69049
Post by: ZSO, SAHAAL
I think it’s a major flaw and is in fact killing the series and keeping it from being what it could be. This is because well rounded characters and varying personalities and perspectives gives stories depth, people complain about lack of love in 40k but how can you have love when every female character is a pious sexually repressed nun, a snobbish aristocrat, or a sex slave captured by the dark elder. Often those who make fun of the sisters of battle are accused of misogyny and often the accusation is correct but again what do you expect, they've been set up to be Sci-Fi snuff, with dd's and beads and a "device", that looks like a chastity belt around their crotches along with matt wards bizarre fantasies mixed in the sisters of battle are obviously not meant to be taken seriously and for the most part their not.
The Solution: Include normal female characters that aren't getting chopped up or sexually enslaved. I believe ADB has done a great job with this in his books particularly in Soul Hunter where he actually had a love story, and had female characters that played non sexual roles such as Octavia’s servants and female members of the bridge crew. I think Chaos would be the best place to start with this introduction, the Imperials have already been fleshed out pretty will and it’s easier to add new material than to change material already in existence. Where lacking fluff on the mortal servants of Chaos, this seems like a great place to add normal female characters, partisans and resistance leaders fighting the Imperium, or captains leading the warmasters ships(their not all commanded by Chaos Marines after all), maybe some that got tired of the old boys club in the Imperium and did'nt want to be either a nun or the wife/plaything of an Imperial officer/gangleader/noble. This is a blunt and honest post and I demand blunt and honest responses. No sugarcoating. I'm making a poll of whether you agree completely, somewhat, or disagree completely so I can gauge overall opinion.
60944
Post by: Super Ready
ZSO, SAHAAL wrote:they've been set up to be Sci-Fi snuff, with dd's and beads and a "device", that looks like a chastity belt around their crotches along with matt wards bizarre fantasies mixed in the sisters of battle are obviously not meant to be taken seriously and for the most part their not.
I think a lot of people get suckered into their own trap with this one. Space Marines are also sexually inactive and monastic in EXACTLY the same way that Sisters are... and I'm not seeing the chastity belt thing if I'm honest. So why is it ok for Marines to be repressed and not Sisters? Sexist.  (I jest of course.)
Number two include normal female character that aren't getting chopped up or sexually enslaved.
Now THIS I can get behind. It would be nice to see more female models mixed in with males in normal units, and Dark Eldar (and to a lesser extent Craftworld Eldar) go some way to redressing this. Imperial Guard would be nice to have next. I think a big problem has been experience in modelling the female form, but there have been some great recent examples that indicate the skill is now there in GW's sculptors.
An extra point to make, too - I know 4 female gamers from my local store. And 3 of them, fickle as it may seem, pick their armies based on the models being female (my girlfriend for example collects Slaanesh Daemons and Dark Eldar). The remaining one paints her Space Wolves bright pink with rainbow logos.
There's a market here that GW might not crack with their more traditional marketing methods, but are certainly missing out on part of.
3309
Post by: Flinty
So my favourite book series are the Cain and Ghosts series, both of which have strong female characters. Similarly the Path series has a variety of decent eldar females and the Eisenhorn series is pretty good too. Not read much of the ravenor books but I imagine they 're pretty good too.
The over-sexualised side of 40k is there as it is in any sci-fi franchise, especially one that specifically targets teenage boys, but I think there is also a lot of good stuff too.
69049
Post by: ZSO, SAHAAL
So why is it ok for Marines to be repressed and not Sisters?
I always found alot of the space marine fluff to be pretty wierd as well, like them being gay but macho self hating gay.
54691
Post by: Beaviz81
So write in a normal couple, problem solved.
41332
Post by: Sille
There is alot of strong females in the cain and gaunt books.
70519
Post by: Emperorlives
I don't know I kind of like where women are in 40k, I mean whats the point of 40k if all women were like Ripley? We need moar hot women or else the series will fall apart
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
In most IG books I have read, there are mixed regiments. But they arn't the most common setup.
The Imperium takes the pragmatic stance that women are best left on the home planet to bear more children, who can then be recruited into the IG. Excess women get recruited into the IG as well when avaliable.
Cadia has 100% conscription rate regardless of sex. But reproduction is seen as a duty for everyone to maintain the population. And this is true for the Imperium as a whole and not just Cadia.
Is it Sexist? Yeah, but then again this is the Grimdarkness of the Far Future.
