jonolikespie wrote: You know, Infinity has a pretty significant proportion of female characters to the male ones, and yet there is no difference in the amount of women playing the game compared to 40k (at least that I have ever seen).
Exactly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Frankly there isnn't a rational economic argument here.
GW have over 1,400 SKUs in production. To build a couple of new female SKUs would add a minute fraction of costs.
Even if not a single woman bought any, there are men who would buy them.
That's a more interesting conversation. Judging from this thread as long as they're good looking female mins (not overly realistic because that's bad apparently) then there are some people that would buy the hell out of them.
Kilkrazy wrote: Frankly there isnn't a rational economic argument here.
GW have over 1,400 SKUs in production. To build a couple of new female SKUs would add a minute fraction of costs.
Even if not a single woman bought any, there are men who would buy them.
Even if tooling the moulds didn't cost thousands of dollars you still need to spend man hours making them, which could be spent making marines instead. You need warehouse space to stock them, you need shelf space. Any product you make that isn't selling is costing you money.
Yes, some men would buy them for sure. But how many? Enough to justify making the kit to begin with? GW doesn't seem to think so, and weren't you the one just a couple of posts ago saying that kind of decision is best left up to GW?
Scott-S6 wrote: Do you see men refusing to play SoB because it excludes them? Are video games with female leads excluding men?
Nope but that would be pretty different if male leads/male models became a rarity…
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jonolikespie wrote: GW doesn't seem to think so, and weren't you the one just a couple of posts ago saying that kind of decision is best left up to GW?
I think we can ALL agree that we can trustGW to always do what is best for the game and for its consumers!
Kilkrazy wrote: Frankly there isnn't a rational economic argument here.
GW have over 1,400 SKUs in production. To build a couple of new female SKUs would add a minute fraction of costs.
Even if not a single woman bought any, there are men who would buy them.
Even if tooling the moulds didn't cost thousands of dollars you still need to spend man hours making them, which could be spent making marines instead. You need warehouse space to stock them, you need shelf space. Any product you make that isn't selling is costing you money.
Yes, some men would buy them for sure. But how many? Enough to justify making the kit to begin with? GW doesn't seem to think so, and weren't you the one just a couple of posts ago saying that kind of decision is best left up to GW?
Who here thinks GW really know what they are doing?
This only shows that sexism is specifically written into the game universe. The most powerful and elite troops with the best equipment, that are admired by everyone, cannot be women.
really? THAT is what you chooses to take out of this? "Oh, nope, GW is sexist 'cause they said marines can only be boys. There is no other possible explanation, only sexism."
Well feth, I want to play power armor dudes funded by the Ecclesiarchy, and I DEMAND a SoB fluff re-write to allow male SoB, otherwise GW is being sexist. See how stupid that sounds?
Honestly, this really is a non issue that's being blown up by some deep rooted want for "equality" in all things, no matter how minute (or how little "gender politics" matter in the in game universe)
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: You sound very stupid. I am guessing it is on purpose, that is why I am so blunt about it, but DAMN you sound stupid.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: No, I think it's fine, though quite why you want that when you already have all the Space Mariens I don't know.
I assume in return for having male SoBs you will relax your opposition to female SM?S
Claiming that all male space marines is a result of "sexism" is a wee bit ridiculous. I get wanting to see more female models, but demanding that ~30 years of fluff we re-written to allow for it is just silly. female guard models (or just head swaps since gear is gear) is perfectly fine for what is being mentioned. Anything more, and suddenly GW is sexist for other reasons. the problem with wanting "girl guard" in a scale like this is it ends up being 1 of 2 things: 1) you hardly notice (girl head swap), or 2) female proportions are over-blown and people whine about other things (narrow waist, boobs, silly faces). Remember, this is a model line that has almost no visual difference between nearly 3 meters and the regular 2 meters.
The fluff is what GW say it is. All space marines have to be boys, because GW said so. You can't get more plainly sexist than that.
Whether it's a kind of moustache twirling sexist supervillain move, or simple 1980s sexist lack of thought, it comes to the same thing.
Girl marines can very simply be introduced as I explained by having the two lost primarchs come back from their long-distance recon mission and turn out to be women with female chapters. Job done.
Brennonjw wrote: Honestly, this really is a non issue that's being blown up by some deep rooted want for "equality" in all things, no matter how minute (or how little "gender politics" matter in the in game universe)
The motivations aren't really all about the game universe, though. It's about making a more welcoming environment for woman in *our* universe, including joints where you'd play 40k. So the key word there is inclusion.
If you see women who wargame as temporary trespassers within 40k, whose desire for representation on the table carries an additional tax (female heads, pewter Sisters, 3rd party models) or is simply dismissed as "economically illogical", you are sending out a bad message, You can still play non-human factions like Tyranids or Daemons, but that message is still going to be absorbed by both men and women.
You don't need to push mixed gender space marines in the existing chapters, or ruin the in-game background through PC whitewashing, but you do need to have some kind of representation. I don't see how it could possibly be a bad thing.
Kilkrazy wrote: The fluff is what GW say it is. All space marines have to be boys, because GW said so. You can't get more plainly sexist than that.
Whether it's a kind of moustache twirling sexist supervillain move, or simple 1980s sexist lack of thought, it comes to the same thing.
Girl marines can very simply be introduced as I explained by having the two lost primarchs come back from their long-distance recon mission and turn out to be women with female chapters. Job done.
The missing Primarchs are dead from what the HH books said. Sanguinius said he feared the God-Emperor because he destroyed Primarchs before and at Prospero, it was stated that Leman Russ and the Wolves were used to destroy a legion.
Kilkrazy wrote: The fluff is what GW say it is. All space marines have to be boys, because GW said so. You can't get more plainly sexist than that.
Whether it's a kind of moustache twirling sexist supervillain move, or simple 1980s sexist lack of thought, it comes to the same thing.
Girl marines can very simply be introduced as I explained by having the two lost primarchs come back from their long-distance recon mission and turn out to be women with female chapters. Job done.
problems:
1) both of the "lost" primarchs are accounted for, as are their legions (purged, and "lost" *cougheuthanizedcough*)
2) I don't see how that's sexist. It doesn't state that "because they are men, they are better" it just states that "they are men, and here is the faux-science why" and that by itself does not make something sexist. Beyond that, Lets say they did do this: Ignoring that you wouldn't be able to tell, all it would accomplish is making SoB further Ignored, and giving people a "good feeling" because now the tiny plastic game has more girls.
Brennonjw wrote: Honestly, this really is a non issue that's being blown up by some deep rooted want for "equality" in all things, no matter how minute (or how little "gender politics" matter in the in game universe)
The motivations aren't really all about the game universe, though. It's about making a more welcoming environment for woman in *our* universe, including joints where you'd play 40k. So the key word there is inclusion.
If you see women who wargame as temporary trespassers within 40k, whose desire for representation on the table carries an additional tax (female heads, pewter Sisters, 3rd party models) or is simply dismissed as "economically illogical", you are sending out a bad message, You can still play non-human factions like Tyranids or Daemons, but that message is still going to be absorbed by both men and women.
You don't need to push mixed gender space marines in the existing chapters, or ruin the in-game background through PC whitewashing, but you do need to have some kind of representation. I don't see how it could possibly be a bad thing.
Agree with everything here. I wouldn't mind more female models in the game. If it's anything like video games, the female models will probably look better than the male ones....for reasons .
Or if SoB were less expensive to collect. I've always wanted an army of them but can never justify such a high barrier of entry.
Kilkrazy wrote: GW gradually are redoing entire lines. Besides, they don't need to redo a whole line to add one kit to it.
theyd still need to rebox them, which isn't exactly easy nor cost effective. considering people pay for shoulder pads for specific chapters, I really don't understand the problem in charging something like $10 for like 20 female heads. this is a kit they could roll out much more feasibly
having said that if they did choose to update for example the cadian kit, then sure go ahead and add them then during the redesign. That would make more economic and logistical sense
A really minor demographic; people actually insulted by such things.
I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with this comment, but all im suggesting is a cost effective way for GW to actualize this in a timely fashion.
Basically the people who want female space marines for the sake of having female pretty much everything. I agree other factions don't really have an excuse, but adding female space marines would just cheapen the sisters further and push them even further into obscurity.
Brennonjw wrote: Honestly, this really is a non issue that's being blown up by some deep rooted want for "equality" in all things, no matter how minute (or how little "gender politics" matter in the in game universe)
The motivations aren't really all about the game universe, though. It's about making a more welcoming environment for woman in *our* universe, including joints where you'd play 40k. So the key word there is inclusion.
If you see women who wargame as temporary trespassers within 40k, whose desire for representation on the table carries an additional tax (female heads, pewter Sisters, 3rd party models) or is simply dismissed as "economically illogical", you are sending out a bad message, You can still play non-human factions like Tyranids or Daemons, but that message is still going to be absorbed by both men and women.
You don't need to push mixed gender space marines in the existing chapters, or ruin the in-game background through PC whitewashing, but you do need to have some kind of representation. I don't see how it could possibly be a bad thing.
but the base problem is 1) the community: it's probably gonna be cited as "deep rooted sexism", but generally the "nerd" community are a bit.... clingy when it comes to girls. 2) For anyone to join in the game, it has less to do with "I see no girl models" and more to do with "do I like the story/look of X army" 3) look at the local M:tG scene, plenty of female cards, but still a small population. Larger then 40ks female population, but the M:tG scene as a whole is larger.
I'm not sure if you're saying it's the community, GW, or me who see woman as "temporary trespassers", but honestly: adding female guard heads would resolve the issue, and no one would complain. IF you made different bodies, then you get whined at for "sexualizing" your models (and again, this is a scale where 5-6' guardsmen are the same size as 8-9' marines, it would either be overblown, or the EXACT same body) Locally, we have quite a few women who play, and I've never heard one of them whine about the lack of "girl space marines"
I don't know of its just me, I've heard it from a few people, but most girls seem to play Nids, which is asexual to female (lots of queens and mothers it seems).
I agree with you about the nerd community (in regards to how they treat women) although if my campus is anything to go by, female nerds are becoming more and more of a thing. The female population in the science department is starting to swell, and not just in biology like it's always been.
If more games get more inclusive, you'll likely see how people treat women change. Not a lot, but a little bit with each movement. I'm not saying all female and gender equality all the time, but it does seem that including more females can't hurt.
Akiasura wrote: I don't know of its just me, I've heard it from a few people, but most girls seem to play Nids, which is asexual to female (lots of queens and mothers it seems).
I agree with you about the nerd community (in regards to how they treat women) although if my campus is anything to go by, female nerds are becoming more and more of a thing. The female population in the science department is starting to swell, and not just in biology like it's always been.
If more games get more inclusive, you'll likely see how people treat women change. Not a lot, but a little bit with each movement. I'm not saying all female and gender equality all the time, but it does seem that including more females can't hurt.
Wmh, for example, has a ton of female warnouns.
I do agree. basically every army is non-gendered, mixed (in favor of men, but in truth (this will get me yelled at) men are technically better for war (genetically) and are more common in actual militaries, so GW decided to match their in-game armies with real-world armies), or Orks (who are technically genderless, but when you remember that they are joke takes on the "typical 80's Rugby/Football brick-heads" shoe-horning women into orks (however you would do that) just seems like petty pandering). But apparently having a single army (in fluff) that's all male is 'exclusive' because they happen to be the most popular. It's almost like space marines are GW's flagship army for 40k or something Should there be female guard models? Yes, though it's a slippery slope that will get you whined at for being either over sexualized, or not "girl' enough.
Should SoB get an update? Yes, they are neat, and have fun fluff (though when they do, I expect a post complaining about repentia models).
Should there be girl space marines? No, it's set in the story, and changing it would be the same as making Batman black SOLELY so you can claim to have a new black super hero.
I don't have a problem with them being sexualized personally. Women want to play sexy females like men want to play sexy males. Have you seen He-Man? Talk about unrealistic body images. A lot of the male models are heavily muscled in this game too.
I agree that, in real life, men perform the vast majority if combat roles for a variety of reasons. But this is fantasy, so I don't have a problem with it if someone wants to break from tradition and indulge. Why not?
I really think the exclusivity results from the game being created a long time ago and Gw being notoriously behind the times in nearly every way. I doubt it's an agenda so much as laziness and stupidity.
But I attribute a lot of things to laziness, greed, and stupidity.
Edit, is Batman black now? I wasn't aware, how did Bruce Wayne suddenly become black?
Oof. That was the longest "Why doesn't GW update sisters" post I've ever seen.
But in modern times, I've read stories about combat effectiveness of squads being reduced by the introduction of women. This probably has to do with the fact that women, on the whole, are weaker than men, but are required to preform the same tasks with the same equipment.
I mean, an 180 lb man carrying 50 lbs of equipment is probably going to have an easier time of things than a 120 lb woman carrying the same equipment.
But in the grimdarkfarfuture......
I suppose the same implants that turn men into SPESS MERRENZ could be use on women, but it's a matter of getting the most out of the very limited gene-seeds available. And they're going to get a stronger superhuman from a base male rather than a base female, more often than not.
Still, it seems not impossible for a woman to make it through the space marines recruiting drives, which basically consist of locking a bunch of ferals in an arena until only one has killed everyone else. I'm sure stranger things have happened in the 41st millennium.
Women seem like a potential fit for IG, I'll admit. They always need more bodies for the grinder, and the strength difference between a man and a woman probably isn't substantial when faced with charging meganobz or carnifexes.
Kilkrazy wrote: The fluff is what GW say it is. All space marines have to be boys, because GW said so. You can't get more plainly sexist than that.
Whether it's a kind of moustache twirling sexist supervillain move, or simple 1980s sexist lack of thought, it comes to the same thing.
Girl marines can very simply be introduced as I explained by having the two lost primarchs come back from their long-distance recon mission and turn out to be women with female chapters. Job done.
problems:
1) both of the "lost" primarchs are accounted for, as are their legions (purged, and "lost" *cougheuthanizedcough*)
2) I don't see how that's sexist. It doesn't state that "because they are men, they are better" it just states that "they are men, and here is the faux-science why" and that by itself does not make something sexist. Beyond that, Lets say they did do this: Ignoring that you wouldn't be able to tell, all it would accomplish is making SoB further Ignored, and giving people a "good feeling" because now the tiny plastic game has more girls.
1. That is easily explained as a cover story put about by the Emporer to enable the female primarchs to complete their mission in secrecy from the forces of Chaos and of reaction. Now they are back, and ready to kick arse. (This supports my concept of the female SMs as stealth marines who specialise in long distance recon and other covert ops.)
2. Space Marines are better, though, it's in the fluff. SMs are better than all other troops and women can't be SMs. Women therefore are worse than men. Surely it is obvious how this is sexist.
Akiasura wrote: I don't have a problem with them being sexualized personally. Women want to play sexy females like men want to play sexy males. Have you seen He-Man? Talk about unrealistic body images. A lot of the male models are heavily muscled in this game too.
I agree that, in real life, men perform the vast majority if combat roles for a variety of reasons. But this is fantasy, so I don't have a problem with it if someone wants to break from tradition and indulge. Why not?
I really think the exclusivity results from the game being created a long time ago and Gw being notoriously behind the times in nearly every way. I doubt it's an agenda so much as laziness and stupidity.
But I attribute a lot of things to laziness, greed, and stupidity.
Edit, is Batman black now? I wasn't aware, how did Bruce Wayne suddenly become black?
No, the batman thing was an example. an IRL example would be like making Thor a woman for the sake of having a new female hero (probably a better example then the one I used)
I'd like to agree with your first statement, but looking at the state of modern gaming (and society as a whole when it comes to entertainment), but the vocal groups of people don't want that as it's "promoting harmful body images."
I doubt it's even laziness or stupidity, GW has been adding more girl heads (tau fire warriors) as they update lines when it makes sense to do so, but my root problem comes down to situations like the space marines: Why shoe-horn it in under the guise of "making it accessible" when really, it's just a lazy pandering.
Tbf, and this is purely anecdotal and most of the women I interact with are scientists and engineers so take this with a grain of salt, they think a lot of what you're hearing is absurd. Sure, they want more female characters they and their daughters can identify with, but they don't want to see current characters female washed (especially Thor, a male Norse god...even iron man would make more sense).
Like most things, a vocal minority is ruining what could have been a very positive thing by being hateful.
What if chaos had female marines since they found that, for example, women are more likely to develop pas psyker said when exposed to gene seed for reasons? It's different, cool, and makes sense why the emperor didn't want female marines.
I really just want an army of that first female marine model shown.
Kilkrazy wrote: The fluff is what GW say it is. All space marines have to be boys, because GW said so. You can't get more plainly sexist than that.
Whether it's a kind of moustache twirling sexist supervillain move, or simple 1980s sexist lack of thought, it comes to the same thing.
Girl marines can very simply be introduced as I explained by having the two lost primarchs come back from their long-distance recon mission and turn out to be women with female chapters. Job done.
problems:
1) both of the "lost" primarchs are accounted for, as are their legions (purged, and "lost" *cougheuthanizedcough*)
2) I don't see how that's sexist. It doesn't state that "because they are men, they are better" it just states that "they are men, and here is the faux-science why" and that by itself does not make something sexist. Beyond that, Lets say they did do this: Ignoring that you wouldn't be able to tell, all it would accomplish is making SoB further Ignored, and giving people a "good feeling" because now the tiny plastic game has more girls.
