions and leave it at that, there's a lot of talking in circles anyway, everybody more or less explained themselves and I doubt anyone changing their minds one way or another tbh heh.

Uhm Soviet army had a lot women in WW2 and they had no problem sticking a knife in a vicious rotten bastard.

The 40K setting is what you want to be, the fluff gives enough examples of females and all kind of races in all kind of positions.

But if your Wo..40K view is that there only is a white pure human race all called Heinrich, where the women expectantly wait at home to be impregnated, go for it.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
Uhm Soviet army had a lot women in WW2 and they had no problem sticking a knife in a vicious rotten bastard.

The 40K setting is what you want to be, the fluff gives enough examples of females and all kind of races in all kind of positions.

But if your Wo..40K view is that there only is a white pure human race all called Heinrich, where the women expectantly wait at home to be impregnated, go for it.

That has nothing to do with what I said though. I just dont want them painted girlie hair in the wind nice if they ever get to the art.

Not to mention I citied a nice fluff bit some pages back saying few women get the opportunities men have or sth like that.

But yes racism and sexism.

epronovost wrote:
People are going to remember Lancelot and not Evelyn and people are going to think that vikings were rowdy, savage warriors with a greataxe has a favorite weapon despite the fact that real vikings fought in orderly close formation called shieldsrtom and their favorite weapon was the long spear.

No. People will remember what they hear and see in their favorite media. Regardless of whether it is right or wrong. If vikings start to get depicted pervasively in entertainment medias as wearing a cowl, an apron, and using javelins in battle, people will start to picture vikings like that.

@plumbumbarum

Well technically Cadians are already 50/50 or so in term of sex disparity in their forces since their forces are composed of everybody on Cadia from age 14 to 60. Thats what 76% of a planet total population represent. The artwork and models just don't represent it because the artwork is supposed to represent the models and there is no female Cadian for some reason. A reasonnable explanation of this would be that Cadia has very little mixted sex regiment,

Has for how women look in the art work, well in Only War men look kind of good too if you want my opinion (like the very first guy in the War without end section, the catashan, the weapon specialist, hell even the ratling is a handsome devil!). I do admit that some of their pictures were rather sexist (the female commissar with cleavage and heel shoes come to mind) and it's a thing that could be changed others were just fine lije the Elysian Drop trooper or the Cadian. The thing you are not going to see (even it would be nice once in while) is ugly and tough female on a regular basis. Ugly, scared men in uniform are one of the representation of tough warriors in stereotypes. They sell well and are easy o identify with because it's a common stereotypes, just like the handsome knight. Tough women remain cute. Bravery and beauty amongst women are interwoven concept. Bald (or shaven head) males are viril males and tough. Bald females are humiliated females, slaves or powerless. Hairs are a symbole of women bravery and power, while men uses hats for the same purpose. Thats why in any representation of bravery, heroism and power under the guise of women (a common thing in art), the women in question will be young, fit, partially naked, pretty, have ong flowing hair and cloths in the wind. GW also tries to catter to that stereotype just has much has they catter to knights in shinning armor, or brutal barbarians. Stereotypes have two edges. I don't think we are running in circles completly. You have mellowed down a LOT since your first post on that thread. Am I still a little marxist who loves Joseph Stalin way of thinking?

@Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl

I think you underestimate how many of these stereotypes are ingrained in our culture and how early you are exposed to some of them, but that's another debate.

 Bobthehero wrote:
The only description of a Kriegsman without his mask is that they're extremely pale.

Doesn't actually pertain to the color of their skin, a black person can still be pale or pallid, especially if they never took a gas mask off of their face.

New head cannon right here.

@The Home Nuggeteer

Since they all live in dark caves all their lives for millenia. They might very well be albino. Loosing colour frequently happens to mammals in that kind of circomstances. It could be a good idea.

 The Home Nuggeteer wrote:


New head cannon right here.

Plasma or Railgun? Or... is it the D?

epronovost wrote:
The thing you are not going to see (even it would be nice once in while) is ugly and tough female on a regular basis. Ugly, scared men in uniform are one of the representation of tough warriors in stereotypes. They sell well and are easy o identify with because it's a common stereotypes, just like the handsome knight. Tough women remain cute. Bravery and beauty amongst women are interwoven concept. Bald (or shaven head) males are viril males and tough. Bald females are humiliated females, slaves or powerless. Hairs are a symbole of women bravery and power, while men uses hats for the same purpose. Thats why in any representation of bravery, heroism and power under the guise of women (a common thing in art), the women in question will be young, fit, partially naked, pretty, have ong flowing hair and cloths in the wind.

Yeah. Reminds me of that.


(Though though women with very short hair happens. See the mythical Vasquez character for instance. Or Evey Hammond from V for Vendetta. Actually, having your female character shave her head when she goes all warrior mode works quite well.)

 Psienesis wrote:

 The Home Nuggeteer wrote:


New head cannon right here.

Plasma or Railgun? Or... is it the D?

All at the same time.

epronovost wrote:
I think you underestimate how many of these stereotypes are ingrained in our culture and how early you are exposed to some of them, but that's another debate.