And I agree the models could use more diversity. Include a couple female heads on the IG sprues.
Of course this could backfire. GW has shown they have issues sculpting female bodies with the few they have done, and combine with an unflattering paintjob for extra stupidity.
Then, there is that if the Imperium is making one size fits all body armor you arn't going to be able to readily tell if a Guardsmen is male or female from a distance.
That guardsmen with the gas mask on could be a women for example.
And about body size, well, maybe the Imperium has a uniform fitness test for recruits that women are less likely to pass than men are. A man of average fitness can pass it, but a women would need above average fitness to pass. So most of the women in the force have larger than average muscle mass and bone structure.
39550
Post by: Psienesis
This is not a subject that a simple poll is going to provide sufficient options for.
There are several female characters in the setting (several of the named characters of the Gaunt's Ghosts series are females, after all, including some of the unit's Scouts and Snipers). As mentioned in other threads, there's Inquisitor Amberly Vail. Shia Calpurnia, of the Enforcer series, is a female Arbiter, and the protagonist of the series. The Dark Heresy and Rogue Trader RPGs have plenty of female NPCs at all levels of society within the scope of each respective game.
The Ravenor and Eisenhorn series are filled with female characters, both protagonist and antagonist, as well as populating significant portions of the background. All of these characters are unique, separate, individual characters that are largely integral to the plot.
The Sisters of Battle? Yeah, they're an all-female religious order with gear that is reminiscent of various real-life examples of BDSM fetish-gear. Guess what? That real-life BDSM gear is reminiscent of religious attire, strongly centered around Catholicism. To accuse the SOB of being "leather nuns" is kind of putting the cart before the horse.
Remember that the Ecclesiarchy has female members on some worlds, and not on others. Not every woman in the Ecclesiarchy is a member of the Adeptus Sororitas. This is also true of the Imperial Guard, the Arbites, the Adeptus Mechanicus, the Adeptus Terra, and almost every other Imperial organization you can name, with the exception of the Adeptus Astartes and, it can be argued, the IST.
However, to flip the coin...
If a female character is depicted as being exactly as good as, in exactly the same ways as, a male character... what does the character's gender matter? Is something gained by the character having a pair of X chromosomes? Is this character not, really, just a male character "in drag"?
Why is it that male characters can get chopped up, but female characters cannot? That's a form of sexism in and of itself, though it can be in the other direction as well. I think you're overstating the case of Dark Eldar slave-victims, and missing the point of the Adeptus Sororitas entirely.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Good points
29408
Post by: Melissia
Hm. Looking at the original post, I see a few problems from a feminist perspective-- namely, the post seems to suggest that the only way to include women is to include them in love stories. Why not include women in a way that passes the Bechdel test? edit: The Bechdel Test: 1: Story has two women, preferably named women. 2: Have at least one conversation... 3: ... that doesn't involve a man or men, or the male population in general.
tl;dr, not everything a female character would talk about in 40k has to do with loving men.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Also, don't include female characters just because you feel you need to to be politically correct. Or go out of your way to try and make the story politically correct on this issue.
Many a good story has been ruined by that.
29408
Post by: Melissia
You might be surprised at how many stories fail this simple, easy to pass test. Automatically Appended Next Post: Not really. When the author tries to include women but can't write women worth a damn, THAT has ruined stories. But the solution is to encourage better writing and bring in more competent writers, not to exclude women.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Yeah, but I would say that most guys, and many girls, would not be interested in a story with 2 girls talking about work or something like that.
The consumer says what they want and votes with their pocket book.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Grey Templar wrote:Yeah, but I would say that most guys, and many girls, would not be interested in a story with 2 girls talking about work or something like that.
Load of crap, nothing more. The sample size of movies that pass the Bechdel test is so small as to be not a statistically relevant sample for the purposes of such a conclusion. You're working entirely off of the biases of an age of misogyny where it was viewed that women were worthless unless they were accompanied by / talking about / compared to a man. This is increasingly less and less the case. So I ask you-- why would you be less interested in two wounded guardswomen talking about how war is hell compared to two wounded guardsmen talking about how war is hell? Hell, the original example of a movie that passed the Bechdel test is one of the most beloved movies in sci-fi history-- a little film we know as Alien. That it had two women talking to eachother about something other than men did not make it a lesser movie, and I defy your to claim otherwise.