1. That is easily explained as a cover story put about by the Emporer to enable the female primarchs to complete their mission in secrecy from the forces of Chaos and of reaction. Now they are back, and ready to kick arse. (This supports my concept of the female SMs as stealth marines who specialise in long distance recon and other covert ops.)
2. Space Marines are better, though, it's in the fluff. SMs are better than all other troops and women can't be SMs. Women therefore are worse than men. Surely it is obvious how this is sexist.
1. so you want girl raven guard marines? this has problems in the fluff because 1) Russ was involved with killing off one of these legions, and 2) most of the primarchs KNOW what happened to them, but were sworn to not talk about it, in fact, sanguinius FEAR these things happening to his legion
2. No, you are just reaching if that's how you want to define them as sexist. Space Marines are better then HUMANS, both male and female. Beyond that, in fluff, they are also described as both "the pinnacle of humanity" AND "basically non-human mutants." That's like me saying Gorillas are sexist 'cause they are stronger then human women.
What if chaos had female marines since they found that, for example, women are more likely to develop pas psyker said when exposed to gene seed for reasons? It's different, cool, and makes sense why the emperor didn't want female marines.
I really just want an army of that first female marine model shown.
It would be a neat concept, but by that point, why wouldn't chaos just use warp magic to empower them isntead of using the increasingly rare useable "Chaos" gene-seed? Also: that model would make a decent stand in for some SoB group sitting a little to close to the Ultramarines
But marines are humans, they are just humans+1 in many ways. They start out as humans and are just engineered to be better. It's not like gorillas start out human and are mutated.
Unless my girlfriend hasn't been telling me something...
It's similar to superman in a way. Technically, he isn't human. But for most people, he is portrayed as the best humanity has to offer despite this (unless you are reading injustice in which case screw that guy).
Kilkrazy wrote: The fluff is what GW say it is. All space marines have to be boys, because GW said so. You can't get more plainly sexist than that.
Whether it's a kind of moustache twirling sexist supervillain move, or simple 1980s sexist lack of thought, it comes to the same thing.
Girl marines can very simply be introduced as I explained by having the two lost primarchs come back from their long-distance recon mission and turn out to be women with female chapters. Job done.
No there not easy to introduce with out making massive retcons. Your asking to up heave thirty years of solid background, make changes to the recent heresy novels that make it pretty clear the other two primarchs are dead. I'm for more female models but not at the cost of changing what a Space Marine is.
Akiasura wrote: But marines are humans, they are just humans+1 in many ways. They start out as humans and are just engineered to be better. It's not like gorillas start out human and are mutated.
Unless my girlfriend hasn't been telling me something...
It's similar to superman in a way. Technically, he isn't human. But for most people, he is portrayed as the best humanity has to offer despite this (unless you are reading injustice in which case screw that guy).
yeah, they start as humans, and end up as "beyond humans", but my issue (and point, that I seemingly cannot explain ) is Kilkrazy's point about marines being sexist 'cause they are all dudes who are better then girls is misleading because they are better then the human race as a whole (and technically orks, tau, and most nids )
The idea of female space marines is only a neat thought experiment, really. If I'm the only one who doesn't mind buff roided out women any more than the buff roided out men all the more for me, I guess...
Ironically the most characteristically GW-lazy method to introduce then to the setting would also be the most controversially progressive: say they recruit men and women (boys and girls, really) and the resultant physical changes make the resultant post-human astartes look a certain way regardless of the aspirant's gender. Take it a step further and argue the use of male pronouns in the fluff is in the gender-neutral sense and a product of their psychological deconstruction during the process. "You are not male, you are not female, these are the labels nature gave to you because it could not see your potential. You are Death!"
But that's ultimately a fun diversion. The real issue to me is that there are factions that are specifically described in the fluff fielding women that don't have models representing that. The Imperium takes a tithe of soldiers from its worlds, some of those worlds mix the gender ratio, some send all men, some send all women, some do it because they regard women as the only logical fighting class, others because they're considered an undesirable underclass it any number of other reasons. In turn the Imperium has all-male, all-female, and mixed-gender regiments, this is described in the fluff, it's part of the setting as it exists today.
How can that be represented in the model range we have today? What are the missed opportunities? What are the upcoming opportunities? What are the triumphs?
The guardsmen sprue is aging, and due for an update for the same reasons as the old fire warrior kit. A slight adjustment of their existing proportions could make them more believable as unisex, with the added benefit of differentiating them from space marines and unifying their proportions with tank commanders- and as with the new fire warrior kit GW proved they are willing and able to fit way more than ten extra heads on one sprue. And weapons, and shields, and...
The Tempestus Scions is a missed opportunity, but one that can be rectified by female heads from another kit. I actually don't know how to quantify the extent of it though, in the Cain books I liked how the battle sisters in training who were insufficiently combat effective were moved to non-combat orders while the insufficiently faithful got rolled into the storm troopers.
The new Tau is kind of cheating because the only quantifiable difference between males and females we know about is the head-slit. Even that is a recent thing that was originally a fan theory based on the inconsistency of Shadowsun's sculpt compared to other Tau heads. That said, all the new kits have at least one female head (I'm at work, can't go count right now) and the new male head sculpt is extremely easy to convert from an I to a Y.
The real problem in my opinion (and I don't think I've seen it mentioned here yet) is GW doesn't seem to want to be seen promoting violence against women in the eyes of the public. And so is increasingly disinclined to depict visibly female models in a violent setting. It feels like a more recent thing, after the dark elder releases, after they got the ball rolling to actively discourage sisters of battle players, but certainly before and responsible for the discontinuation of all female inquisitor models (awful as they were) or the ultra-manness of every new Age of Sugar model. To what end, I don't know, but it reminds me of an anecdote I heard about GW corporate not letting store employees paint models as black people in order to avoid offending black people.
Akiasura wrote: I don't have a problem with them being sexualized personally. Women want to play sexy females like men want to play sexy males. Have you seen He-Man? Talk about unrealistic body images. A lot of the male models are heavily muscled in this game too.
Do we really have to go through something so basic as why power fantasy and objectification are different things?
You know what that means, Dakka! DING DING DING DING!
It's time for the FEMALE ARMOR RHETORIC BINGO!
And we hit SQUARE ONE!
To properly explain why He-Man, Conan and the like are not comparable to what we're seeing here, allow me to elaborate. Bare skin does not equal objectification.
Consider the following image. (Spoilered because NSFW).
Spoiler:
The one on the left wears more clothing than the one on the right, but which one is more sexualised?
Indeed, it's the one on the left. The right looks like a plausible, savage barbarian (I'd probably have added -some- kind of chest support but that can easily be done with just a few straps).
He-Man is a muscular monster, displaying his enviable strength! But it does not make him sexualised. Musclemonsters usually are not that sexy.
If he had looked more like this Dead or Alive character, then yeah, sure, I could buy that. This fighter outfit is clearly designed to look attractive. But how often do you see this in games, movies, models, etc? (Spoilered because size)
Spoiler:
Not very often.
It is the difference between looking at your character, and looking through the eyes of your character. You're not supposed to think He-Man is sexy, you're supposed to want to be as strong as he is! Compare to Red Sonya, who is a warrior-barbarian clearly designed to titillate the audience.
And that, my friends, is why objectification and power fantasy are different.
Female bodybuilders allready look like space marines, so...i guess it's not very horrifying as an image.
There's just one problem that women on roids are still weaker than men on roids.
Ashirya,
You can walk in and say that He-Man isn't sexualized, although you'd be hard pressed to back that statement up, but I don't think you can deny that he represents an unrealistic body image for men.
And, to be fair, neither of those images looks realistic to me. Both are have great bodies that I wouldn't expect malnourished barbarians to have.
Take a look at superman, batman, green lantern, and Spider-Man. You'll notice they all have muscles, nobody is overweight (though the body types do change from slender to larger), and they mostly have great hair (lantern could use some help here).
To me, this is part of the male fantasy just like heroes like Wonder Woman are part of the female fantasy. Both want to be sexy and powerful, and most heroes reflect this. You'll never convince me that captain America and Thor aren't being sexualized by the female auidence and represent unrealistic body images for men. They are also some of my favorite heroes.
You'll notice the bingo card mentions that it's to be used when skimpy armor is mentioned as being practical, which I never did. So you didn't hit any squares . I don't think the original female marine model is that sexualized at all, though it's certainly an attractive figure.
Edit;
Walking in with a condescending hostile tone isn't really helping anyone, your argument least of all.
Akiasura wrote: Ashirya, You can walk in and say that He-Man isn't sexualized, although you'd be hard pressed to back that statement up, but I don't think you can deny that he represents an unrealistic body image for men.
He is designed for you to look up to, not to be eyecandy. The difference is massive - it is not just in clothing, it is in how they are posed and portrayed.
Take a look at superman, batman, green lantern, and Spider-Man. You'll notice they all have muscles, nobody is overweight (though the body types do change from slender to larger), and they mostly have great hair (lantern could use some help here).
Okay then, find an overweight female superhero. Now THAT is what I call a challenge.
To me, this is part of the male fantasy just like heroes like Wonder Woman are part of the female fantasy. Both want to be sexy and powerful, and most heroes reflect this. You'll never convince me that captain America and Thor aren't being sexualized by the female auidence and represent unrealistic body images for men. They are also some of my favorite heroes.
As I recall, Loki got a LOT more attention from the female audience, and rightfully so! Thor looks good, but not THAT good. And guess what, Loki has a realistic body image.
And please do not assume that being sexualised is the power fantasy for women ('men want to look strong, women want to look sexy.') It is not a good argument to push and I hope I will not need to explain why.
You'll notice the bingo card mentions that it's to be used when skimpy armor is mentioned as being practical, which I never did. So you didn't hit any squares . I don't think the original female marine model is that sexualized at all, though it's certainly an attractive figure.
Look at the very first square and you find your answer.
Hafþór Júlíus "Thor" Björnsson (or "Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson"; Icelandic pronunciation: [ˈhafθour ˈjuːliʏs ˈpjœsːɔn], born November 26, 1988) is an Icelandic professional strongman competitor, actor and former professional basketball player.
Akiasura wrote: But marines are humans, they are just humans+1 in many ways. They start out as humans and are just engineered to be better. It's not like gorillas start out human and are mutated.
Unless my girlfriend hasn't been telling me something...
It's similar to superman in a way. Technically, he isn't human. But for most people, he is portrayed as the best humanity has to offer despite this (unless you are reading injustice in which case screw that guy).
yeah, they start as humans, and end up as "beyond humans", but my issue (and point, that I seemingly cannot explain ) is Kilkrazy's point about marines being sexist 'cause they are all dudes who are better then girls is misleading because they are better then the human race as a whole (and technically orks, tau, and most nids )
That is not exactly my point, actually.
My point is that SMs are better than everyone, only boys can be SMs, therefore girls are not capable of being as good as boys, because they are girls.
Akiasura wrote: Ashirya,
You can walk in and say that He-Man isn't sexualized, although you'd be hard pressed to back that statement up, but I don't think you can deny that he represents an unrealistic body image for men.
He is designed for you to look up to, not to be eyecandy. The difference is massive - it is not just in clothing, it is in how they are posed and portrayed.
I wasn't aware you knew the designers intent for every hero and heroine.
My apologies.
Take a look at superman, batman, green lantern, and Spider-Man. You'll notice they all have muscles, nobody is overweight (though the body types do change from slender to larger), and they mostly have great hair (lantern could use some help here).
Okay then, find an overweight female superhero. Now THAT is what I call a challenge.
Talk about moving the goalpost...
Find a overweight superhero of any gender.
That is a challenge, gender doesn't play into it. Which is my point.
To me, this is part of the male fantasy just like heroes like Wonder Woman are part of the female fantasy. Both want to be sexy and powerful, and most heroes reflect this. You'll never convince me that captain America and Thor aren't being sexualized by the female auidence and represent unrealistic body images for men. They are also some of my favorite heroes.
As I recall, Loki got a LOT more attention from the female audience, and rightfully so! Thor looks good, but not THAT good. And guess what, Loki has a realistic body image.
Really? Some males would argue being that thin and with that bone structure is an unrealistic body image for many. He's certainly not someone men want to look like, but it is someone that gets sexualized.
And considering what some of the women have said to his actor....males couldn't get away with saying that to black widow.
And just because Loki gets more attention doesn't invalidate that Thor and the captain do get attention as well.
And please do not assume that being sexualised is the power fantasy for women ('men want to look strong, women want to look sexy.') It is not a good argument to push and I hope I will not need to explain why.
No, I'm saying men and women want to be strong and sexy. That's why the vast majority of heroes are both strong and sexy on both sides of the fence. There are some exceptions, like dead pool, but he's more of a comedian than a real hero. And there is a female dead pool.
You'll notice the bingo card mentions that it's to be used when skimpy armor is mentioned as being practical, which I never did. So you didn't hit any squares . I don't think the original female marine model is that sexualized at all, though it's certainly an attractive figure.
Look at the very first square and you find your answer.
Look at the directions on your card to find the rebuttal
And those growth hormones have nothing to do with what Marines use. Bodybuilders use their muscles for show. They are actually quite weak for their muscle mass, because those oversized muscles are not practical for actual use.
Marines are strong because they need that strength. The Emperor wouldn't have designed his soldiers to be physically impressive than weak, especially since their strongmen build gets them both and is covered by armor anyway.
Does anyone know what marines look like under their armor? I've never seen a picture personally so I can't say what they look like underneath all that stuff
Akiasura wrote: But marines are humans, they are just humans+1 in many ways. They start out as humans and are just engineered to be better. It's not like gorillas start out human and are mutated.
Unless my girlfriend hasn't been telling me something...
It's similar to superman in a way. Technically, he isn't human. But for most people, he is portrayed as the best humanity has to offer despite this (unless you are reading injustice in which case screw that guy).
yeah, they start as humans, and end up as "beyond humans", but my issue (and point, that I seemingly cannot explain ) is Kilkrazy's point about marines being sexist 'cause they are all dudes who are better then girls is misleading because they are better then the human race as a whole (and technically orks, tau, and most nids )
That is not exactly my point, actually.
My point is that SMs are better than everyone, only boys can be SMs, therefore girls are not capable of being as good as boys, because they are girls.
That's still grasping. Sure, they start as "only boys' but by the end, when they are actually space marines, they are arguably no longer human both ethically in the real world, AND by the fluff itself (see why certain commanders and inquisitors dislike or distrust Space Marines). They are killing machines indoctrinated to dispose of anything that is impeding the Imperium. They are better then ALL humans because they lack most base forms of human emotions. They are better then men AND woman, and to call them sexist cause they are better then woman is just grasping for something to be upset about.
I wasn't aware you knew the designers intent for every hero and heroine.
A meaningless claim. You began by saying that characters like He-Man were sexualised as well. Do you know that? No, neither of us does. Moot point.
Talk about moving the goalpost...
Find a overweight superhero of any gender.
That is a challenge, gender doesn't play into it. Which is my point.
Okay. Mr. Incredible from The Incredibles. Nite Owl II from Watchmen. Neither of them are very obscure at all, actually. Done. Your turn.
Really? Some males would argue being that thin and with that bone structure is an unrealistic body image for many. He's certainly not someone men want to look like, but it is someone that gets sexualized.
I think you are on to something here, namely what I have been saying all along - those designed to look sexy to one gender are often not what the other gender is meant to look up to.
And considering what some of the women have said to his actor....males couldn't get away with saying that to black widow.
A separate issue entirely.
And just because Loki gets more attention doesn't invalidate that Thor and the captain do get attention as well.
Of course they do. Just about everything does.
No, I'm saying men and women want to be strong and sexy. That's why the vast majority of heroes are both strong and sexy on both sides of the fence. There are some exceptions, like dead pool, but he's more of a comedian than a real hero. And there is a female dead pool.
Well, they want to be strong and what they think the other sex will find sexy, anyway...
Look at the directions on your card to find the rebuttal
The card actually gives the same counter-argument I gave you, rather than rebutting itself.
Akiasura wrote: Does anyone know what marines look like under their armor? I've never seen a picture personally so I can't say what they look like underneath all that stuff
massive bodies, elongated chests (due to all the implants). I think there used to be a side on view of a marine without armor in the last SM codex.
Akiasura wrote: Does anyone know what marines look like under their armor? I've never seen a picture personally so I can't say what they look like underneath all that stuff
Yeppers!
They look like a decently fit normal man, basically. Very tall, with superdense muscles and bones and whatnot, but otherwise not monstrous.
Akiasura wrote: Does anyone know what marines look like under their armor? I've never seen a picture personally so I can't say what they look like underneath all that stuff
Yeppers!
They look like a decently fit normal man, basically. Very tall, with superdense muscles and bones and whatnot, but otherwise not monstrous.
don't they have a more recent view in the 6e SM codex?
Akiasura wrote: But marines are humans, they are just humans+1 in many ways. They start out as humans and are just engineered to be better. It's not like gorillas start out human and are mutated.
Unless my girlfriend hasn't been telling me something...
It's similar to superman in a way. Technically, he isn't human. But for most people, he is portrayed as the best humanity has to offer despite this (unless you are reading injustice in which case screw that guy).
yeah, they start as humans, and end up as "beyond humans", but my issue (and point, that I seemingly cannot explain ) is Kilkrazy's point about marines being sexist 'cause they are all dudes who are better then girls is misleading because they are better then the human race as a whole (and technically orks, tau, and most nids )
That is not exactly my point, actually.
My point is that SMs are better than everyone, only boys can be SMs, therefore girls are not capable of being as good as boys, because they are girls.