No, I just believe that the same effect would have the same cause, and that being exposed early and often to another stereotype will just change the stereotype we go by.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

epronovost wrote:
The thing you are not going to see (even it would be nice once in while) is ugly and tough female on a regular basis. Ugly, scared men in uniform are one of the representation of tough warriors in stereotypes. They sell well and are easy o identify with because it's a common stereotypes, just like the handsome knight. Tough women remain cute. Bravery and beauty amongst women are interwoven concept. Bald (or shaven head) males are viril males and tough. Bald females are humiliated females, slaves or powerless. Hairs are a symbole of women bravery and power, while men uses hats for the same purpose. Thats why in any representation of bravery, heroism and power under the guise of women (a common thing in art), the women in question will be young, fit, partially naked, pretty, have ong flowing hair and cloths in the wind.

Yeah. Reminds me of that.


(Though though women with very short hair happens. See the mythical Vasquez character for instance. Or Evey Hammond from V for Vendetta. Actually, having your female character shave her head when she goes all warrior mode works quite well.)

Case in point, Ripley from Alien 3.

Oh and everyone's new favourite badass, Furiosa from Fury Road.

@Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl

To be honest, this perticular stereotype isn't in that bad on his own. The paragon of this stereotype is the painting «La Liberté Guidant le Peuple». It has a female has the representation of freedom, liberty and bravery. She is partially naked, has flowing long hairs (though not that long) and is pretty. The problem is that just like so many other thing in life, it needs carefull balancing of the different element of the picture to invoque the correct message which is in that case, the heroism of the french poor class during the revolution, the purity of their ideals and the strength of their conviction and not «Dude, that chick with the flag is so hot!». The trick with beautiful, heroic women is that they must strike you with their bravery and use their beauty to entice you to follow them/be inspired by them. If you just see an pinup, you have failed to grasp two important thing. First, the nature of bravery and second the nature of a women beauty itself. It's trickier than one might think, but GW has actually succeded at that on several occasions.

Has for short haired heroic women, they of course exist and are also awesome (in my opinion even more because only exploited for century instead of 5000 years), but they don't call to the same artistical stereotype (which his broadly refered has heroic beauty). These are more reminescent of another stereotype which is the Industrial Endurence. These are represent their archetype character (usually a women too) in a very different way to make you feel the endurence and determination of the character. They will have short hair, have a stern expression, will be dirty and wear very hard working cloath or even rags. The idea is to show you someone stript of all it's riches and comfort, but use that to create emphasis on their determination and willpower. Usually the character will either stand tall and straight or make provocative gesture (like a good old middle finger for exemple). This type of art is frequently associated with socialist and sexual revolution.

Both stereotypes could be exploited extensively by GW in it's artwork. The more classical Heroic Beauty would be used to depict noble, rich, almost supernatural warriors (Sisters of Battle for exemple go well with it). While the more grim and dirty Industrial Endurence would go well with Guardsmen or even Inquisition.

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Do you know what is silly? Vikings riding wolves. Some Viking riding an antigrav sledge that is tracted by wolves.

Yes, but so is shoehorning in a variety of genders into a theme based around white people. Instead ask for a chapter to be more represented of a differing culture.

There is a Space Marine chapter I saw once in GW fluff that are based of The Maori people in NZ. They had the moko designs on their army and everything. GW has all these cultures in the fluff to use, but instead the popular ones happen to be white or alien. (Oh gee, wonder why...)

So instead ask for the other cultures to be represented if you desire, dont simply demand the other ones change.

I am pretty sure thats all he is arguing for. Its what I prefer as well.

You do realize that Maori Chapter if fanfic.... riiiight?

Nah its a real chapter called the Shadow Warriors. Only known in name. But they are a GW made chapter.



Might buy some marines and paint em up like this.

So the name is canon and everything else is fanfiction. That proves... what?

 Ashiraya wrote:
So the name is canon and everything else is fanfiction. That proves... what?

What? No the chapter is clearly based on the Maori with Moko and colours. But he siad it was fanfiction, when in fact its a GW chapter. My point was originally that GW has all these chapters + regiments based on other cultures but fail to make use of them.

Lexicanum doesn't even have an entry on them. Where are you getting this Chapter from?

Did a search on them, found literally nothing but the image you linked and a few others. Oh also, the images are hosted on Warhammer 40k Wiki, where a lot of people post fan chapters and general fanon.

 Psienesis wrote:
Lexicanum doesn't even have an entry on them. Where are you getting this Chapter from?

Tried to find where I initially saw it, but can't find it anywhere. It was on page after page of all the chapters which had a name and their 2d front profile in with colour featured and nothing more.

Hmmm. I spent a while looking too. Maybe it isn't cannon? There where like 4-7 pages of chapters.

It may be an image that someone Photoshopped some details on, after ripping the image off Lexi (or another canon source) and then added the Maori details to as backstory...

.... which makes it entirely fan-fiction and entirely non-canon.

 Psienesis wrote:
It may be an image that someone Photoshopped some details on, after ripping the image off Lexi (or another canon source) and then added the Maori details to as backstory...

.... which makes it entirely fan-fiction and entirely non-canon.

Nah it had no backstory. Merely an image with hundreds of others.

It could well be some random guy just made a bunch of pictures. The original pictorial list of chapters I saw them on is gone though. Oh well.

On a brighter note, while searching I found these fellows. the Yellowjackets...


BEE MARINES