59721
Post by: Evileyes
What I never liked, was the fact that one in 1000 humans or something similar, are psyker's. And all of them, every single damn one, is male. Hell of a coincidence that. I mean, I would absolutely adore, a special character for any imperial army whatsoever, who was a female psyker of such power, that they ignored their usual recruiment and rigorous bio-engineering traditions, in favour of harnessing the ability of said psyker. But apparently, being able to shoot lightning from your hands on a whim, is something you need to be a tank of a man to do. Or, be an eldar, which in my mind, is just a cop-out. You would think the imperium would notice the eldar has a number of incredibly powerfull female psykers and think "Maybe we shouldn't kill every female psyker for having ladyparts. Then again, I found a way round being a female gamer, with no cool character's (Without being an eldar in spandexarmour, or space-nun's in, again, spandex plate that is), and that was in playing an androginous/genderless race, in daemon's. Nurgle daemon's don't really have a gender, even if they were once men, such as in the case of plaguebearers, khorne stuff is just killy incarnate, gender doesn't come into it, tzeentch is made up of amorphous blob's of warpstuff, so again, genderless, and slaanesh stuff, is a different gender and appearance, depending on who is viewing them. On a side note, I always wondered if sister's of battle fighting daemonettes, saw something along the lines of these guy's. http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2730082a_99120201016_WoCHellstriders01_873x627.jpg
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Melissia wrote: Grey Templar wrote:Yeah, but I would say that most guys, and many girls, would not be interested in a story with 2 girls talking about work or something like that.
Load of bullgak, nothing more. The sample size of movies that pass the Bechdel test is so small as to be not a statistically relevant sample for the purposes of such a conclusion. You're working entirely off of the biases of an age of misogyny where it was viewed that women were worthless unless they were accompanied by / talking about / compared to a man. This is increasingly less and less the case.
So I ask you-- why would you be less interested in two wounded guardswomen talking about how war is hell compared to two wounded guardsmen talking about how war is hell?
It entirely depends on how its done like you said.
Maybe it is an indicator that people can't write female characters for gak. But the fact that people keep buying stuff that doesn't pass the test is just confirmation for the producers that we, the consumers, really don't mind stuff that doesn't pass that test.
I really don't know or care much about this. Give me a good show/movie/book dammit. And don't include something you can't write well for the sake of including it.
68477
Post by: ragingmunkyz
Of course "normal women" are lacking in the 40k setting, but it goes WAY beyond that. Normal women are hard to find in almost any modern media, so its hard to be all that surprised that 40k is no different. Seriously, try to think of some leading female "heroine" type characters appear in a given form of media who are portrayed realistically (not idealized in personality, appearance, etc), completely non-sexually, strong willed, and capable of thoughts and actions independent of a male characters. It is an incredibly difficult. There are a few, of course - someone already said Ripley ( from Aliens) and I just finished watching Zero Dark Thirty, which also did a good job with Jessica Chastain's character - but they are so few and far between that it is quite frankly appalling. This isn't just something 40k needs to improve on, its our culture as a whole.
Edit:
Wow mega-ninja'd by Melissia while I was writing that, damn.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Grey Templar wrote:But the fact that people keep buying stuff that doesn't pass the test is just confirmation for the producers that we, the consumers, really don't mind stuff that doesn't pass that test.
No, it just means that this is all Hollywood is producing so that's all we have to buy . IT's the same in the gaming industry-- it's not that female characters are not popular, it's that the gaming industry as a general rule has convinced itself that games with female primary protagonists-- which on average receive 40% less marketing funding than ones with male-only primary protagonists-- aren't as popular as games which are male-only, and dismisses any exceptions as outliers to justify their own belief system. Don't talk about this as if it exists in a vacuum. Hollywood has a lot of emotional baggage. Grey Templar wrote:I really don't know or care much about this. Give me a good show/movie/book dammit. And don't include something you can't write well for the sake of including it.
If you don't care, perhaps you shouldn't be objecting as much as you are. And I ask you, again, was Alien a bad movie because it had two women talking about something other than men?
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
I hate anything that includes anything that doesn't enhance the story because they wanted to be PC.
I also hate including something just for the heck of including it. Like the Princess in Braveheart or the completely unnecessary baby on a spike in Eragon.
And 2 women talking about something other than men is something I am ok with, but I am not ok with it if it does nothing to enhance the story. just like anything else that doesn't enhance the story.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Grey Templar wrote:I hate anything that includes anything that doesn't enhance the story because they wanted to be PC.