That's still grasping. Sure, they start as "only boys' but by the end, when they are actually space marines, they are arguably no longer human both ethically in the real world, AND by the fluff itself (see why certain commanders and inquisitors dislike or distrust Space Marines). They are killing machines indoctrinated to dispose of anything that is impeding the Imperium. They are better then ALL humans because they lack most base forms of human emotions. They are better then men AND woman, and to call them sexist cause they are better then woman is just grasping for something to be upset about.
It absolutely is not grasping. It is fundamental to the argument:
You can't be a doctor because you're a girl.
You can't be a fighter pilot because you're a girl.
You can't be a cameraman because you're a girl.
You can't be a space marine because you're a girl.
Do you honestly not understand the implications of these statements?
The key difference between the real life examples and the SM example is that IRL girls can now become doctors, fighter pilots and cameramen. It's purely because of a made-up fictional reason that they can't become SMs.
Akiasura wrote: But marines are humans, they are just humans+1 in many ways. They start out as humans and are just engineered to be better. It's not like gorillas start out human and are mutated.
Unless my girlfriend hasn't been telling me something...
It's similar to superman in a way. Technically, he isn't human. But for most people, he is portrayed as the best humanity has to offer despite this (unless you are reading injustice in which case screw that guy).
yeah, they start as humans, and end up as "beyond humans", but my issue (and point, that I seemingly cannot explain ) is Kilkrazy's point about marines being sexist 'cause they are all dudes who are better then girls is misleading because they are better then the human race as a whole (and technically orks, tau, and most nids )
That is not exactly my point, actually.
My point is that SMs are better than everyone, only boys can be SMs, therefore girls are not capable of being as good as boys, because they are girls.
That's still grasping. Sure, they start as "only boys' but by the end, when they are actually space marines, they are arguably no longer human both ethically in the real world, AND by the fluff itself (see why certain commanders and inquisitors dislike or distrust Space Marines). They are killing machines indoctrinated to dispose of anything that is impeding the Imperium. They are better then ALL humans because they lack most base forms of human emotions. They are better then men AND woman, and to call them sexist cause they are better then woman is just grasping for something to be upset about.
It absolutely is not grasping. It is fundamental to the argument:
You can't be a doctor because you're a girl.
You can't be a fighter pilot because you're a girl.
You can't be a cameraman because you're a girl.
You can't be a space marine because you're a girl.
Do you honestly not understand the implications of these statements?
The key difference between the real life examples and the SM example is that IRL girls can now become doctors, fighter pilots and cameramen. It's purely because of a made-up fictional reason that they can't become SMs.
This post killed it for me.
I have been reading this thread and cringing at some of the statements made by both sides. But the clarity of this statement rang true in my head, and exalted!
I still plan to cringe at some of the arguments on both sides, but I just wanted to point out that this post clearly and concisely won my support.
I don't consider Mr Incredible to be overweight at all.
Owl from the watchmen is bigger but not really overweight either.
I'm talking straight up fat.
If you want Big Bertha. She's even an avenger so still from the same universe as the heroes I mentioned.
If you want, we can spin this around. Male villains can be quite large, while female villains are almost exclusively sexy. What does that say about body images?
edit,
The card does not. It specifically says that it's used to be used when someone defends fantasy armor being...not there for women. I was doing no such thing, as I think it's pretty absurd myself.
Akiasura wrote: I don't consider Mr Incredible to be overweight at all.
Owl from the watchmen is bigger but not really overweight either.
I'm talking straight up fat.
I remember Mr. Incredible's belly flopping around when I saw the movie. I'd say that counts. He just removed his belt and BOOOM.
If you want, we can spin this around. Male villains can be quite large, while female villains are almost exclusively sexy. What does that say about body images?
The card does not. It specifically says that it's used to be used when someone defends fantasy armor being...not there for women. I was doing no such thing, as I think it's pretty absurd myself.
That is one end of that argument, but it's still the same argument.
Akiasura wrote: But marines are humans, they are just humans+1 in many ways. They start out as humans and are just engineered to be better. It's not like gorillas start out human and are mutated.
Unless my girlfriend hasn't been telling me something...
It's similar to superman in a way. Technically, he isn't human. But for most people, he is portrayed as the best humanity has to offer despite this (unless you are reading injustice in which case screw that guy).
yeah, they start as humans, and end up as "beyond humans", but my issue (and point, that I seemingly cannot explain ) is Kilkrazy's point about marines being sexist 'cause they are all dudes who are better then girls is misleading because they are better then the human race as a whole (and technically orks, tau, and most nids )
That is not exactly my point, actually.
My point is that SMs are better than everyone, only boys can be SMs, therefore girls are not capable of being as good as boys, because they are girls.
That's still grasping. Sure, they start as "only boys' but by the end, when they are actually space marines, they are arguably no longer human both ethically in the real world, AND by the fluff itself (see why certain commanders and inquisitors dislike or distrust Space Marines). They are killing machines indoctrinated to dispose of anything that is impeding the Imperium. They are better then ALL humans because they lack most base forms of human emotions. They are better then men AND woman, and to call them sexist cause they are better then woman is just grasping for something to be upset about.
It absolutely is not grasping. It is fundamental to the argument:
You can't be a doctor because you're a girl.
You can't be a fighter pilot because you're a girl.
You can't be a cameraman because you're a girl.
You can't be a space marine because you're a girl.
Do you honestly not understand the implications of these statements?
The key difference between the real life examples and the SM example is that IRL girls can now become doctors, fighter pilots and cameramen. It's purely because of a made-up fictional reason that they can't become SMs.
I get the implications, but your point is still fairly well grasping. Doctors, fighter pilots, cameramen are all jobs. Space marines are basically a different species. Yes, initially, the recruits are men because they are genetic clones of primarchs (who were written as all men because they were made to be partial clones of a man). But by the end of that transformation to become a space marine, they are no longer humans, but are basically mutants.
To try and place sexism into this because "they are described as better then girls" when they are described as better then everything is you ignoring half of the groups they are "better" then for the sake of trying to prove your point. in the fluff, a space marine isn't a job, but a physical and mental transformation into something not human.
I get it, for some reason we need to re-write 30 years of fluff because it's now sexist if you can't fit women into every group, and having a SINGLE army in a game be only men is just beyond acceptable, but your entire argument is the same "I'm making Wolverine a girl now because it's sexist that only boys can be wolverine."
and I can do what you did to:
You can't be a Baby sitter because you're a boy.
You can't be a Fashion designer because you're a boy.
You can't be a Nurse because you're a boy.
You can't be a Sister of battle because you're a boy.
You can't be a Howling banshee because you're a boy.
The only difference is I don't hear you calling Banshees or SoB sexist for not having men in their main battle ranks.
You mean when he wasn't a hero, when he was depressed? Before he got in shape and became a happy hero again?
How does your link address my point at all? It only talks about female villains, there is no mention of male villains and how they can be large while male heroes are not.
And not really, unless you are saying that the female marine is equivalent to bikini armor, which is a bit of a stretch.
Akiasura wrote: You mean when he wasn't a hero, when he was depressed? Before he got in shape and became a happy hero again?
As far as I remember, it was more a question of him using a really tight belt than him losing any weight.
How does your link address my point at all? It only talks about female villains, there is no mention of male villains and how they can be large while male heroes are not.
Male heroes are large? Do you mean fat or do you mean like the Hulk?
And not really, unless you are saying that the female marine is equivalent to bikini armor, which is a bit of a stretch.
'Men are sexualised too!' is not all that different whether it's a question of bikini armour or that ridiculous female Marine from a few pages back. Both focus too much on emphasising femininity at the cost of any emphasis on the fact that they are warriors.
Captain Joystick wrote: To what end, I don't know, but it reminds me of an anecdote I heard about GW corporate not letting store employees paint models as black people in order to avoid offending black people.
I'm not so sure that's at all true. Tho who knows, maybe it's damage control from a company that for quite a while didn't have better than "bestial brown" to offer. Heh.
You can't be a Baby sitter because you're a boy.
You can't be a Fashion designer because you're a boy.
You can't be a Nurse because you're a boy.
You can't be a Sister of battle because you're a boy.
You can't be a Howling banshee because you're a boy.
The only difference is I don't hear you calling Banshees or SoB sexist for not having men in their main battle ranks.
Well. Babysitters and nurses aren't exactly high-status professions (precisely because they're intended for women). Male fashion designers are quite well established, however.
Captain Joystick wrote: To what end, I don't know, but it reminds me of an anecdote I heard about GW corporate not letting store employees paint models as black people in order to avoid offending black people.
I'm not so sure that's at all true. Tho who knows, maybe it's damage control from a company that for quite a while didn't have better than "bestial brown" to offer. Heh.
You can't be a Baby sitter because you're a boy.
You can't be a Fashion designer because you're a boy.
You can't be a Nurse because you're a boy.
You can't be a Sister of battle because you're a boy.
You can't be a Howling banshee because you're a boy.
The only difference is I don't hear you calling Banshees or SoB sexist for not having men in their main battle ranks.
Well. Babysitters and nurses aren't exactly high-status professions (precisely because they're intended for women). Male fashion designers are quite well established, however.
I concede on the fashion designer, poor example. However, are cameramen "high-status" professions? Also, I see massively more respect for nurses then I do doctors. And I think the lack of "respect" for baby sitters is more related to the fact that it's usually a "teen" job, something done durring high school.
Brennonjw wrote: The only difference is I don't hear you calling Banshees or SoB sexist for not having men in their main battle ranks.
You still don't get it, neither of those is glorified to the same extent. SoB don't even have a modern model line. You are proving killkrazy's point in reverse. And yes, it is sexist -- when you hold warriors up as the highest function performed in your society, and only men can become warriors, women default to have a primary value of reproduction. This is a historical reality. To steal a quote from Wikipedia, "War is to man what maternity is to the woman." Said by Italian fascist Mussolini.
Space Marines are the protagonists of the setting, but looking up to them or wanting to emulate them is a lot like idealizing Patrick Bateman in American Psycho. You're missing the joke. They are catholic space nazis.
That's why I find it so strange to ask for female space marines -- glorifying men as warriors at the expense of women is emblematic of fascism. And that's very much part of the grimdark, even if GW isn't shoving that logical connection in your face.
How does your link address my point at all? It only talks about female villains, there is no mention of male villains and how they can be large while male heroes are not.
Male heroes are large? Do you mean fat or do you mean like the Hulk?
Fat and out of shape. Like the kingpin, for example.
If we include cartoons then amethyst from Steven universe isn't a bad example (that's the short purple one right?).
And not really, unless you are saying that the female marine is equivalent to bikini armor, which is a bit of a stretch.
'Men are sexualised too!' is not all that different whether it's a question of bikini armour or that ridiculous female Marine from a few pages back. Both focus too much on emphasising femininity at the cost of any emphasis on the fact that they are warriors.
I don't see how how she isn't a warrior. She seems tall and athletic, and the armor looks dangerous. It covers all of her important bits, including her face, stomach, legs, and chest (which is what you typically see uncovered in the "bikini armor"). It doesn't even have nipple plat as far as I can tell.
My point isn't that "men are sexualized too",the clothing difference proves there is a difference between them. My point is that in both men and women we see unrealistic body images, including the barbarian images you provided. This imagies originate from a desire to portray heroes as both sexy and powerful, which they manage to do. Notice that, in your example of owl, he is supposed to be a depressed hero who is neither of these things. There is nothing wrong with Wonder Woman looking like she does when superman looks like he does, it's their outfits that are the difference. If wonder woman had a better outfit she would be fine and not catching so much flack.
I think the marine armor presented does a good job of that, so no, the argument isn't the same and you've largely misconstrued my point. I could have been clearer, the quote function is hard to use on an iPad and it really makes this hard, but you didn't have to fly in so hostile either rather than simply trying to understand someone's PoV and turn them around. It benefits no one.
Ashiraya wrote: Probably because the Imperium are not the only ones glorifying them. GW itself is.
I think there's a lot of accuracy to that.
Agreed, and it's a problem you see in the fan base due to it. People hate marines like no other army in this game for almost the games history. At least since 3rd when I have been playing, despite Eldar being a lot stronger as a table top force usually.
I concede on the fashion designer, poor example. However, are cameramen "high-status" professions? Also, I see massively more respect for nurses then I do doctors. And I think the lack of "respect" for baby sitters is more related to the fact that it's usually a "teen" job, something done durring high school.
Cameramen (heh) are trained professionals who do get recognition if they're good enough. Just look at any awards for cinematography. Not as big in general society as actors or directors but there's still plenty of recognition to get within the field. Not like you can't find writers who are nobodies. IDK about nurses getting more respect or anything. Being a doctor usually pays more and is one of the stereotypical high-status professions (except IIRC in Russia, where it's mainly women). Taking care of kids that aren't yours is a job that goes back a long way and there are still plenty of families that hire a nanny.
Brennonjw wrote: The only difference is I don't hear you calling Banshees or SoB sexist for not having men in their main battle ranks.
You still don't get it, neither of those is glorified to the same extent. SoB don't even have a modern model line. You are proving killkrazy's point in reverse. And yes, it is sexist -- when you hold warriors up as the highest function performed in your society, and only men can become warriors, women default to have a primary value of reproduction. This is a historical reality. To steal a quote from Wikipedia, "War is to man what maternity is to the woman." Said by Italian fascist Mussolini.
Space Marines are the protagonists of the setting, but looking up to them or wanting to emulate them is a lot like idealizing Patrick Bateman in American Psycho. You're missing the joke.
That's why I find it so strange to ask for female space marines -- glorifying men as warriors at the expense of women is emblematic of fascism. And that's very much part of the grimdark, even if GW isn't shoving that logical connection in your face.
I'd hardly say SM are the "protagonists" being that they kill any form of desenter, I think "protagonist" would go to Tau, if not nobody at all (part of the grimdark). I think GW pushes them NOT out of some form of ignorant sexism, but becuase they are rather iconic, easy to assemble and paint, and have some of the most variety in colors to appeal to more people.
I still don't see how it's "at the expense of women" at all. It's just making a connection that is there, but ignoring the rest of the connection. SM are glorified over EVERYTHING barring the Emperor in fluff, and to single out women from that everything is just blatantly cherry picking. People beyond adolescence cannot become space marines, so are we going to start calling space marines ageist? You have to be in close to peak form to survive the transformation, so are Space marines fat shaming? Most marines only recruit from a select few worlds, so are they being "racists (planet-ist?)" to other planets? To try and single out these issues in a game in one ONLY faction that states "only men" in the fluff is just silly.
Due to the limits of the model lines, yes, IG and SM are "male only" until cadians get a new model pack and they add female heads (like they did for Tau), but then they will get whined at for the models having the same bodies, or having the ability to kill women in a tabletop game.
Where are you seeing more respect for nurses than doctors?
I've worked with a lot of healthcare professionals and in medical centers. I find nurses to be the least respected people in the building by both the staff and the patients.
Akiasura wrote: Where are you seeing more respect for nurses than doctors?
I've worked with a lot of healthcare professionals and in medical centers. I find nurses to be the least respected people in the building by both the staff and the patients.
Recently (past 10 years) there's been a push and more people are aware of the BS that nurses have to deal with, and when it comes up, I've always heard more praise for nurses rather then doctors.
Ah that would explain it, I haven't been there for the most part since I started as a professor.
That'd be interesting if it's the case. Nurses always had the rawest deal when I was there.
Fat and out of shape. Like the kingpin, for example.
If we include cartoons then amethyst from Steven universe isn't a bad example (that's the short purple one right?).
Ursula is a big female villain who instantly leaps to mind.
I don't see how how she isn't a warrior. She seems tall and athletic, and the armor looks dangerous. It covers all of her important bits, including her face, stomach, legs, and chest (which is what you typically see uncovered in the "bikini armor"). It doesn't even have nipple plat as far as I can tell.
It is barely half the width of the armour it is supposed to match, is fitted with boobplate (which is a pretty big warning sign in itself) and is inexplicably about as thin or thinner than a Guardsman is - and he isn't wearing tank armour!
When you change the armour that much to look feminine rather than practical, it is almost gauranteed to be objectification in play.
My point isn't that "men are sexualized too",the clothing difference proves there is a difference between them. My point is that in both men and women we see unrealistic body images, including the barbarian images you provided.
True, but one has exaggerated physical strength characteristics (with sex appeal added on top) whereas the other has only sex appeal.
I could have been clearer, the quote function is hard to use on an iPad and it really makes this hard, but you didn't have to fly in so hostile either rather than simply trying to understand someone's PoV and turn them around. It benefits no one.
I apologise if I came across as hostile. Not my intent. I am quite frustrated by the topic because it feels like I am adressing things that I have adressed a million times before, but I assure you that does not reach into any ill opinion of you.
As an added thing, here is a picture of a character of mine, a fantasy elf in somewhat practical-looking armour. Compare to the female space marine picture and see the contrast - in particular when you highlight the fact that one wears heavy leather armour and the other wears tank plating!
GW is a for profit company, they will not make models that they don't think will sell well.
For various reasons Sisters of Battle doesn't seem to have sold well from their inception. They don't give a crap about social justice issues, they only care about money. Until they are convinced that female minis will move money, just like any other release they are not going to make new ones.
Well if we are going to move this to all forms of media this is quickly going to fall apart. There is just too much variation out there, especially recently. I was mainly talking about superheroes since that was the original topic, and I think we can agree that Ursula isn't really a super villain.
The armor doesn't match marines because it's not made by the same company, so I don't think it's a big deal. Honestly I always thought marines look too squat and aren't the best models (those shoulder pads). The boob plate might be a problem for you, I don't see it as a big deal. Nipple plate is where I draw the line.
For the barbarian images, I only see unrealistic images and I'm okay with it since I don't want to role play Chris Christie. Same for superheroes, if you update the costumes I think the women aren't dramatically different form the men in terms of sex appeal. The costumes go too far, basically being thongs for lol reasons. I'm honestly surprised marvel and dc haven't considered such a minor change that would buy them a lot of goodwill.
I appreciate your apology.
Edit, I don't think your armor or the marine would bother me. I think the marine is indeed sexier so if this is your standard I can see why it would annoy you, but I think we can agree that the marine is a lot better than say....She Hulk in terms of warrior women.
Captain Joystick wrote: Ironically the most characteristically GW-lazy method to introduce then to the setting would also be the most controversially progressive: say they recruit men and women (boys and girls, really) and the resultant physical changes make the resultant post-human astartes look a certain way regardless of the aspirant's gender. Take it a step further and argue the use of male pronouns in the fluff is in the gender-neutral sense and a product of their psychological deconstruction during the process. "You are not male, you are not female, these are the labels nature gave to you because it could not see your potential. You are Death!"
That's not the GW way. The GW way is to add female heads on sprue, add a special character and refer to “her armor” or “her weapons” or “her victory”, and just pretend that this specific article from WD 98 do not exist. Because as far as I know, that article is basically the whole of the fluff that would be invalidated, and given how dumb the Omophagea is, that would not be something to be too sad about… Yeah, I would not mind this happening.
Ashiraya wrote: (NSFW inside because spoiler tags cannot be embedded inside other spoiler tags)
Spoiler:
Akiasura wrote: I don't have a problem with them being sexualized personally. Women want to play sexy females like men want to play sexy males. Have you seen He-Man? Talk about unrealistic body images. A lot of the male models are heavily muscled in this game too.
Do we really have to go through something so basic as why power fantasy and objectification are different things?
You know what that means, Dakka! DING DING DING DING!
It's time for the FEMALE ARMOR RHETORIC BINGO!
And we hit SQUARE ONE!
To properly explain why He-Man, Conan and the like are not comparable to what we're seeing here, allow me to elaborate. Bare skin does not equal objectification.
Consider the following image. (Spoilered because NSFW).
The one on the left wears more clothing than the one on the right, but which one is more sexualised?
Indeed, it's the one on the left. The right looks like a plausible, savage barbarian (I'd probably have added -some- kind of chest support but that can easily be done with just a few straps).
He-Man is a muscular monster, displaying his enviable strength! But it does not make him sexualised. Musclemonsters usually are not that sexy.
If he had looked more like this Dead or Alive character, then yeah, sure, I could buy that. This fighter outfit is clearly designed to look attractive. But how often do you see this in games, movies, models, etc? (Spoilered because size)
Not very often.
It is the difference between looking at your character, and looking through the eyes of your character. You're not supposed to think He-Man is sexy, you're supposed to want to be as strong as he is! Compare to Red Sonya, who is a warrior-barbarian clearly designed to titillate the audience.
And that, my friends, is why objectification and power fantasy are different.
Carry on.
With those specific examples being used, I almost feel like I'm reading one of my own messages . Great minds think alike, they say .
Anyway, I welcome someone telling me they can quote enough fat female characters from fighting games that I cannot find 10 fat male characters from fighting game for each female ones . Anyone want to take up the challenge? Same for old female characters and old male ones, by the way.
For various reasons Sisters of Battle doesn't seem to have sold well from their inception.
Weren't they first released at the very end of 2nd edition, when everyone knew there was soon going to be a 3rd edition? Hardly ideal circumstances. They got a Chapter Approved list during 3rd edition and did get some tweaked or outright new models when the Witchhunter codex was released, during 3rd too IIRC. No plastics, though, and no army book all to themselves. They weren't as well-rounded as other armies because they were part of a bigger package with inquisitors and auxiliary troops and such. And now the model range has shrunk and there isn't even a physical book for them. Definitely an uphill struggle.
If space marines had gotten nothing but metal models and half a book since 2nd edition, I don't think they would've been very popular either.
And that's not even touching the fact that IG troopers being sold in mixed gender boxes wouldn't be a problem. Unless of course GW decides to go all tits-out which is admittedly a possibility.
Come on, haven't you figured out yet? GW is just not that interested in "girl 40k" market to invest more. Here's another identical example. GW stopped producing decent russian translations for their materials like 3-4 years ago. Now all we got is prompt translations. Saw a 7-th russian rulebook and couldn't read it. It was simply awful.
Why did it happen? Are GW racists? Nope, just russian market doesn't interest them enough to bother translating everything. Those who can - read source material, others either ask every damn thing or give up. A few start learning english but it's very rare.
The exact same thing happens here. There are allready sob, wyches and a bunch of female characters and heads. You've got your stuff proportionally to the ammount of care GW has towards you and your money. It's business.
Someone mentioned male nurses and so on, and it's a little off topic but I just wanted to touch on it. Male nurses and primary school teachers actually advance faster and are paid better than their female counterparts, despite being a numerical minority. It is quite the opposite of how women do in male-dominated fields.
Something that is silly about the Space Marine stuff is it isn't a well-grounded part of the setting. It is practically a footnote that they are all dudes. They don't use it to launch any kind of social commentary. It doesn't cause anything interesting in the setting. That's part of what's so creepy about it: it's tough to understand why it's there other than "girls are icky" (and it's not the only example of that in GW's games - orks and dwarves come to mind).
Also, even though it is not really used for it in 40kIMO despite what some people in the thread are saying, it would be nice to be able to come and play a game without the writers reproducing existing oppressions in the game universe as "flavour" for male players.
so any time anything isn't split 100 percent down the middle it's oppressive? I'm a liberal guy but the above to me is just silly. It's been established for a while that the Emperor based the Primarchs and marines off his own genes and because he is a male that he couldn't get the process to work with woman. That doesn't need to change due to some social justice vision on how the world needs to be.
OH! they even brought up female primarchs in one of the HH novels (a conversation between malcador and the emperor) IIRC the Big E said it wouldn't have worked, however do with that as you will as I haven't read the book in quite a while
Not to bypass the argument, but while the author does lament the lack of female marines, the main point of the article is to say that GW needs to make the Imperial Guard models as representative as they are in the books. Also mentions Sisters could use an update.
I'm on board with both and suspect that when guard get re cut they might get some female heads. As for Sisters being redone, that's probably going to come down to whether the sales department bean counters consult the emperors tarrot and determine if the auspices declare that there is money to be had.
GW has redone DE, GK, fairly recently and has launched three brand new armies via admech Skitarri and Harlequin. It's going to come down to whether those launches were successful.
You can be a boy baby sitter. I was.
You can be a boy fashion designer, e.g. Giorgio Armani, etc.
You can be a boy nurse. We've got some on DakkaDakka.
Blah blah.
It is the fact that there is a gender gate on admission that is sexist, not the field that you enter into by passing through the gate.
The same is true of SoBs. I have already said I would welcome leather moustache SoBs. Even if I hadn't, though, it would not make SMs non-sexist.
IDK what Banshees are but no doubt they are sexist too.
At any rate, you seem to have come to the realisation that 40K is rather sexist, and that's good.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Something that is silly about the Space Marine stuff is it isn't a well-grounded part of the setting. It is practically a footnote that they are all dudes. They don't use it to launch any kind of social commentary. It doesn't cause anything interesting in the setting. That's part of what's so creepy about it: it's tough to understand why it's there other than "girls are icky"
Exactly this. As far as I know, the only official sources that states only men can become space marines are literally ONLY ONE LINE in an article in WD98 that also mentions that marines can get the memory of any creature they eat. It is likely now also mentioned in the RPG, but it's still completely incidental. Changing it would actually invalidate so few fluff, and yet people keep acting like it would change everything…
I like how in Warhammer, we wouldn't question the prosess of making space marines. We would be worried about not getting eaten or dismembered. This whole conversation is surreal. I couldn't give a flying feth what space marines were IRL. They are 9' tall super humans, tougher than nails, and hit harder than a pick up truck. That's cool. Do we need to make it not cool when we say, "Lets make sure everything is represented in a dystopian future where that issue isn't even a concern." I am amazed nobody brought up that there weren't black people represented in warhammer 40k.
Tactical_Spam wrote: I like how in Warhammer, we wouldn't question the prosess of making space marines. We would be worried about not getting eaten or dismembered. This whole conversation is surreal. I couldn't give a flying feth what space marines were IRL. They are 9' tall super humans, tougher than nails, and hit harder than a pick up truck. That's cool. Do we need to make it not cool when we say, "Lets make sure everything is represented in a dystopian future where that issue isn't even a concern." I am amazed nobody brought up that there weren't black people represented in warhammer 40k.
So because you think Marines are cool, people shouldn't question them?
Tactical_Spam wrote: I like how in Warhammer, we wouldn't question the prosess of making space marines. We would be worried about not getting eaten or dismembered. This whole conversation is surreal. I couldn't give a flying feth what space marines were IRL. They are 9' tall super humans, tougher than nails, and hit harder than a pick up truck. That's cool. Do we need to make it not cool when we say, "Lets make sure everything is represented in a dystopian future where that issue isn't even a concern." I am amazed nobody brought up that there weren't black people represented in warhammer 40k.
So because you think Marines are cool, people shouldn't question them?
Thanks, but no thanks.
No, I am saying, at the end of the day, does it even matter? Who cares that SM are all male and SoB are all female? Is it even important?
Psienesis wrote: I love threads like these. They highlight problems in the fanbase as well as they highlight problems in the game. It highlights that there are some truly odious individuals that play this game.
Should there be female Space Marines? Eh... no. It's a conceit of the setting that they're entirely male.
Should there be females represented in every other aspect of the Imperium (and all the other armies that have gender dimorphism?) Hell yes.
The only way this might be ok is if the models were utterly non-sexualized. I don't want to be associated with any weirdos that are getting their jollies off by imagining an army of scantily clad warrior women.
Never run a Wytch Cult? Don't know anyone who has played Dark Eldar over a few editions, back to when the Wytches were good? Scantily-clad female models have been a thing in 40k since forever. In the larger hobby scene of tabletop games and RPG miniatures, scantily-clad models of both genders have always been a thing. After all, there's plenty of Conan wannabes in their fur loincloths and huge pecs on the male side of the house in fantasy gaming, and always has been.
Point and case. Dark eldar and slaanesh players are the worst.
Additional, banshee should be wearing som kind of armor to justify the 3+
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: More importantly, he said marines would be less cool if women could be marines too.
Aren't I just the most offensive person imaginable? Having an opinion? I guess that's offensive. Are you going to tell me its offensive that I said black people aren't hugely represented? Are you SJW, Bro?
Tactical_Spam wrote: I like how in Warhammer, we wouldn't question the prosess of making space marines. We would be worried about not getting eaten or dismembered. This whole conversation is surreal. I couldn't give a flying feth what space marines were IRL. They are 9' tall super humans, tougher than nails, and hit harder than a pick up truck. That's cool. Do we need to make it not cool when we say, "Lets make sure everything is represented in a dystopian future where that issue isn't even a concern." I am amazed nobody brought up that there weren't black people represented in warhammer 40k.
So because you think Marines are cool, people shouldn't question them?
Thanks, but no thanks.
No, I am saying, at the end of the day, does it even matter? Who cares that SM are all male and SoB are all female? Is it even important?
Tactical_Spam wrote: I like how in Warhammer, we wouldn't question the prosess of making space marines. We would be worried about not getting eaten or dismembered. This whole conversation is surreal. I couldn't give a flying feth what space marines were IRL. They are 9' tall super humans, tougher than nails, and hit harder than a pick up truck. That's cool. Do we need to make it not cool when we say, "Lets make sure everything is represented in a dystopian future where that issue isn't even a concern." I am amazed nobody brought up that there weren't black people represented in warhammer 40k.
So because you think Marines are cool, people shouldn't question them?
Thanks, but no thanks.
No, I am saying, at the end of the day, does it even matter? Who cares that SM are all male and SoB are all female? Is it even important?
Why are so many people so concerned to stop it from happening?
Men and Woman even at the peak of athletic performance still have differences. Pragmatically then The Emperor in selecting one sex over the other makes sense . Additionally pragmatic is that the imperium for lack of a better term needs bodies. It's attrition rate is through the roof in a way that we haven't seen in years if ever. Again it would be pragmatic to encourage woman to have children rather than fight and die. Trying to apply 21st century morals and logic to a despotic future is only going to end up spripping away a lot of 40k flavor.
No, seriously. Is it so important that Tactical_Spam doesn't think women would be cool as Space Marines? Does it really matter that I have this petty argument about merits in a meritless universe? Who cares? Are you going to get offended because I have a certain opinion about things?
Ashiraya wrote: No, it is completely unimportant. Why is it important to you that others do?
Because this whole argument for Female Space Marines is ridiculous. WH40K is choking on grimdarkness. There is no reasonable explanation behind judging people by who they are not what they are in Warhammer. That is your immersion. Everything is dark and wayward.
This thread is really losing any purpose. one side is giving fairly good logical reasons for why things are the way they are, while presenting feasible ways to address the problem, while the others side is ignoring facts and adding nothing of value to the conversation beyond saying "I want, I want, I want" and "I'm oppressed because toy soldiers in a niche fictitious universe can only be men."
Guess what? to be strong you need testosterone, which space marines have tons added to their physiology. Women when pumped full of testosterone look like men after the fact. (see the bodybuilder pictures on page 11)
That is science. we have empirical evidence of this in the real world and the fact that it is a major process in making someone a space marine that is the way it would be. We also know multiple organs are added to the body, see "palumboism" to see what enlarged organs do to the body.
Second off, I think its a cop out to be asked which kits should have female heads added and then dodge the question. To have some idea of feasibility we really oughtt to explore which kits should have them added. is it just basic troop boxes, or every single one?
Further more is it even economically fruitful to add them to the game? will female heads/kits be hailed as the greatest thing GW has ever done and cause the game to be played evenly by men and women with sales shattering records?
Something tells me they would be spending more money adding them then they would make as a result of them.
Ashiraya wrote: No, it is completely unimportant. Why is it important to you that others do?
Because this whole argument for Female Space Marines is ridiculous. WH40K is choking on grimdarkness. There is no reasonable explanation behind judging people by who they are not what they are in Warhammer. That is your immersion. Everything is dark and wayward.
So dark and wayward that even women are forced into the most dangerous combat positions.
Ashiraya wrote: No, it is completely unimportant. Why is it important to you that others do?
Because this whole argument for Female Space Marines is ridiculous. WH40K is choking on grimdarkness. There is no reasonable explanation behind judging people by who they are not what they are in Warhammer. That is your immersion. Everything is dark and wayward.
So dark and wayward that even women are forced into the most dangerous combat positions.
Men and Woman even at the peak of athletic performance still have differences. Pragmatically then The Emperor in selecting one sex over the other makes sense . Additionally pragmatic is that the imperium for lack of a better term needs bodies. It's attrition rate is through the roof in a way that we haven't seen in years if ever. Again it would be pragmatic to encourage woman to have children rather than fight and die. Trying to apply 21st century morals and logic to a despotic future is only going to end up spripping away a lot of 40k flavor.
This is the realism argument. It is refuted by two considerations:
1. 40K is a science fantasy game that includes walking robot tanks the size of skyscrapers, intelligent humanoid fungi who use scrap metal to make advanced weapons that work because they think they look cool, and dinosaur-insects that can genetically engineer themselves to be proof against nuclear plasma or flamethrowers, but not both at the same time.
In short, it's not very realistic.
2. In the most desperate war of attrition in history, the Soviet Unit deployed more female infantry, fighter pilots and tank crews than all the other nations together, and won.
So dark and wayward that even women are forced into the most dangerous combat positions.
Another thing to throw out here; lets say they added females on a mass scale to the game. What's to keep people from turning around and saying the game encourages violence towards females then?
Err, lol? Did you really just try to pull the "it's science" argument about a process that is on the "a (space) wizard did it" level of realism and plausibility?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
stormotron wrote: What's to keep people from turning around and saying the game encourages violence towards females then?
Nothing, but you know that's not what most people mean when they say "violence against women". They're talking about violence against female victims. You know, murder, abusive relationships, etc. They aren't usually talking about killing female soldiers in combat alongside male soldiers, with no attention at all given to their gender.
Err, lol? Did you really just try to pull the "it's science" argument about a process that is on the "a (space) wizard did it" level of realism and plausibility?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
stormotron wrote: What's to keep people from turning around and saying the game encourages violence towards females then?
Nothing, but you know that's not what most people mean when they say "violence against women". They're talking about violence against female victims. You know, murder, abusive relationships, etc. They aren't usually talking about killing female soldiers in combat alongside male soldiers, with no attention at all given to their gender.
see this is why this thread is losing any value. lets go ahead and quote a tiny part of my post and say "oh there's space magic LOL at you and science."
There's an already inplace method for how they make space marines and it requires testosterone boosting drugs amongst other things.
arguing your point by saying I am wrong because space magic is just empty.
Not really seeing a problem with space marines made out of women. They're so modified that their original gender doesn't matter much. They're supposed to be flesh golems, after all. If anything I think it would actually make space marines better since they would move one step away from being superdudes and further towards distinctly artificial creatures because you end up with the same product whether you use a man or a woman. Updated descriptions of how they're made should definitely include nuts and dicks being scraped off and replaced with a strictly waste-expelling unit.