And you would say that including women is PC on the basis of it including women, because everyone defaults to male right? What a bizarre and disgusting double standard.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
No, but including a women just for the sake of including a women is bad.
If being a women would make the character better and improve the story, hell yeah make the character a women.
Maybe because I've seen too many things where the writing and portrayel has been so bad I just cringe when it comes to female characters. Fear of bad writing I guess.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Grey Templar wrote:If being a women would make the character better and improve the story, hell yeah make the character a women.
This "All characters should be male unless otherwise needed" attitude of yours is WHY there's so much bad writing to begin with-- the writers with that attitude only consider women in terms of how they're different from men, instead of considering women as their own characters, as actual people, resulting in bland, unimaginative characters. It's bizarre and circular logic that's best described as a self-fulfilling prophecy.
68477
Post by: ragingmunkyz
Grey Templar wrote:No, but including a women just for the sake of including a women is bad.
If being a women would make the character better and improve the story, hell yeah make the character a women.
Maybe because I've seen too many things where the writing and portrayel has been so bad I just cringe when it comes to female characters. Fear of bad writing I guess.
Wait what? You have to see the double standard in this statement. Apply the same rules to including men in a story, and you should quickly see your logical fallacy. It shouldn't be about what a man or woman has to offer to a story based on their gender alone, it should be what does that character or human being have to offer. A woman is capable of offering the same things to a story as a man because they're both people, capable of well thought out, unique personalities, with independent thoughts. So why is a man just the "default" person for any given story?
The terrifying implication of your attitude, and the attitude of most of those who create media these days, is that men are somehow inherently better, have more to offer, and count for more as people than women do.
Exalts headed your way Melissia.
59721
Post by: Evileyes
Grey Templar wrote:No, but including a women just for the sake of including a women is bad. If being a women would make the character better and improve the story, hell yeah make the character a women. Maybe because I've seen too many things where the writing and portrayal has been so bad I just cringe when it comes to female characters. Fear of bad writing I guess. The reason that I, and other's object to this argument, is the fact that it principally work's exactly the same the other way around, but it's never seen as that. "If being a man would make the character better and improve the story, hell yeah make the character a man. Otherwise, just make it a woman and be done with it." But this, would never happen, seeing as how the "Default" choice for everything in fiction, tend's to be a man. Which sucks. Ninja'd by munky'z, almost exactly. Spooky. But to enhance this argument, I will say, every single male character in 40k, could be made a woman with absolutely no change to the storyline, if only it was not for the "Only men can be space marines" Fluff line, which just seemed to be in there to simplify thing's for GW. There is no character in all the imperium, that is male due to anything to do with how being male improves their character. They are male, because it's default. Now, I get the target audience thing, I really do. The vast majority of players of 40k, are male. But thing's might even out, if the 40k universe was not such a "boy's club."
35316
Post by: ansacs
You forgot somewhat disagree as a response if you want a reasonably unbiased poll you need the same number a weight positive and negative responses (and usually a neutral response for the people that just like to click things).
I do somewhat agree that women need to be brought to the forefront more. The IG would actually be the best place for this as there isn't actually any institutional bias toward either sex.
I cannot believe the word "normal" could even be applied to a follower of the chaos gods. Which god is the normal one?
Nurgle I just want to give you ___ plague/disease?
Slaanesh, yeah...that just gets us right back into the sex object racket.
Tzeench whose "normal" followers are insane gibbering maniacs with hideous mutations?
Or KHORNE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE, BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD, ROAAAAAAR...yes normal person there.
Though the least sexist position in the entire galaxy would be a follower of nurgle or tzeench. I am not sure if they actually have sexual characteristics?
I do agree that the model range is somewhat biased and should probably include more variety (IG is probably the worst offender). However, you should really be polling then to see how many people would buy female models to determine if this is a smart business move. You should look at the dark eldar and eldar model ranges they have female farseers and banshees and the dark eldar come with large numbers of female parts so you can make them whatever you want (sex slave included if you are hung up on that).
BTW dark eldar are not really that into "sex" slaves they are much more into torture anything that can feel pain and see other species women as animals so it is not "rape" to them but rather "bestiality". They are however fairly equal opportunity about everything they do so rejoice they will accept all applicants for all forms of torture.
42494
Post by: nomotog
Grey Templar wrote:Also, don't include female characters just because you feel you need to to be politically correct. Or go out of your way to try and make the story politically correct on this issue.
Many a good story has been ruined by that.