Rosebuddy wrote: Not really seeing a problem with space marines made out of women. They're so modified that their original gender doesn't matter much. They're supposed to be flesh golems, after all. If anything I think it would actually make space marines better since they would move one step away from being superdudes and further towards distinctly artificial creatures because you end up with the same product whether you use a man or a woman. Updated descriptions of how they're made should definitely include nuts and dicks being scraped off and replaced with a strictly waste-expelling unit.
A female space marine would still be weaker, technically and logically.
Men and Woman even at the peak of athletic performance still have differences. Pragmatically then The Emperor in selecting one sex over the other makes sense . Additionally pragmatic is that the imperium for lack of a better term needs bodies. It's attrition rate is through the roof in a way that we haven't seen in years if ever. Again it would be pragmatic to encourage woman to have children rather than fight and die. Trying to apply 21st century morals and logic to a despotic future is only going to end up spripping away a lot of 40k flavor.
This is the realism argument. It is refuted by two considerations:
1. 40K is a science fantasy game that includes walking robot tanks the size of skyscrapers, intelligent humanoid fungi who use scrap metal to make advanced weapons that work because they think they look cool, and dinosaur-insects that can genetically engineer themselves to be proof against nuclear plasma or flamethrowers, but not both at the same time.
In short, it's not very realistic.
2. In the most desperate war of attrition in history, the Soviet Unit deployed more female infantry, fighter pilots and tank crews than all the other nations together, and won.
And long term that killed the soviets ability to project man power for quite some time. Woman were fighting because they had a shortage of men due to the dying. Giving that the Imperium is bigger and can plan out things a bit better, I can see a social policy of have as many kids as you can now makes sense. As for the Marines the attrition process to make one marine is pretty high. Men are the expendable gender when it comes to refilling.
Again I'm not saying that rank and file guard shouldn't have female models. If you want to do that there are several third party bitz to do that. Part of the reason that GW may not make female minis is that there are so many third party bitz available that it's not economical to re cut the guard sprue. That's simple economics.
As to the first one, where going to go round in circles. I presented evidence on why GW might have made the choice they did. Your come back amounts to I don't like GW fluff and it should change because it offends me. Space marines are males only because GW decided that and that's their call. I support them in making that decision for their fictional universe.
Ashiraya wrote: The funny thing is that there is absolutely no source whatsoever that says testosterone is involved in the Astartes creation process.
"Space Marine Aspirants must be adolescents or very young adults, as the implants must be able to coordinate with a human male's natural growth hormones during adolescence to stimulate the growth and development of the various unique physiological features of a Space Marine. In specific terms, the recruit must be about 10-16 Terran standard years of age, although the process has been documented to still work in recruits as old as 20 as long as they have not yet reached their full adult growth. "
just to note; I AM NNOT saying there shouldn't be female heads/bodies added to kits. Nor am I arguing no female space marines.
I am just saying to have a female space marine equal to her male peers in strength and utility they would be grotesque in appearance like their male equivalents
Rosebuddy wrote: Not really seeing a problem with space marines made out of women. They're so modified that their original gender doesn't matter much. They're supposed to be flesh golems, after all. If anything I think it would actually make space marines better since they would move one step away from being superdudes and further towards distinctly artificial creatures because you end up with the same product whether you use a man or a woman. Updated descriptions of how they're made should definitely include nuts and dicks being scraped off and replaced with a strictly waste-expelling unit.
A female space marine would still be weaker, technically and logically.
Not really. Certainly not after everything done to the body to turn it into a space marine.
Rosebuddy wrote: Not really seeing a problem with space marines made out of women. They're so modified that their original gender doesn't matter much. They're supposed to be flesh golems, after all. If anything I think it would actually make space marines better since they would move one step away from being superdudes and further towards distinctly artificial creatures because you end up with the same product whether you use a man or a woman. Updated descriptions of how they're made should definitely include nuts and dicks being scraped off and replaced with a strictly waste-expelling unit.
A female space marine would still be weaker, technically and logically.
Not really. Certainly not after everything done to the body to turn it into a space marine.
An average female is weaker than an average male. Becoming a space marine, which requires you to be a male, multiplies your strength and endurance. An average male space marine would out do an average female space marine, if they could be made.
Again even the olympic level, which is the showcase of athletes, woman have came up roughly 10 percent short. Could 40k hand wave that. Yes, which is as equal a choice as not. GW has made their decision, it makes sense logically and I hope they stay with it.
Ashiraya wrote: The funny thing is that there is absolutely no source whatsoever that says testosterone is involved in the Astartes creation process.
"Space Marine Aspirants must be adolescents or very young adults, as the implants must be able to coordinate with a human male's natural growth hormones during adolescence to stimulate the growth and development of the various unique physiological features of a Space Marine. In specific terms, the recruit must be about 10-16 Terran standard years of age, although the process has been documented to still work in recruits as old as 20 as long as they have not yet reached their full adult growth.
An average female is weaker than an average male. Becoming a space marine, which requires you to be a male, multiplies your strength and endurance. An average male space marine would out do an average female space marine, if they could be made.
Need I remind you that human men and women are both strength 3 and that you're talking about a process that grants people the ability to eat memories? Differences between individual candidates are clearly not relevant. Space marines are made out of people generally between the ages of ten and sixteen, which is far too young to be able to say with certainty that they're all going to be exceptionally strong. A twelve-year-old candidate is as likely to win the competition by wits and savagery as they are by being bigger than the other children.
they definitely would use that as well, but the saying male before it inclines me to believe they refer to test in this instance.
But HGH is just as important; they take adepts at a young age as their bone plates aren't sealed and thus the HGH can be used to make their skeletal systems grow way beyond natural capacity.
This is why Kor Pheron and Luthor were not full astartes and were much shorter than there legion. Too old for the gene/hormone therapy.
An average female is weaker than an average male. Becoming a space marine, which requires you to be a male, multiplies your strength and endurance. An average male space marine would out do an average female space marine, if they could be made.
Need I remind you that human men and women are both strength 3 and that you're talking about a process that grants people the ability to eat memories? Differences between individual candidates are clearly not relevant. Space marines are made out of people generally between the ages of ten and sixteen, which is far too young to be able to say with certainty that they're all going to be exceptionally strong. A twelve-year-old candidate is as likely to win the competition by wits and savagery as they are by being bigger than the other children.
An average female is weaker than an average male. Becoming a space marine, which requires you to be a male, multiplies your strength and endurance. An average male space marine would out do an average female space marine, if they could be made.
Need I remind you that human men and women are both strength 3 and that you're talking about a process that grants people the ability to eat memories? Differences between individual candidates are clearly not relevant. Space marines are made out of people generally between the ages of ten and sixteen, which is far too young to be able to say with certainty that they're all going to be exceptionally strong. A twelve-year-old candidate is as likely to win the competition by wits and savagery as they are by being bigger than the other children.
What you're claiming would not be the case.
Is life a game? We are all S3?
To be fair, I see women in the gym that can rep a lot more weights than your average joe, so in a D6 system to have male and female models equal is not really anything to fuss over
Tactical_Spam wrote: I think SJWs are annoying. I don't think you grasped why I said it though.
I am pretty sure I grasped why. You said so because you were trying to imply that I get offended for things not worth being offended about. And since you love using the word offended to imply an irrational overreaction, I implied you were yourself offended. It's all rhetorical fun and games!
Or did I misjudged things?
stormotron wrote: Another thing to throw out here; lets say they added females on a mass scale to the game. What's to keep people from turning around and saying the game encourages violence towards females then?
The same thing that prevents them from saying that 40k is a propaganda tool to promote transhumanism.
In other world, literally nothing (beside common sense). You can freak out now, and start bracing yourself for the inevitable rise of people accusing 40k of being a propaganda tool to promote transhumanism. Or you can assume people will be reasonable.
Tactical_Spam wrote: A female space marine would still be weaker, technically and logically.
I greatly admire your profound grasp of the mechanics involved in pseudo-science technicality and fiction logic.
stormotron wrote: I am just saying to have a female space marine equal to her male peers in strength and utility they would be grotesque in appearance like their male equivalents
Well, Glory (posted above in the thread) certainly looks more muscular than a marine, and yet still looks good (and clearly feminine).
But anyway, we almost never see the marines without their armor…
Well, Glory (posted above in the thread) certainly looks more muscular than a marine, and yet still looks good (and clearly feminine).
But anyway, we almost never see the marines without their armor…
ya and shes a cartoon drawing. you cannot realistically have feminine features while being hypermuscular. Breasts for example require fat tissue and estrogen. well when you're a lean mean fighting for the emperor machine with high test (to support more muscle) and low estrogen, you lose those feminine features.
did you not see the pictures I posted of real life female bodybuilders? they have similar musculature as Glory, but are real examples of what the body DOES look like under those conditions.
stormotron wrote: you cannot realistically have feminine features while being hypermuscular.
Except when you are an alien. Glory is an alien. Or when you are modified by a process so incredibly out of this world that it allows you to get the memories of creatures you eat. The space marines are modified by such a process.
stormotron wrote: you cannot realistically have feminine features while being hypermuscular.
Except when you are an alien. Glory is an alien. Or when you are modified by a process so incredibly out of this world that it allows you to get the memories of creatures you eat. The space marines are modified by such a process.
if she is an alien, why is she even a subject on what a genetically enhanced human would look like?
ok and with such a process, what value does it serve to preserve feminine features?
Tactical_Spam wrote: I think SJWs are annoying. I don't think you grasped why I said it though.
I am pretty sure I grasped why. You said so because you were trying to imply that I get offended for things not worth being offended about. And since you love using the word offended to imply an irrational overreaction, I implied you were yourself offended. It's all rhetorical fun and games!
Or did I misjudged things?
How do you determine I am offended? All you see is the face of Matt Ward.
And you didn't grasp why. I said it because you are arguing that you don't have girl toys to play with you boy toys. Warhammer is a game with plastic (mostly) army men. This argument revolves around it meaning more than just a game, which it is not.
I find it funny that you target Space Marines still. Out of all the things to argue about, its still space marines. You don't argue about the lack of Adeptus Sororitas books and models or female guardsmen models.
Caution:
Spoiler:
Lets not even get started on women being raped by genestealers to make more genestealers as somewhat canon.
An average female is weaker than an average male. Becoming a space marine, which requires you to be a male, multiplies your strength and endurance. An average male space marine would out do an average female space marine, if they could be made.
Need I remind you that human men and women are both strength 3 and that you're talking about a process that grants people the ability to eat memories? Differences between individual candidates are clearly not relevant. Space marines are made out of people generally between the ages of ten and sixteen, which is far too young to be able to say with certainty that they're all going to be exceptionally strong. A twelve-year-old candidate is as likely to win the competition by wits and savagery as they are by being bigger than the other children.
What you're claiming would not be the case.
Is life a game? We are all S3?
Indeed! As far as 40k is concerned, we are all S3. And again, children age 10-16 are considered ideal candidates because they haven't grown too much yet, which will allow the implants and all that junk to go to work vastly outstripping the potential of the human body. Saying that a space marine made out of a ten-year old girl absolutely would be physically weaker than one made out of a ten-year-old boy is incredibly stupid, on par with saying that a dreadnought piloted by a woman would be physically weaker than one piloted by a man. Children grow at such uneven rates that their full adult potential can't really be predicted when they're fourteen, so the whole process very obviously does all the work getting people to acceptable space marine levels of hardass. Even more so in all the super nasty conditions the typical space marine grew up in. Death worlds are unlikely to have much in the way of nutritionists or other medical professionals or even a steady source of food. I mean, for crying out loud, Blood Angels like to recruit from people who spend their time in radiation-stricken wastelands. You'll hardly end up with physically imposing people that way and yet the process compensates for that.
I find it funny that you target Space Marines still. Out of all the things to argue about, its still space marines. You don't argue about the lack of Adeptus Sororitas books and models or female guardsmen models.
Obviously this is for the very simple reason that we don't have people arguing that there absolutely must not be SoB books or guardswomen. Duh.
stormotron wrote: ok and with such a process, what value does it serve to preserve feminine features?
I have no idea. I have no idea about how the process work either. I have no idea if it keeps the estrogen low. I am actually pretty sure noone cared to decide either way.
It does not matter anyway, as I pointed out we basically never see the marines out of armor…
Tactical_Spam wrote: How do you determine I am offended? All you see is the face of Matt Ward.
All you see is an angry Sister of Battle, that did not stop you. Do I need to explain the whole rhetorical device stuff again?
Tactical_Spam wrote: You don't argue about the lack of Adeptus Sororitas books and models or female guardsmen models.
I mostly do this on thread where the topic is space marines new releases .
stormotron wrote: ok and with such a process, what value does it serve to preserve feminine features?
I have no idea. I have no idea about how the process work either. I have no idea if it keeps the estrogen low. I am actually pretty sure noone cared to decide either way.
It does not matter anyway, as I pointed out we basically never see the marines out of armor…
fair enough; i was under the impression you were arguing those features be preserved so they could have armor emphasizing said features.
It was not. I just thought it was not something that should be automatically assumed to happen, but IF it was what GW decided would happen, it would be fine by me.
Ashiraya wrote: Why on earth would you give them armour emphasising -any- features?
According to some people in this thread you need to make them very clearly female - a "realistic" female space marine (i.e. basically indistinguishable from male in armour) is not acceptable.
Why are we even talking about physical strength in a discussion of POWER ARMOR? The whole point of power armor is that it doesn't matter how strong you are. The machine is way stronger than any human could possibly dream of being, and all the human inside the armor does is tell the armor what to do. Talking about superior male strength makes about as much sense as arguing that men are better at typing because their awesome strength allows them to smash the keyboard harder.
HoundsofDemos wrote: And long term that killed the soviets ability to project man power for quite some time. Woman were fighting because they had a shortage of men due to the dying. Giving that the Imperium is bigger and can plan out things a bit better, I can see a social policy of have as many kids as you can now makes sense.
See now you are getting it. That is a very, very logical social policy for the Imperium. And it's not alien to real life:
“War is to man what maternity is to a woman" -- this is a real-life quote by Benito Mussolini, and most aspects of the Imperium fall into line with other aspects of fascism:
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
4. Supremacy of the Military
5. Rampant Sexism
6. Controlled Mass Media
7. Obsession with National Security
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined
9. Corporate Power is Protected
10. Labor Power is Suppressed
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
14. Fraudulent Elections
Glorification of male warriors like Space Marines, and reduction/celebration of women as a reproductive means to produce more warriors, is 100% fascist. I hope everyone here can recognize that arguments about the "rightful place of women" have been made before!
Ashiraya wrote: The Imperium is many things but I have never seen texts refer to it as sexist.
Overtly, no. It's also pretty big, which makes it less one-dimensional. But fascism and sexism tend to go hand in glove. There are some relevant points to this discussion from this article:
40k was a PARODY of those overly grimdark settings that were popular in 2000AD magazine in the 80s. Guess where most of their writers came from?
40k is just a series of satires or parodies strapped together. The government has an inquisition with the big floppy hats for heaven’s sake. They HAVE to kill that planet of a billion people, beacuse a trillion will be the eternal slaves of space-cthulhu if they don’t. It’s taken to the extreme. It’s only the 12 year old fanboys who are still all hormonal that fail to get that, as they’re still focused on being awesome and HARDCORE.They have space viking marines, and DARK ANGEL marines created by Primarch Lion El’Johnson (who incidently, has similarities with the poet Lionel Johnson who wrote a poem called Dark Angel, about his struggles with his repressed homosexuality. How’s THAT for a literary shot?).That, and there’s just so much humour in the game. The orcs are jumped up green football hooligans for heaven’s sake, complete with war chants, and their guns only working because they think they do.
We have a privileged position to not be bombed, burned or killed as those in WW1 and WW2 were. Those wars had far-reaching consequences that extended back here. I don’t think those echoes have quite vanished yet, and anyone believing Space Marine is a Western exultation in warfare should seriously reconsider his critical opinion.
To see something as complex as the Facist imagery, the waste of both human and alien life, and the slow agony of human extinction in 40k as ‘childish thuggery’ exposes a serious bias that I would never expect from someone who makes part of his living from a book with many references to World of Warcraft.
Simplification is the rule of accessibility. You don’t preach to people, because they won’t listen. Why not make the game basic, easy to play and understand? People can form their own opinions. A basic understanding of the 40k universe would tell you a Space Marine will never, or incredibly rarely, interact with a female. The misogyny clearly went over your head there Yahtzee.
stormotron wrote: This thread is really losing any purpose. one side is giving fairly good logical reasons for why things are the way they are, while presenting feasible ways to address the problem, while the others side is ignoring facts and adding nothing of value to the conversation beyond saying "I want, I want, I want" and "I'm oppressed because toy soldiers in a niche fictitious universe can only be men."
It lost the purpose by page 5 and has just been going in circles since tbh.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: More importantly, he said marines would be less cool if women could be marines too.
Men are just better at being warriors than women. It's not cool or something. It's just as it is. And marines are warriors first and foremost.
Automatically Appended Next Post: You know, like 10 years ago i was participating in reenactment. And we had some dedicated female warriors in our groups. They were training and stuff. But all of them ended up to being a bit worse at fencing than males with identical time spent on training. I don't know exactly why that happened but they all were inferior in actual combat. Though, not that far away. I'd say 2 females could more or less reliably beat 1 man if hr has no option to run away, so it's still good enough for mass combat.
Now, combat takes <1% time of a war campaing. Another 99% is marching and camping. Camping is all great with girls - it's definitely more fun than simply all boys, so, morale is higher somewhat. But actual marching proved to be VERY problematic for girls. They are weaker than males. And equipment is very heavy. It all resulted in girls not taking mail armor cause it was just too heavy for them to carry. Not having good armor is a huge factor.
So, in the end: girls had way inferior protection and they were generally worse at fencing even before that. It resulted in them being way inferior to men in combat. They all ended up as being supportive archers - was the best role for them. However, they'd still be inferior to male archers irl cause war bows are HARD to shoot. A proper war bow requires 60-120 kg mass applied to pull the string. Reinactment bows were 30-35 kg to not kill anyone unintentionally - even with blunt larger head arrows. Well, and archers without armor were still worse than archers in armor.
Modern day soldiers carry even more weight than medieval soldirs - surprise.
And noone was initially against girl soldiers. We were all actually very enthusiastic and helped them with what we could. But noone is gona carry your 8+ kg armor all day long. You're not supposed to be a burden to a warrior group.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: More importantly, he said marines would be less cool if women could be marines too.
Men are just better at being warriors than women. It's not cool or something. It's just as it is. And marines are warriors first and foremost.
Automatically Appended Next Post: You know, like 10 years ago i was participating in reenactment. And we had some dedicated female warriors in our groups. They were training and stuff. But all of them ended up to be a bit worse at fencing than males with identical time spent on training. I don't know exactly why that happened but they all were inferior in actual combat. Though, not really that far away and it wouldn't matter that much in mass combat.
Now, combat takes <1% time of a war campaing. Another 99% is marching and camping. Camping is all great with girls - it's definitely more fun than simply all boys, so, morale is higher somewhat. But actual marching proved to be VERY problematic for girls. They are weaker than males. And equipment is very heavy. It all resulted in girls not taking mail armor cause it was just too heavy for them to carry. Not having good armor is a huge factor.
So, in the end: girls had way inferior protection and they were generally worse at fencing even before that. It resulted in them being way inferior to men in combat. They all ended up as being supportive archers - was the best role for them. However, they'd still be inferior to male archers irl cause war bows are HARD to shoot. A proper war bow requires 60-120 kg mass applied to pull the string. Reinactment bows were 30-35 kg to not kill anyone unintentionally - even with blunt larger head arrows. Well, and archers without armor were still worse than archers in armor.
Modern day soldiers carry even more weight than medieval soldirs - surprise.
And noone was initially against girl soldiers. We were all actually very inthusiastic and helped them with what we could. But noone is gona carry your 8+ kg mail all day long. You're not supposed to be a burden to a warrior group.
There are also issues with men being biologically and or culturally programmed to put themselves in danger to protect women. In a battlefield environment that means that you are taking otherwise avoidable casualties because people are acting instead of thinking. Seeing a man go down next to you is undoubtedly a shock, but the psychological damage is going to be greater if it is a woman who just got shot in the face. And while male POWs being executed is terrible, it is a lot easier to stomach than thinking about what happens to women caught by the enemy.
I'm not against women in combat roles but there are a lot of factors that need to be considered rather than just saying "women can do anything men can do" and dumping them on the front line.
Peregrine wrote: Why are we even talking about physical strength in a discussion of POWER ARMOR? The whole point of power armor is that it doesn't matter how strong you are. The machine is way stronger than any human could possibly dream of being, and all the human inside the armor does is tell the armor what to do. Talking about superior male strength makes about as much sense as arguing that men are better at typing because their awesome strength allows them to smash the keyboard harder.
If the strength of the wearer is irrelevant why do marines have their enhanced muscles and skeletons?
Why do regular humans in power armour have a lower strength in the game?
Peregrine wrote: Why are we even talking about physical strength in a discussion of POWER ARMOR? The whole point of power armor is that it doesn't matter how strong you are. The machine is way stronger than any human could possibly dream of being, and all the human inside the armor does is tell the armor what to do. Talking about superior male strength makes about as much sense as arguing that men are better at typing because their awesome strength allows them to smash the keyboard harder.
If the strength of the wearer is irrelevant why do marines have their enhanced muscles and skeletons?
Why do regular humans in power armour have a lower strength in the game?
It would seem that it's not quite that simple.
I think there are conflicting sources as GW is, well, inconsistent shall we say and it really is a minor thing, but depending on the wording Power Armour's strength and it's effect on the user could vary wildly.
If it Enhances the user's strength, it is simply adding, and thus is a flat added value on top of the user's natural strength. So a marine in power armour is still stronger than a human.
Peregrine's argument that the user's strength is irrelevant is something I have never seen before, within the context of the Imperium of Man the power armour they have produced has never made the strength of the user irrelevant that I have seen. That would be more related to Starship Troopers power armour, or perhaps even Terminator armour, but not Astartese power armour.
If the armour Multiplies the user's strength then the difference between a human and a marine would become even bigger through the use of power armour.
For my part I have always seen PA as enhancing the user's strength, so it is still very important to have a physically strong soldier inside, especially given that if the power pack is damaged or destroyed in battle your soldier then needs to be able to move in the heavy, unpowered suit or they are toast.
Yoyoyo wrote: “War is to man what maternity is to a woman" -- this is a real-life quote by Benito Mussolini, and most aspects of the Imperium fall into line with other aspects of fascism:
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
4. Supremacy of the Military
5. Rampant Sexism
6. Controlled Mass Media
7. Obsession with National Security
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined
9. Corporate Power is Protected
10. Labor Power is Suppressed
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
14. Fraudulent Elections
Glorification of male warriors like Space Marines, and reduction/celebration of women as a reproductive means to produce more warriors, is 100% fascist. I hope everyone here can recognize that arguments about the "rightful place of women" have been made before!
Damn, why so much insistence to associate the Imperium with specifically Benito's Italy? That does not make much sense. The Imperium has totalitarian aspects, and Benito's Italy had totalitarian aspects too. But so did the USSR, that did not stop them from having women in the army.
And the comparison is extremely weak, given how 40k also have a LOT of similarity with some feudal system, very unlike fascism.
I mean, have you looked at your list?
4 is wrong (just look at the High Lord composition, there is not even a single permanent siege for someone from the military. And before you ask, Arbites are the police, not the military, and assassins are assassins, not military. The only military positions are Lord Commander of Segmentum Solar and Lord Commander Militant of the Imperial Guard)
5 is wrong
6 is wrong (DUH. I mean, have you read anything about 40k and the variety of planets and the differences in technology and the difficulty of communications through Astropath? Of course there is not going to be mass media!)
9 is not even applicable (Ever seen any mention of a corporation in 40k? Because I sure as hell have not.)
11 is wrong (Have you missed how blood angels are supposed to be delicate artists? Have you missed how, say, the Ecclesiarchy is a fine patron of the arts?)
13 is wrong (It's much more about incompetence than corruption)
14 is wrong (No election means not fraudulent election, and I don't remember seeing a lot of elections mentioned in the fluff)
And many of the others are barely half-truth, given the variety of cultures and societies that make the Imperium what it is. Try to test out your little list against Fenris, for instance. Now 1,2,3,6,7,9,10,11,12,13,14 are wrong \o/.
jonolikespie wrote: And while male POWs being executed is terrible, it is a lot easier to stomach than thinking about what happens to women caught by the enemy.
You do realize that men can be raped too? And that it does actually happen during wartime?
koooaei wrote: Modern day soldiers carry even more weight than medieval soldirs - surprise.
Woah, if only the armor would be able to carry itself. And we could call such armor, maybe, a power armor! And maybe we could physically modify the soldiers, men and women, up to a point that their initial strength do not matter?
SURPRISE!!! IT'S THE FUTURE!
koooaei wrote: Modern day soldiers carry even more weight than medieval soldirs - surprise.
Woah, if only the armor would be able to carry itself. And we could call such armor, maybe, a power armor! And maybe we could physically modify the soldiers, men and women, up to a point that their initial strength do not matter?
SURPRISE!!! IT'S THE FUTURE!
Ashiraya wrote: Because Boyz are in no way stronger than humans either. They are both S3, you know?
IOW, game mechanics should not be used in lore contexts.
Than human boyz or human girlz? Are we about to claim that an average woman is as strong and enduring as an average man?
What are we trying to argue here? Men just fit better. Noone actually prohibits you from making a full girl chapter claiming something like: "Alpha legion screwed up the initial gene seed and it only works on girls now". Add pigtails to your helmless chapter masters and here you go.
Why not. That's your head cannon. I don't mind. Just say it can work for girls too and make a chapter of girl-marines. Noone actually prohibits it. If something, it'd be cool. There might be a problem with female heads though. But not a huge one. People made pony-marines.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Or you could run SoB with marine rules.
I run orks with harlequin rules and noone has anything against it.
I was not talking headcanon. I was saying that since we have angelic supersaiyans shooting fire, flying space-wizards, daemons, aliens who make things work by believing they will and ancient space-elves facing soul-eating monsters, the notion of the strength difference between human sexes becoming rapidly irrelevant or non-existent seems completely reasonable.
Why not. That's your head cannon. I don't mind. Just say it can work for girls too and make a chapter of girl-marines. Noone actually prohibits it. If something, it'd be cool. There might be a problem with female heads though. But not a huge one. People made pony-marines.
Peregrine wrote: Why are we even talking about physical strength in a discussion of POWER ARMOR? The whole point of power armor is that it doesn't matter how strong you are. The machine is way stronger than any human could possibly dream of being, and all the human inside the armor does is tell the armor what to do. Talking about superior male strength makes about as much sense as arguing that men are better at typing because their awesome strength allows them to smash the keyboard harder.
If the strength of the wearer is irrelevant why do marines have their enhanced muscles and skeletons?
Why do regular humans in power armour have a lower strength in the game?
It would seem that it's not quite that simple.
If PA doesn't make the strength/model argument irrelevant may I just pose a question... why does an Imperial guard weapon's team require 2 individuals to carry,fire and maintain...say a heavy bolter and a SOB can do the same on her own (like a space marine) and yet her strength characteristic is 3?
Or why is a Callidus Assassin strength 4 without PA ..game mechanics, models and fluff do not match up with each other.
Torus wrote: why does an Imperial guard weapon's team require 2 individuals to carry,fire and maintain...say a heavy bolter and a SOB can do the same on her own (like a space marine) and yet her strength characteristic is 3?
That I think has a lot to do more with the weapon itself. Guard heavy bolters are big, heavy, with tripods and ammo belts that need to be fed into them by a loader.
Marines and Sisters have better gear. Yes it is still a heavy bolter, but a smaller one, with ammunition cases or backpack feeds that removes the need of a loader.
Ashiraya wrote: Why on earth would you give them armour emphasising -any- features?
According to some people in this thread you need to make them very clearly female - a "realistic" female space marine (i.e. basically indistinguishable from male in armour) is not acceptable.
What is the point of creating a game piece for girls to use to represent themselves in the imaginary world of the game if it's exactly the same as the existing male figures?
Conversely, why are so many boys on this forum so opposed to representing themselves in the game as female looking game pieces? Why would you care, if the format of the game pieces is irrelevant?
Ashiraya wrote: Why on earth would you give them armour emphasising -any- features?
According to some people in this thread you need to make them very clearly female - a "realistic" female space marine (i.e. basically indistinguishable from male in armour) is not acceptable.
What is the point of creating a game piece for girls to use to represent themselves in the imaginary world of the game if it's exactly the same as the existing male figures?
That line of thinking leads to a particular problem that you can see in some other games. One I would bring up as an example is World of Warcraft, but this applies in general. When you have the archetypal version of a figure designed as male, and then have a female figure designed with the notion that it must be different to the male one in particular major ways, the female figure gets moved further away from the archetype. I hope you see what I mean?
Personally, I think the best way for space marines, say, would be to have them all look the same in the armour, but have the characters without helmets have identifiably female faces, and obviously put room for it in the fluff. That way any proportion of your army is whatever gender since you have established room for the characters to be male or female.
An example of one I think moved backwards is Eldar. In the olden days, since they all looked the same, who could say which is which gender? These days they have boobplate, so suddenly a specific minority of them are singled out as female and the rest are left as male by default.
Ashiraya wrote: Why on earth would you give them armour emphasising -any- features?
According to some people in this thread you need to make them very clearly female - a "realistic" female space marine (i.e. basically indistinguishable from male in armour) is not acceptable.
What is the point of creating a game piece for girls to use to represent themselves in the imaginary world of the game if it's exactly the same as the existing male figures?
Who exactly are overly sexualized miniatures going to appeal to?
Look at Infinity - lots of female minis but definitely biases towards skimpier clothing and poses that stick the ass out. Infinity doesn't have a significant female player base so either wargaming in general just isn't a big pull for women regardless of female models or sexy female minis is just as bad as a shortage of female minis.
Kilkrazy wrote: The fluff is what GW say it is. All space marines have to be boys, because GW said so. You can't get more plainly sexist than that.
There's no doubting Space Marines are sexist.... but is that really a problem GW need to fix? I tend to think not.
By this logic, Sisters of battle are sexist because "No men under arms." Y'all need to take a chill pill and realise this is a game, not real life issues.
Kilkrazy wrote: The fluff is what GW say it is. All space marines have to be boys, because GW said so. You can't get more plainly sexist than that.
There's no doubting Space Marines are sexist.... but is that really a problem GW need to fix? I tend to think not.
By this logic, Sisters of battle are sexist because "No men under arms." Y'all need to take a chill pill and realise this is a game, not real life issues.
I agree. We're not talking about access to education or jobs or voting here. We're talking about a luxury product (I use the term luxury because it is something that no-one needs). All luxury products are about appeal (because they don't satisfy a need) and to maximise this most are deliberately designed to appeal more to one gender or the other.
There is nothing wrong with this.
Or are we going to complain that Anderson & Sheppard only make mens clothes and Chanel only make womens clothes?
Kilkrazy wrote: The fluff is what GW say it is. All space marines have to be boys, because GW said so. You can't get more plainly sexist than that.
There's no doubting Space Marines are sexist.... but is that really a problem GW need to fix? I tend to think not.
By this logic, Sisters of battle are sexist because "No men under arms." Y'all need to take a chill pill and realise this is a game, not real life issues.
SoB are sexist. Anything that discriminates by sex is sexist.
My point is just because something in an imaginary game world is sexist doesn't mean it needs to be "fixed" to be gender neutral.
Kilkrazy wrote: The fluff is what GW say it is. All space marines have to be boys, because GW said so. You can't get more plainly sexist than that.
There's no doubting Space Marines are sexist.... but is that really a problem GW need to fix? I tend to think not.
By this logic, Sisters of battle are sexist because "No men under arms." Y'all need to take a chill pill and realise this is a game, not real life issues.
SoB are sexist. Anything that discriminates by sex is sexist.
My point is just because something in an imaginary game world is sexist doesn't mean it needs to be "fixed" to be gender neutral.
True but there have real orders in real life that have only accepted certain sexes or sexualities.
If a game is replicating real life is it any less than what it was before?
For example in my stories and my book that I am publishing there is one order made up exclusively of men, not because of some held sexist viewpoint I the author held, but because it adds variety, not every organization or group will hold the same type of values as another. The Golden Horde being my example of that, compared to the Obsidia Knights or the Coven. If all of them had a shared view point and values it would be unrealisitic and a parody of itself.
A space marine not being female for example is nonissue, because being a space marine is literally being turned into a mindless puppet of the imperium war machine, more so than any of the other organizations. The Sisters of battle on the other hand will allow any woman to join, as long as they can get through the processes to become one.
In either situation it is worse off, do I be warrior who can live for aeons with no hope for peace? or a zealot with a very low chance of reprieve and peace.
In universe organizations that recruit specifically from certain sexes are not inherently sexist. Nor do the demean the whole group.
But what about diversity?
Diversity is always an issue when it comes to writing anything, if you want to make an interesting organization look at current groups and see what you are missing.
I do think it is a problem in 40k, it is no surprise and is one that I often talk about with people, calling 40k sexist, not because of the author's complaints but because of how poorly written it is, and how it is represented, the easiness of just adding a feminine feature is so ludcriously easily it is almost a parody of itself.
I do believe though that if we were to focus our attention onto what is wrong first, before coming up with solutions we will be able to figure out a solution from the truer problem, the answer is not always so simplified and so easy to contort.
Kilkrazy wrote: The fluff is what GW say it is. All space marines have to be boys, because GW said so. You can't get more plainly sexist than that.
There's no doubting Space Marines are sexist.... but is that really a problem GW need to fix? I tend to think not.
By this logic, Sisters of battle are sexist because "No men under arms." Y'all need to take a chill pill and realise this is a game, not real life issues.
SoB are sexist. Anything that discriminates by sex is sexist.
My point is just because something in an imaginary game world is sexist doesn't mean it needs to be "fixed" to be gender neutral.
It shouldn't. The entire fluff would need to be rewritten.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: […]And maybe we could physically modify the soldiers, men and women, up to a point that their initial strength do not matter? SURPRISE!!! IT'S THE FUTURE!
How come sob are s3 than?
You may not be familiar with their fluff, but Sisters are normal humans, whose bodies are modified only by a very, very rigorous training (and a few extra, like juvenat treatment for the older members, but nothing on the same scale as the marine process).
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: One I would bring up as an example is World of Warcraft, but this applies in general. When you have the archetypal version of a figure designed as male, and then have a female figure designed with the notion that it must be different to the male one in particular major ways, the female figure gets moved further away from the archetype. I hope you see what I mean?
Let me translate. In WoW, male orcs are orcs, male trolls are trolls, female orcs are just women with green skin, female trolls are just women with blue skin, and this is completely creatively bankrupt.