I actually kind of favor including female charters just because. The brute force method I call it. If you where forced to make half of your named characters female, then by the odds at least a few will turn out good. In my option it's more annoying not to include women then to make bad women characters.
40k is so male centered that I think it's intentional. GW dosen't even use women in the character types that are dominated by women. Why don't we have a female farseer model? (Or do we, last i checked we didn't.)
60944
Post by: Super Ready
ansacs wrote:Though the least sexist position in the entire galaxy would be a follower of nurgle or tzeench. I am not sure if they actually have sexual characteristics?
You've actually provided good arguments for why Chaos wouldn't be gender-discriminative.
Khorne cares not from whence the blood flows - case in point, Valkia from WHFB. Slaanesh cares not from whence the... well... you don't need me to finish that sentence for you. Suffice to say that a good deal of his(/her!) daemons are androgynous and/or can change or emphasize gender alongside other sexual characteristics to suit whoever they're trying to seduce.
45703
Post by: Lynata
Whew, hot topic.
My two bolt shells: The setting offers sufficient potential for powerful female characters. We've seen a number of them already, in the fluff, in the novels, and in the comics. But like ansacs pointed out, the model range has "suffered" from being almost exclusively male. And I will add that they could perhaps show up more often in the background, too, even if only as a minor detail. For example, whilst I have read about a number of famous IG officers in Codex fluff, none of them was a woman. And let's not even go into the artwork.
Oh, and I put the paranthesis there because it doesn't even attract much attention, it is just something people are used to / didn't really notice. Which is perhaps the real problem society has. Awareness. That, and the "who cares" attitude. Let's be honest, we're dicussing a bunch of plastic toys. So, I have to admit I don't really think much about it as well - it's just how things are. Only when I see threads like these do I stop for a minute and am like "yeah, that's probably a bit wrong".
And like the famous Professor Maximillian Arturo once said, the best way to judge a society is by looking at the toys it hands to its children.
Super Ready wrote:I think a lot of people get suckered into their own trap with this one. Space Marines are also sexually inactive and monastic in EXACTLY the same way that Sisters are... and I'm not seeing the chastity belt thing if I'm honest. So why is it ok for Marines to be repressed and not Sisters? Sexist.  (I jest of course.)
Actually, I think you're on to something here. The Sisters are clearly meant to be the female equivalent to Marines, yet the application of double standards is evident in the amount of criticism leveled against them. Why is it okay for Blood Angels to have "nipple armour", but not for Battle Sisters to have "DDs" on their suits? Why does no one complain about Black Templars and their pain gloves, but whenever the topic of Repentia comes up people act like it's a fetish thing?
On some level it probably even is, but why is it that only one of these groups catches flak for that? Oh, I forgot, for the Marines this is "manly"...
Flinty wrote:So my favourite book series are the Cain and Ghosts series, both of which have strong female characters. Tbh, whenever I read somebody mentioning the Cain novels, the first thing that springs to mind is the author creating a sexually repressed Battle Sister Vet who can't resist a good flirt.
Grey Templar wrote:The Imperium takes the pragmatic stance that women are best left on the home planet to bear more children, who can then be recruited into the IG.
I dunno about that - actually, I got the impression that the Imperium at large does not care about gender, seeing that we have female street gangs, female Arbites, female nobility, female Inquisitors or even female High Lords. And that's just looking at GW's own material - you will probably find even more examples once you delve into what other authors came up with.
Gender differences come into play locally, and based on an individual world's culture. The Imperium does not care whether a planet sends men or women or both to the Guard, as long as they fulfill the tithe. This may mean that some worlds' governors could implement policies relegating women to breeding machines - but an increase in population would probably only result in the tithe being raised in the next evaluation. Besides, from how the books made it sound like, most planets are overcrowded because of grimdark, so having his (or her!) subjects make even more babies prolly isn't too high on an Imperial Commander's agenda.
Come to think of it, the background of one of the Last Chancers characters even mentioned the "warrior women of Xenan", which sounds like a matriarchal society for a change.
Evileyes wrote:What I never liked, was the fact that one in 1000 humans or something similar, are psyker's. And all of them, every single damn one, is male. Hell of a coincidence that. I mean, I would absolutely adore, a special character for any imperial army whatsoever, who was a female psyker of such power, that they ignored their usual recruiment and rigorous bio-engineering traditions, in favour of harnessing the ability of said psyker.
Isn't that just the minis? Kind of like all Cadians are male, even though the fluff makes it obvious they also recruit girls.
nomotog wrote:I actually kind of favor including female charters just because. The brute force method I call it. If you where forced to make half of your named characters female, then by the odds at least a few will turn out good. In my option it's more annoying not to include women then to make bad women characters.
There's some truth to that. Society right now has a problem in that it's indecivise as to what role women should assume, or be allowed to assume. I think it may actually need a period of "brute forcing" female characters into media just so that people can get used to it, after centuries/millennia of it having been the other way around. The end result should be a sort of balance.
It's why I have no problem with positive discrimination in the real world in general, as long as it is a temporary measure. For people of a historically oppressed ethnicity or gender, making sure they spread through all facets of society will eventually create equality for all.
Ideally, for a story where the gender of a character does not play a role, I think people should just roll dice to have it determined randomly. And you could say the same for ethnicity.
The biggest hurdle is probably that there are still certain clichés that are fairly well established and, most of all, popular. Some, like the " 30-something white male" are very obvious and have started to become stale and boring. Others are more subtle.
30490
Post by: Mr Morden
Sille wrote:There is alot of strong females in the cain and gaunt books.
Indeed - Cain might be a womaniser but most of the women in the novels are as or on occassion more capable than he is and are also not one of the tropes you mention. Hell the Cain novels even have women who prefer women (not that anyone "in universe cares", or even really notices, as long as they shoot the enemy and do their job - which is as it should be IMO). Some of them are less capable and thats good too and needed..............
Tbh, whenever I read somebody mentioning the Cain novels, the first thing that springs to mind is the author creating a sexually repressed Battle Sister Vet who can't resist a good flirt.
Ahh but thats one of so many good female characters:
The Commanding officer of Cain's Regiment is a very capable female
His sometime lover (and the one with very much all the control in the relationship) is Inquisitor Vail
Adeptus Mechancius Magos
Several planetary governors - of varying quality - usually better than the male ones to be fair, but thats not difficult in general.
Some of the best troopers are female
Several female Commissars - again of varying actual effectiveness
The various Sisters of Battle are stern, unwaving and effective in battle (no matter what Cain feels about them) (*)
One of the strengths is that no one seems to really care if they are female or not - on the rare occassions its an issue its part of the story rather than a natural reaction.
Of course they do tend to be good looking  - at least at first, the Mechanicus Magos has changed quite a bit when he meets her some sixty years later
(*) even ignoring the Celestian which causes so much contraversory although she is extremely effective in battle - much more so than some other BL authors give the Sororitas credit for..............
Gaunts stories have strong female characters - yes some die - but lots of people do in his stories regardless of gender.
The recent Heresey novels have some interesting female characters - the female commander of Angrons flagship is a good example. Also check out Helsreach - the Commander of the Titan Demi- Legion is a very strong character and interesting contrast to the liasion office who has to deal with the fact that basically she is useless in the situation she find herself.
As to models - yeah GW is pretty rubbish at it - but thats why i am looking forward to Raging Heroes kickstarters and use other ranges in my armies.....
48281
Post by: Eggs
I think part of the problem is heroic scale - the men are buffed up beyond realistic proportions, so when they sculpt a female character, they give her massive tit-plate armour to try and fit with the proportions of the males, and this inevitably leaves the impression of a sexist model.
Most of the female sculpts really do suck - female eldar gaurdians are just male ones with two misshapen bumps added. They should try harder, but its not just limited to gw. I'm trying to source models for a mixed sex Albion army. I've started with sword maidens and ill be damned if I can find nice female sculpts with regular clothes. I've bought models from celtos and Raging Heroes, and while the proportions are a bit more anatomically correct, they always seem to be showing acres of flesh. Not particularly practical for swordfighting. If I want flesh, I'll be extra nice to the wife, or watch porn.
42494
Post by: nomotog
Blood angels have nipple armor? Can I see it?
50733
Post by: Popenfresh
I feel it should be noted that whether or not a movie passes the Bechdel test is in no way shape or form an indication that the film(or in our case, franchise) itself is sexist. Rather, it's a way to measure gender biases in the entertainment sector as a whole. A film can pass the test and still be sexist as hell and visa versa.
That being said, for what it's worth, I think the Dawn of War series had some pretty memorable female commanders. Of course, in that case people were complaining about the fact that Eldar seemingly have no male leaders at all.
I guess there really is no way to please everyone.