I think I already asked, let me ask again. Beside that one line in that article in WD98, which piece of fluff would need to be rewritten? I am not sure how the Battle for Maccrage, or the 3rd war for Armaggedon, or the Age of Apostasy needs to be rewritten if female marines become a thing.
I think I already asked, let me ask again. Beside that one line in that article in WD98, which piece of fluff would need to be rewritten? I am not sure how the Battle for Maccrage, or the 3rd war for Armaggedon, or the Age of Apostasy needs to be rewritten if female marines become a thing.
They would have to re-write all of it to change "Battle Brothers" to "Sortie Siblings"!
Kilkrazy wrote: The fluff is what GW say it is. All space marines have to be boys, because GW said so. You can't get more plainly sexist than that.
There's no doubting Space Marines are sexist.... but is that really a problem GW need to fix? I tend to think not.
By this logic, Sisters of battle are sexist because "No men under arms." Y'all need to take a chill pill and realise this is a game, not real life issues.
That was covered in earlier pages of the thread.
Perhaps you should take your own advice, take a chill pill and accept female space marines, as it's so unimportant.
Who exactly are overly sexualized miniatures going to appeal to?
Look at Infinity - lots of female minis but definitely biases towards skimpier clothing and poses that stick the ass out. Infinity doesn't have a significant female player base so either wargaming in general just isn't a big pull for women regardless of female models or sexy female minis is just as bad as a shortage of female minis.
I'd simply say that women are not nearly as interested in wargaming. The ones I do know that play or paint don't go straight for female heavy armies, but monstrous ones like Nids or Legion of Everblight.
In my experience I'd actually say there is more of a demand for male pinups than there is female space marines.
Kilkrazy wrote: The fluff is what GW say it is. All space marines have to be boys, because GW said so. You can't get more plainly sexist than that.
There's no doubting Space Marines are sexist.... but is that really a problem GW need to fix? I tend to think not.
By this logic, Sisters of battle are sexist because "No men under arms." Y'all need to take a chill pill and realise this is a game, not real life issues.
That was covered in earlier pages of the thread.
Perhaps you should take your own advice, take a chill pill and accept female space marines, as it's so unimportant.
Or we could just leave everything as is. Nothing was broken besides the SoB armour. That's Baroque'n -rimshot-
jonolikespie wrote: I'd simply say that women are not nearly as interested in wargaming.
Have you considered asking why?
I have not, because I have never seen any express interest in anything other than the painting side of the hobby except for those that were already playing and didn't seem to be put off by the ratio of male to female models.
jonolikespie wrote: I'd simply say that women are not nearly as interested in wargaming.
Have you considered asking why?
I have not, because I have never seen any express interest in anything other than the painting side of the hobby except for those that were already playing and didn't seem to be put off by the ratio of male to female models.
Already playing and being put off by the ratio of male models to female models aren't mutually exclusive.
Kilkrazy wrote: The fluff is what GW say it is. All space marines have to be boys, because GW said so. You can't get more plainly sexist than that.
There's no doubting Space Marines are sexist.... but is that really a problem GW need to fix? I tend to think not.
By this logic, Sisters of battle are sexist because "No men under arms." Y'all need to take a chill pill and realise this is a game, not real life issues.
That was covered in earlier pages of the thread.
Perhaps you should take your own advice, take a chill pill and accept female space marines, as it's so unimportant.
Should Garfield become a dog because people like those and feel it would be more fair to have a dog comic to a cat only comic? It's pretty far stretched, but the point is it's their established background; part of the core of their character. If female space marines were to become a thing, then what would happen to the sisters? They would lose part of their unique flavour as a female only power armoured force to somewhat mirror the space marine's male only in a way. The last time a race didn't have it's own unique feeling to the background, their entire race was devoured by the Tyranids to avoid any effort to try to give them new meaning.
As it's been brought up a few times it's not even the balance of models when it comes to feeling disincluded or whatever, it's to do more with the atmosphere created by the playerbase. Perhaps that is the real issue we should all be spending over 15 pages to discuss because frankly all this talk about gender representation in models feels more like it's skipping around actual issues. I've never given the fact that marines are male only even a second thought, they had just said they are and my response was along the lines of "k".
n0t_u wrote: If female space marines were to become a thing, then what would happen to the sisters? They would lose part of their unique flavour as a female only power armoured force to somewhat mirror the space marine's male only in a way.
Good. Sisters' only excuse for existing being 'token females' is bad. They need a better reason for existing.
Which they do. The military arm of the church, ostentatious and zealous. Hell, if we are going to give three different chapters their own codices, that is certainly different enough. It just needs emphasis, exposition and exploration, which they don't get because GW has basically forgotten about them. .
n0t_u wrote: It's pretty far stretched, but the point is it's their established background; part of the core of their character.
How so?
n0t_u wrote: If female space marines were to become a thing, then what would happen to the sisters? They would lose part of their unique flavour as a female only power armoured force to somewhat mirror the space marine's male only in a way.
You have a very, very shallow understanding of Sisters if you think so.
n0t_u wrote: If female space marines were to become a thing, then what would happen to the sisters? They would lose part of their unique flavour as a female only power armoured force to somewhat mirror the space marine's male only in a way.
Good. Sisters' only excuse for existing being 'token females' is bad. They need a better reason for existing.
Which they do. The military arm of the church, ostentatious and zealous. Hell, if we are going to give three different chapters their own codices, that is certainly different enough. It just needs emphasis, exposition and exploration, which they don't get because GW has basically forgotten about them. .
They are (or were) supposed to be the Yin to the Astartes' Yang.
But it'd also take more effort on GW's part. And GW putting that much effort in to Sisters is about as likely as China admitting it doesn't own Taiwan.
Tactical_Spam wrote: They are (or were) supposed to be the Yin to the Astartes' Yang.
I have Codex: Sisters of Battle, from 2nd edition, and the answer is NO. Nope. Not by a long shot. Have you ever given this venerable document a look? It actually almost focuses more on the Ecclesiarchy than on the Sisters. It feature details about the story of Gogue Vandire and Sebastian Thor that were never edited again. It gives us the story of Bucharis and Dolan Chirosius. It gives us a completely different insight of the Imperium, by focusing more on civilian and political matters, and less on “My chapter master is so strong he stand at the door and kill one million orks! Yeah, and my primarch is so strong that he punches a titan warlord to death and then throw it at a space ship to make both explode! BOOM!”.
The Sisters are a reflection of the Ecclesiarchy on the battlefield. If there is a reason for them being all female, it as much more to do with showing how the politics of the Imperium are devious than to contrast marines.
Melissia wrote: But it'd also take more effort on GW's part. And GW putting that much effort in to Sisters is about as likely as China admitting it doesn't own Taiwan.
So why don't you guys write some Dakka-official fluff for sisters?
Melissia wrote: But it'd also take more effort on GW's part. And GW putting that much effort in to Sisters is about as likely as China admitting it doesn't own Taiwan.
So why don't you guys write some Dakka-official fluff for sisters?
I created an entire new fan-codex for Sisters back in fifth edition. It's still better than anything GW has put out to date.
It mostly works just one way. Regardless, your lazy assertion of "it's sexist against men!" needs substantiation.
Of course its a lazy assertion, just like this entire thread. Its all whining and moaning about gak we can't change. Sexism, racism, etc, works both ways. Black people can be discriminatory against white people and women can discriminate against men. No one is excluded from this. This stupid victim mentality of "Women don't have enough representation!" in Warhammer 40k is laughable. Eldar and Tau have female models and females in the fluff, its just one faction that doesn't get representation on the table or the fluff, SoB. There is likely a reason why Sisters get no love and it might have something to do with how well they sell. GW only follows a money trail and clearly, SoB doesn't have one or they would have had an updated model line.
Tactical_Spam wrote: Of course its a lazy assertion, just like this entire thread.
People in this thread have put actual efforts in to their discussion, and more thought in to their arguments-- on both sides-- than just a single halfarsed, poorly thought through one-liner.
Asserting ultimate rationality upon GW is not, in and of itself, an assumption that can be proven to be true.
Tactical_Spam wrote: Of course its a lazy assertion, just like this entire thread.
People in this thread have put actual efforts in to their discussion, and more thought in to their arguments-- on both sides-- than just a single halfarsed, poorly thought through one-liner.
Asserting ultimate rationality upon GW is not, in and of itself, an assumption that can be proven to be true.
I didn't put a single one liner... That's just what you cherry picked out. Most people would argue everything I said, but alas, this thread has shown we only know how to cherry pick. I bet Dakkadakka could start a Cherry farm with how good we are at cherry picking.
Tactical_Spam wrote: I didn't put a single one liner... That's just what you cherry picked out. Most people would argue everything I said, but alas, this thread has shown we only know how to cherry pick. I bet Dakkadakka could start a Cherry farm with how good we are at cherry picking.
I did argue with what you said.
And I quote (as did you, in case you weren't paying attention):
Melissia wrote: Asserting ultimate rationality upon GW is not, in and of itself, an assumption that can be proven to be true.
Your entire argument works off of the assumption that GW is perfectly rational. Except GW is made up of human beings, who are, by their very nature, incapable of being perfectly rational.
As recently as one of the horus Heresy novels series this was addressed again and clearly stated that there are no female primarchs and the process does not work on woman. GW has doubled down on this and everyone should just accept their decision. If you feel that a game oppresses you, compared to all the other issues in the world today, I question your priorities.
Tactical_Spam wrote: I didn't put a single one liner... That's just what you cherry picked out. Most people would argue everything I said, but alas, this thread has shown we only know how to cherry pick. I bet Dakkadakka could start a Cherry farm with how good we are at cherry picking.
I did argue with what you said.
And I quote (as did you, in case you weren't paying attention):
Melissia wrote: Asserting ultimate rationality upon GW is not, in and of itself, an assumption that can be proven to be true.
Your entire argument works off of the assumption that GW is perfectly rational. Except GW is made up of human beings, who are, by their very nature, incapable of being perfectly rational.
Games Workshop is a Model Company. Why would I assume they were rational?
Tactical_Spam wrote: Sexism, racism, etc, works both ways. Black people can be discriminatory against white people and women can discriminate against men.
Yeah, they could. But not holding power is not really going to help them, does it?
To argue that it works both way means that either you are blind, or you are deciding to focus on things that are “possible” rather than things that are actually happening.
Tactical_Spam wrote: Sexism, racism, etc, works both ways. Black people can be discriminatory against white people and women can discriminate against men.
Yeah, they could. But not holding power is not really going to help them, does it?
To argue that it works both way means that either you are blind, or you are deciding to focus on things that are “possible” rather than things that are actually happening.
Our president is a daemon prince of Tzeentch "black." Your argument is invalid
Did I say something about victim mentality? I think I did.
Tactical_Spam wrote: Sexism, racism, etc, works both ways. Black people can be discriminatory against white people and women can discriminate against men.
Yeah, they could. But not holding power is not really going to help them, does it?
To argue that it works both way means that either you are blind, or you are deciding to focus on things that are “possible” rather than things that are actually happening.
Could you clarify what you mean here? I'm unclear on what you are referring to in this response.
I mean, it seems to me that everyone can discriminate against everyone, but I don't think that's what you were addressing.
Sexism does not "work both ways." Our culture suffers from ingrained institutional sexism - specifically, it is male-supremacist. It glorifies attributes it sees as masculine, and defines as masculine attributes that it sees as admirable. Conversely, it tends to denigrate attributes that it sees as feminine and assign attributes that it sees as negative to femininity.
Men can suffer from our male supremacist culture too. For example, men who are seen to be insufficiently masculine are looked down upon or even physically assaulted. So are men who exhibit qualities that our culture defines as feminine. This is not a state of affairs intrinsic to existence - we can change it with conscious effort.
Tactical_Spam wrote: Black people can be discriminatory against white people and women can discriminate against men.
Sexism and racism are not really about the isolated prejudices of individuals. They are about broad patterns across society. To use racism as an example, studies have shown that people with, for lack of a better term, non-white-sounding names are evaluated as less competent than their counterparts with white-sounding names. There is no reflection here, because white people predominantly control the wealth in our society - even if an individual black person (say) were to discriminate in an identical way against white people, it would not have the same effect because the institutional power lies with the white person.
Tactical_Spam wrote: No one is excluded from this. This stupid victim mentality of "Women don't have enough representation!" in Warhammer 40k is laughable.
There are a couple of cool things about representation. We are affected by culture, and we in turn shape culture. By changing culture, we can help change our own attitudes. By including women, we wear away at sexist prejudice, in however small a way.
It's nice to be able to see yourself represented. If you're a white guy, it's probably really easy to take that for granted, because our society is filled with that representation.
It's also nice when you feel like you are included in something. When women encounter things like the space marine or ork fluff, it sends a message that for whatever reason, we are not welcome. For some reason, these things have been written to specifically exclude women from the setting for no apparent reason. It's alienating.
Tactical_Spam wrote: There is likely a reason why Sisters get no love and it might have something to do with how well they sell. GW only follows a money trail and clearly, SoB doesn't have one or they would have had an updated model line.
"Only follow the money trail" is not good enough. People have a responsibility to act in an ethical way, not just the way that generates the most profit, and it is totally fine for people to hold them to that standard.
"Only follow the money trail" is not good enough. People have a responsibility to act in an ethical way, not just the way that generates the most profit, and it is totally fine for people to hold them to that standard.
GW is only responsible for following a money trail, as long as they are not doing anything illegal. They can do what ever they feel, or knows will make them a profit. If sisters do not make a profit, there is no need for them to recast them, and there is nothing unethical about not selling something that does not make you money/ profit.
Sexism does not "work both ways." Our culture suffers from ingrained institutional sexism - specifically, it is male-supremacist. It glorifies attributes it sees as masculine, and defines as masculine attributes that it sees as admirable. Conversely, it tends to denigrate attributes that it sees as feminine and assign attributes that it sees as negative to femininity.
Men can suffer from our male supremacist culture too. For example, men who are seen to be insufficiently masculine are looked down upon or even physically assaulted. So are men who exhibit qualities that our culture defines as feminine. This is not a state of affairs intrinsic to existence - we can change it with conscious effort.
Tactical_Spam wrote: Black people can be discriminatory against white people and women can discriminate against men.
Sexism and racism are not really about the isolated prejudices of individuals. They are about broad patterns across society. To use racism as an example, studies have shown that people with, for lack of a better term, non-white-sounding names are evaluated as less competent than their counterparts with white-sounding names. There is no reflection here, because white people predominantly control the wealth in our society - even if an individual black person (say) were to discriminate in an identical way against white people, it would not have the same effect because the institutional power lies with the white person.
Tactical_Spam wrote: No one is excluded from this. This stupid victim mentality of "Women don't have enough representation!" in Warhammer 40k is laughable.
There are a couple of cool things about representation. We are affected by culture, and we in turn shape culture. By changing culture, we can help change our own attitudes. By including women, we wear away at sexist prejudice, in however small a way.
It's nice to be able to see yourself represented. If you're a white guy, it's probably really easy to take that for granted, because our society is filled with that representation.
It's also nice when you feel like you are included in something. When women encounter things like the space marine or ork fluff, it sends a message that for whatever reason, we are not welcome. For some reason, these things have been written to specifically exclude women from the setting for no apparent reason. It's alienating.
Tactical_Spam wrote: There is likely a reason why Sisters get no love and it might have something to do with how well they sell. GW only follows a money trail and clearly, SoB doesn't have one or they would have had an updated model line.
"Only follow the money trail" is not good enough. People have a responsibility to act in an ethical way, not just the way that generates the most profit, and it is totally fine for people to hold them to that standard.
"Only follow the money trail" is not good enough. People have a responsibility to act in an ethical way, not just the way that generates the most profit, and it is totally fine for people to hold them to that standard.
GW is only responsible for following a money trail, as long as they are not doing anything illegal. They can do what ever they feel, or knows will make them a profit. If sisters do not make a profit, there is no need for them to recast them, and there is nothing unethical about not selling something that does not make you money/ profit.
The only way you can possibly justify that is if you think individual human beings are only responsible for following a money trail, as long as they're not doing anything illegal. Corporations aren't anything other than groupings of people. To say they have no ethical responsibility just because they're a social group is morally incoherent.
"Only follow the money trail" is not good enough. People have a responsibility to act in an ethical way, not just the way that generates the most profit, and it is totally fine for people to hold them to that standard.
GW is only responsible for following a money trail, as long as they are not doing anything illegal. They can do what ever they feel, or knows will make them a profit. If sisters do not make a profit, there is no need for them to recast them, and there is nothing unethical about not selling something that does not make you money/ profit.
The only way you can possibly justify that is if you think individual human beings are only responsible for following a money trail, as long as they're not doing anything illegal. Corporations aren't anything other than groupings of people. To say they have no ethical responsibility just because they're a social group is morally incoherent.
A company has an ethical responsibility to keep it self in business and to keep its employees paid. If they fail at either of those then they won't be a company for much longer. Your statement about that being morally incoherent, makes no sense. If they did not want to redo sisters because they made a statement saying they hate women that is bad. If they dont redo sisters since they never sold well that is fine, and the intelligent and proper way to proceed.
Tactical_Spam wrote: This stupid victim mentality of "Women don't have enough representation!" in Warhammer 40k is laughable.
Yes, you did.
I did, but we keep looking at where there isn't representation. Its like looking at Imperial Fists and saying there isn't any minorities represented, when the Crimnson Fists are Latino.