44919
Post by: Fezman
The women are there, but not in the tabletop game (unless you play Eldar, Dark Eldar or Sisters). I can think of many female characters in BL novels, and FFG's RPGs allow characters of both sexes (except Deathwatch, because all the PCs are Marines). I don't think it's down to misogyny, just lack of thought.
I do think there needs to be more representation of women in the model lines. It'd be cool to see female models for IG,(all the better to show how they really do represent the face of "normal" humanity in the setting) and the art in the Only War book shows you can have women in IG garb without them being sexualised - but I'm sceptical that it'll ever happen.
28305
Post by: Talizvar
I seem to remember a fantastic book about the Adeptus Arbites: "Shira Calpurnia" in "Enforcer". This is how I imagine the future of the game fluff going.
68477
Post by: ragingmunkyz
Not to derail the thread, but I feel I've already added my thoughts on the topic, and these models are always good for a laugh.
Lynata wrote:Why is it okay for Blood Angels to have "nipple armour", but not for Battle Sisters to have "DDs" on their suits?
First of all, it isn't okay for the Blood Angels, but mostly because...well look at them, they look ridiculous. Secondly, you're being a bit silly if you're assuming that male and female chests have the exact same standard set for them. There do exist cultures where topless women are more socially acceptable without being thought of in a sexual way. However, in most cultures, we all know that one example (female) is highly sexualized, while the other is not (male). Shirtless men are acceptable in a myriad of places where shirtless women are not. Now if you want to open that up to a larger question about whether that double standard should even exist in out societies, then feel free to make that case, but as it is, I think you know there's a big difference.
39550
Post by: Psienesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle_cuirass
... not exactly BA armor, but it's what it's based on, being there, all Greco-Roman.
As far as depicting female characters on the table-top... well, while GW could release a bunch of female troops for all of the armies that would conceivably have them, this area of the hobby is already rather well-served by third-party bits manufacturers or other model lines. Is it worth the expense to GW to produce these models for what will be, essentially, niche sales in an already-niche hobby market, especially when this role is already suitably served by other companies?
Let's also be honest and say that a lot of 40K stories are based on/drawn from/inspired by real-life historical events, and most of those events are, given the setting, various real-world wars and conflicts. While women have served in various military forces throughout history, sometimes openly, sometimes not, the bulk of these stories, especially to the Western world, are about men, in combat, with other men, against other men. While we do get our Joans of Arc and Queen Boudiccas and Helens and such in 40K, they're a relatively small aspect of the totality of the setting... mainly because I think having a Joan of Arc-like character pop out of an Imperial World every other week reduces the impact such a character can have on the setting, which, I think, does no one any favors anywhere, though I would think that we could get more Rambettes out of Catachan than we've seen thus far.
Then again, I'd also like to see an Inquisition-based novel, inspired by the James Bond series, where the Inquisitor in question is required to James Bond/Captain Kirk his/her way through all sorts of heretical nobles, planetary officials, etc etc in pursuit of while being decidedly, openly homosexual. This would, of course, be a novel lighter in tone than most in BL, and will probably never happen in my lifetime.
42494
Post by: nomotog
Seeing the detain in those models makes me no longer buy the idea that nice female modes would be too hard to do. If you can put nipples on a SM, then you can make nice looking female models.
39550
Post by: Psienesis
There is also some in-universe reasons for the Sisterhood's armor to be over-emphasizing of feminine traits (the Decree Passive), and also the argument that the armor is relatively mass-produced, without knowing the actual measurements of the woman who will be wearing it, so it's designed with the "one size will (sorta) fit most", within an average range of body-size that the Sisterhood will see (their physical regimen, much like that of the IG, all but ensures that there will be an average range of measurements, without the wide variety of body-types one would see in average society).
45703
Post by: Lynata
Mr Morden wrote:Ahh but thats one of so many good female characters
I admit, I'm probably giving the author too much flak.
Ultimately, I still feel he "devalued" both the Sisterhood as well as the Commissariat by presenting both organisations in such a drastically different and more humane light. Just like the Space Marines, they're not meant to be like "the guys from next door", and if he wanted to write a story like that he should've picked characters from a more ordinary profession.
But yeah, that has little to do with gender.
Eggs wrote:I think part of the problem is heroic scale - the men are buffed up beyond realistic proportions, so when they sculpt a female character, they give her massive tit-plate armour to try and fit with the proportions of the males, and this inevitably leaves the impression of a sexist model.