"Only follow the money trail" is not good enough. People have a responsibility to act in an ethical way, not just the way that generates the most profit, and it is totally fine for people to hold them to that standard.
GW is only responsible for following a money trail, as long as they are not doing anything illegal. They can do what ever they feel, or knows will make them a profit. If sisters do not make a profit, there is no need for them to recast them, and there is nothing unethical about not selling something that does not make you money/ profit.
The only way you can possibly justify that is if you think individual human beings are only responsible for following a money trail, as long as they're not doing anything illegal. Corporations aren't anything other than groupings of people. To say they have no ethical responsibility just because they're a social group is morally incoherent.
A company has an ethical responsibility to keep it self in business and to keep its employees paid. If they fail at either of those then they won't be a company for much longer. Your statement about that being morally incoherent, makes no sense. If they did not want to redo sisters because they made a statement saying they hate women that is bad. If they dont redo sisters since they never sold well that is fine, and the intelligent and proper way to proceed.
Companies aren't alive. They're groupings of people. People have ethical responsibilities, and I think one of those is to try and make the world a little better in whatever way. Since companies are just groupings of people, they also share this responsibility.
Yes, they do have to work within our society's capitalistic framework to survive, but a cool thing is a lot of inclusivity doesn't actually cost more. It just means keeping it in mind when working on the stories and the models. Hopefully by doing that they'll be able to make a better product that makes people even happier than it does now.
"Only follow the money trail" is not good enough. People have a responsibility to act in an ethical way, not just the way that generates the most profit, and it is totally fine for people to hold them to that standard.
GW is only responsible for following a money trail, as long as they are not doing anything illegal. They can do what ever they feel, or knows will make them a profit. If sisters do not make a profit, there is no need for them to recast them, and there is nothing unethical about not selling something that does not make you money/ profit.
The only way you can possibly justify that is if you think individual human beings are only responsible for following a money trail, as long as they're not doing anything illegal. Corporations aren't anything other than groupings of people. To say they have no ethical responsibility just because they're a social group is morally incoherent.
A company has an ethical responsibility to keep it self in business and to keep its employees paid. If they fail at either of those then they won't be a company for much longer. Your statement about that being morally incoherent, makes no sense. If they did not want to redo sisters because they made a statement saying they hate women that is bad. If they dont redo sisters since they never sold well that is fine, and the intelligent and proper way to proceed.
Companies aren't alive. They're groupings of people. People have ethical responsibilities, and I think one of those is to try and make the world a little better in whatever way. Since companies are just groupings of people, they also share this responsibility.
Yes, they do have to work within our society's capitalistic framework to survive, but a cool thing is a lot of inclusivity doesn't actually cost more. It just means keeping it in mind when working on the stories and the models. Hopefully by doing that they'll be able to make a better product that makes people even happier than it does now.
The company's ethical responsibility is to keep people on the pay roll. Should we lay people off to cover the cost of more models that haven't sold well? Is your personal enjoyment worth more than keeping a family fed?
Tactical_Spam wrote: This stupid victim mentality of "Women don't have enough representation!" in Warhammer 40k is laughable.
Yes, you did.
I did, but we keep looking at where there isn't representation. Its like looking at Imperial Fists and saying there isn't any minorities represented, when the Crimnson Fists are Latino.
And when you look at the whole product line of 40K, you realise that women presence amount to tokenism and very, very far from equal (or near equal) representation. Thinking that women are well represented in 40K is absurd and I don't even know why anybody would argue that it is (unless you are mysoginistic enough to consider that women should have no place or very little place in that medium). I think there is nothing more strange than and more representative of «victim mentality» than a man protesting or victime blaiming a group when his priviledge are critiqued.
Tactical_Spam wrote: This stupid victim mentality of "Women don't have enough representation!" in Warhammer 40k is laughable.
Yes, you did.
I did, but we keep looking at where there isn't representation. Its like looking at Imperial Fists and saying there isn't any minorities represented, when the Crimnson Fists are Latino.
And when you look at the whole product line of 40K, you realise that women presence amount to tokenism and very, very far from equal (or near equal) representation. Thinking that women are well represented in 40K is absurd and I don't even know why anybody would argue that it is (unless you are mysoginistic enough to consider that women should have no place or very little place in that medium). I think there is nothing more strange than and more representative of «victim mentality» than a man protesting or victime blaiming a group when his priviledge are critiqued.
I thought we could get through this argument without me having to check my privilege. I was wrong.
What is wrong with putting more resources into the fluff of the SoB? Give them some fanfare, get people interested, get people excited for a new model line of SoB. Logic like this doesn't apply for GW.
I agree that there should be more females in 40k, and SoB in particular need to be accessible in general (for selfish reasons, I WANT THEM), but I don't think it does a lot for your argument when people say check your privledge or something to that effect.
Tactical_Spam wrote: Our president is a daemon prince of Tzeentch "black." Your argument is invalid
So, how many presidents of the USA were black? How many were women? Which percentage of the current congress is black? Women? Which percentage of the CEO of multinationals?
Damn, how could I not realize the literally the only metric was who is the current president…
The current president is also often hated and mistrusted specifically because of his skin color, with people throwing around accusations of "Muslim!" (which is apparently a bad thign now?) because of his skin color and ethnic name. It's foolish to argue we currently live in an equal society, especially when it's kind of tangential to the topic at hand.
Tactical_Spam wrote: Our president is a daemon prince of Tzeentch "black." Your argument is invalid
So, how many presidents of the USA were black? How many were women? Which percentage of the current congress is black? Women? Which percentage of the CEO of multinationals?
Damn, how could I not realize the literally the only metric was who is the current president…
Discrimination happens. You said Black people can't be racist because they haven't been in power, so I gave you an example. Everyone is capable of discrimination. It doesn't matter if you are in power or not.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: The current president is also often hated and mistrusted specifically because of his skin color, with people throwing around accusations of "Muslim!" (which is apparently a bad thign now?) because of his skin color and ethnic name. It's foolish to argue we currently live in an equal society, especially when it's kind of tangential to the topic at hand.
I think the current president, Obama, sucks because he only separated the American peoples, not united them.
And when you look at any real army, you realise that women presence amount to tokenism and very, very far from equal (or near equal) representation. Thinking that women are well represented in any real army absurd and I don't even know why anybody would argue that it is (unless you are realistic enough to consider that women should have no place or very little place in that medium).
Tactical_Spam wrote: Our president is a daemon prince of Tzeentch "black." Your argument is invalid
So, how many presidents of the USA were black? How many were women? Which percentage of the current congress is black? Women? Which percentage of the CEO of multinationals?
Damn, how could I not realize the literally the only metric was who is the current president…
Discrimination happens. You said Black people can't be racist because they haven't been in power, so I gave you an example. Everyone is capable of discrimination. It doesn't matter if you are in power or not.
Thank you. I've seen a lot of this "reverse racism doesn't exist" and it makes my blood boil. You can be a racist prick regardless of soci-economic status as well as *gasp* race or gender. Same goes for sexism.
Tactical_Spam wrote: Our president is a daemon prince of Tzeentch "black." Your argument is invalid
So, how many presidents of the USA were black? How many were women? Which percentage of the current congress is black? Women? Which percentage of the CEO of multinationals?
Damn, how could I not realize the literally the only metric was who is the current president…
Discrimination happens. You said Black people can't be racist because they haven't been in power, so I gave you an example. Everyone is capable of discrimination. It doesn't matter if you are in power or not.
Thank you. I've seen a lot of this "reverse racism doesn't exist" and it makes my blood boil. You can be a racist prick regardless of soci-economic status as well as *gasp* race or gender. Same goes for sexism.
Agreed. Being a visible minority doesn't inherently make oneself magically "non-racist". Hell I'm Chinese and we have a bunch of racist slang terms for whites, blacks, etc. There's plenty of racism to go around, whether you're black, white, yellow or rainbow.
And when you look at any real army, you realise that women presence amount to tokenism and very, very far from equal (or near equal) representation. Thinking that women are well represented in any real army absurd and I don't even know why anybody would argue that it is (unless you are realistic enough to consider that women should have no place or very little place in that medium).
Some real army were made mostly of women (Kingdom of Dahomey, the most powerful African kingdom from the 15th to 19th century mostly known to be slavers and for their succesful production of peanut oil), pretty equal (Sarmatian Federation, an Empire the size of Ukraine built by a queen who «invented» Black Ops strategie and gave birth to the Greek legend of the Amazon) or pretty significant despite being less numerous (the kingdom of Champa in modern Vietnam was known to boast several female generals and officers). No real army[/i] was ever made of super-soldiers, mutants, power armored troops, aliens, robots or mythological creatures. Yet [b]all armies of 40K have at least one element of that list if not several. This, ironically, make the Sisters of Battle more realistic than the Space Marines since there were armies made only of elite female warriors, but none of superhuman. If you want something that's trying to be realistic you should play historical game, but even these ones should have some female troops to represent women who did fight in those armies either as militia, strange exception or women in disguise since that would represent history better. Considering that the number of women in the army is augmenting steadily since the mid 70's, in about 30 to 40 years nearly half the recruits might very well be women at this rate. Shouldn't a futuristic army game represent the future and not the past (even if it can still draw from it) in its composition and tactic? Since 40K is a fictional universe we can have all that we want in it. Since women can and do fight in reality why should they not fight in fiction? Since the very best women in history in the fields of strategy, tactic or personnal combat can rival, equal or even best the very best men in history those very same field why should women in the future be any different (I can PM some biography if you want)? Last, but not least, perhaps you should question why its fine for you to play a futuristic army armed with poor quality axes and swords, but not one where a women (armed and armored with futuristic equipment). That tells me that your desire for realism is hypocritical and serves only as an excuse to defend your own sexism.
Koooaei, it is despicable to degrade either the contributions of women or the professionalism of partner nations in wars we have fought within our own lifetimes. By all means women are disproportionately represented in certain areas. In Canada, despite all trades being opened in 1989. women make up less than one-half of 1 percent of enlisted infantry. That's not surprising given the physical and psychological demands of the job and the social realities of our culture. But let's not disrespect female war vets who have served IRL while others speculate about their performance from a safe distance!
Sir,
I have just finished a 7 month tour with an Infantry Coy in Zhari, where I patrolled on foot on a regular basis alongside female medics and on a few occasion a female MP. They did the same job, carried the same kit and weapons, marched the same distances, took the same enemy fire and in all ran the same risks as the men. I never saw them flinch, display fear or weakness, and did their work with the same dedication and level of competence as the men present.
I witnessed, on the occasion of a recent deadly IED blast that took the lives of two Canadians, a female medic who was also caught in the explosion be the first to jump up from the ground and administer aid, organise triage and performe her duties in a superb manner despite her injuries from her close proximity to the blast, and knowing well the two deceased soldiers.
After having been in combat alongside Canadian female soldiers, I have determined for direct experience that the women of today make as good soldiers as men.
Women in combat is a politically charged issue, but the facts -- not theory -- is women have been present in all our major wars for the last decade. Women's bodies are not identical to men, but even tier 1 operators like the ODA were attaching women to their teams to handle intelligence collection in Afghanistan (known as the CST). How is it if I want to represent a Canadian infantry platoon or a SF VSO with an attached CST in Afghanistan, I would need a female mini and it would offend nobody. Yet in 40k, which is FAR less realistic and very much a game where we can project any value we desire, people are arguing against the inclusion of women?
Let's show a little more consideration and respect, and less projection and ignorance, from those of you commenting from a safe distance. Put politely thread has some issues.
Kilkrazy wrote: That also used to be true of video games, and it has changed, of course, so why shouldn't it change in tabletop wargames?
FFS if men can dominate and take over my little pony, least they could do is stop whining when women come in to traditionally manly places.
No one is whining about women coming in to wargaming. I just don't think a productive way of getting women in to wargaming is "make female Space Marines".
Imaginary worlds can be sexist. Factions in imaginary worlds can be sexist. They can also be racist, violent, communist, religiously fanatical, totalitarian, downright evil and so on.
If you don't like the contents of an imaginary world, the solution isn't to tell people they have to make their imaginary worlds conform to your own desires, it's to ask why isn't anyone creating an imaginary world that does, and if they are but it's not popular, why isn't it popular.
Those questions are far more interesting than "why aren't there female Space Marines", a discussion which IMO just distracts and inflames the discussion of gender representation in wargames in general with something that is obviously contentious and not the source of the problems anyway.
Of course, it could be that one of the reasons why there are fewer women in wargames is that the current state of wargames is highly male oriented in terms of the units and models available, and that women are looking for more female heroine type of figures (not slut walking male fantasy styleee figures) and the provision of such figures would help entice them into the game.
Obviously historical games are always going to be sexist in terms or representation of female units or else they would be unrealistic. Equally obviously, that doesn't apply to fantasy or SF games.
This leads on to an interesting point, which is why having female space marines is contentious? Why are so many male players against the concept? It seems harmless enough.
To look at this issue from the other angle, is anyone genuinely of the opinion that heroic manly space marine models and their fluff and power in the game are unattractive to boys?
I'm against it because it requires two massive retcons.
Either the tech suddenly always work on woman, the emperor was wrong and 30 years of fact becomes dead in an instance to accommodate some vision of social justice. OR
The imperium makes some massive advance in technology and a process that they barely understand is suddenly is mastered to the point that they fixed a flaw the emperor couldn't fix. The backward techno-phobic empire suddenly isn't
I'm opposed to it because I oppose all retcons unless absolutely needed.
Space Marines are hyper-masculine power fantasy that is so overblown it teeters into parody. That's the joke. But GW has been eliminating the more obvious satirical "tells" in 40k, like CSM with electric guitars and Marbo. I suppose their reasoning is that a subversive tongue-in-cheek universe that can deceive its own younger fans isn't very comforting to investors.
What's happened is a bit like taking Zapp Brannigan from Futurama, and trying to play him in a movie as a straight hero with gravitas rather than a one-note joke about sexist machismo.
Either the tech suddenly always work on woman, the emperor was wrong and 30 years of fact becomes dead in an instance to accommodate some vision of social justice. OR
The imperium makes some massive advance in technology and a process that they barely understand is suddenly is mastered to the point that they fixed a flaw the emperor couldn't fix. The backward techno-phobic empire suddenly isn't
I'm opposed to it because I oppose all retcons unless absolutely needed.
These retcons are absolutely needed to introduce female space marines. Why don't you want to introduce female space marines?
Kilkrazy wrote: I think that's an interesting view of the topic.
Of course, it could be that one of the reasons why there are fewer women in wargames is that the current state of wargames is highly male oriented in terms of the units and models available, and that women are looking for more female heroine type of figures (not slut walking male fantasy styleee figures) and the provision of such figures would help entice them into the game.
Obviously historical games are always going to be sexist in terms or representation of female units or else they would be unrealistic. Equally obviously, that doesn't apply to fantasy or SF games.
This leads on to an interesting point, which is why having female space marines is contentious? Why are so many male players against the concept? It seems harmless enough.
To look at this issue from the other angle, is anyone genuinely of the opinion that heroic manly space marine models and their fluff and power in the game are unattractive to boys?
Regarding getting more girls to play I think the best comparison would be see how many women play infinity, which have quite a few female miniatures that are not too over the top in their appearance.
Either the tech suddenly always work on woman, the emperor was wrong and 30 years of fact becomes dead in an instance to accommodate some vision of social justice. OR
The imperium makes some massive advance in technology and a process that they barely understand is suddenly is mastered to the point that they fixed a flaw the emperor couldn't fix. The backward techno-phobic empire suddenly isn't
I'm opposed to it because I oppose all retcons unless absolutely needed.
These retcons are absolutely needed to introduce female space marines. Why don't you want to introduce female space marines?
We should honestly just get rid of the rest of the game then. If you are willing to retcon the most notable and recognizable faction in Warhammer40K, who says you won't retcon Dark Eldar because "Wyches portray females badly" or Necrons because "no Lord has been female?"
Because they have never been part of the story. This game has been around since 1987 and solidified into it's current form around 3rd edition. I oppose the change because it's sole purpose is to institute some twisted vision of social justice that everything must be 50 50 at all times. Men have historically and presently always been the ones to go out and fight. The change doesn't add anything to the story, it feels forced and frankly robs a faction of a unique factor.
Update sisters and make some female guard heads but stop trying to change the entire faction just to fit your world view.
The story has plenty of females. What I oppose is an arbitrary change just to shoe horn more woman in for the sake of more woman. This doesn't add anything to the game and starts a dangerous trend of invalidating everything unique about 40k in order to meet your vision of social justice. How long till wyches need to cover, Necrons need to decide what gender they identify with deep done inside. I oppose changes to a setting I love.
The Imperium is a empire under siege whose greastest advantage is it outnumbers everyone. Why would such an empire subject it's woman to a process that works 1 out of 1000 times at best when it needs more people.
Why people who proclaim that female SM are absolutely needed don't actually ask female players what they think about it?
Perhaps, most of them would despise such a recton, saying it is hurting the fluff in the name of values that have no sense in the universe.
Perhaps they would feel depressed because GW said you can't stick a female head on a SM body.
An in-depth study of the female gamers minority would tell you if your struggle is the right one or if you are just using the real problem of sexism to force your personal taste in a setting perhaps older than you. Any other affimation is just personal appreciation that anyone can attack with reason (for both "sides", if one can use that word), leading to threads longer than the War in Heaven.
Oh, and pages 16 to 18 are just sayin the exact same thing as the very first ones, with less arguments and no real debate though.
.
How do you determine I am offended? All you see is the face of Matt Ward.
.