That's a good point. Especially when you compare it with their 54mm minis from the Inquisitor range.
Fezman wrote:It'd be cool to see female models for IG,(all the better to show how they really do represent the face of "normal" humanity in the setting) and the art in the Only War book shows you can have women in IG garb without them being sexualised - but I'm sceptical that it'll ever happen.
Although that swings a bit too far into the other direction, actually. Female Vostroyans? That regiment was supposed to be "firstborn sons", at least in the studio fluff.
I have no problem whatsoever with misogyny in-universe, where it simply belongs to a culture. As such, all-male IG regiments are perfectly okay (as would be all-female ones). Same thing with the Space Marines and the Sisters of Battle.
It only becomes a problem when misogyny may appear to affect out-of-universe decisions, ranging from the lack of female IG minis to the strange absence of the Sisters of Battle in places where one might expect them ( Crusade of Fire just being the newest example).
ragingmunkyz wrote:First of all, it isn't okay for the Blood Angels, but mostly because...well look at them, they look ridiculous.
But how often do you see complaints because of it? And how often do we see comments on SoB armour?
We could even expand this to the design of Space Marine armour in general, which in its dimensions is clearly designed to emphasise their masculinity.
For the record, I actually don't have a problem with any of this. To me, 40k is Space Gothic, which means that stuff like that is okay. I might find it ridiculous elsewhere, like in Star Trek or Star Wars. But for 40k? Here it fits.
Psienesis wrote:Let's also be honest and say that a lot of 40K stories are based on/drawn from/inspired by real-life historical events, and most of those events are, given the setting, various real-world wars and conflicts. While women have served in various military forces throughout history, sometimes openly, sometimes not, the bulk of these stories, especially to the Western world, are about men, in combat, with other men, against other men.
Modern society's understanding of history is twisted, though. Example: it's still regarded as "common knowledge" that women couldn't become knights. How many people know that there were entire orders of female knights around in medieval Europe? How many people know that peasant levies for the War of the Roses included armed women? What about Viking shield maidens? Or how many people are aware of these?
Granted, when 40k is meant to represent human history like we are told, then this is of no consequence. Still pretty sad, though.
Psienesis wrote:While we do get our Joans of Arc and Queen Boudiccas and Helens and such in 40K, they're a relatively small aspect of the totality of the setting... mainly because I think having a Joan of Arc-like character pop out of an Imperial World every other week reduces the impact such a character can have on the setting
But why? Or is this referring to a sort of "oversaturation", in the sense that a higher number of female heroes would make them less special? Whilst I could agree on that, is this really a bad thing? And I feel this could be alleviated by still limiting them based on their profession or the uniqueness of the legend they forge. That Special Enforcer Barbaretta in the image above is an example of what I mean. When it works for the male characters, it should work for female ones as well.
42494
Post by: nomotog
I'm cool with SoB's boob armor. I have a love hate relationship with the SoB in general, but the armor i think I like it. It makes sense that It's exaggerated and a little impracticable because they aren't just fighters they are holy warriors.
68477
Post by: ragingmunkyz
Lynata wrote:It only becomes a problem when misogyny may appear to affect out-of-universe decisions, ranging from the lack of female IG minis to the strange absence of the Sisters of Battle in places where one might expect them ( Crusade of Fire just being the newest example).
This. I understand why there may be complaints about a lack of female space marines (or orks), but its much more understandable, insofar as there is a fluff explanation for why they don't exist. Where it starts to bother me is that we know full well that the female IG, Eldar and SoB are all a part of the background, but they never get quite as much face time as it seems like they should. That goes for both in the fluff and on the tabletop. Then when they DO actually get featured, there are precious few situations (though I recognize they exist), where they are portrayed as people in a strong, non-sexualized way, and without always having to relate them back to males. SoB in particular seem to be frequently featured in fetishized, snuff porn scenarios. It makes me sad, because I'd love to see 40k appeal to a broader demographic, and I believe it could, but with this little effort made to portray women in a positive light, its likely be rare.
Lynata wrote:We could even expand this to the design of Space Marine armour in general, which in its dimensions is clearly designed to emphasise their masculinity.
See the problem with this thinking is the same problem that plagues our culture, media, and the sculptors at GW. There is a difference between femininity and sexuality. Space marines are designed to emphasize their masculinity, but NOT their sexuality. What seems to happen far too often is that we equate femininity with sexuality, and then when trying to portray femininity in a woman, we (intentionally or unintentionally) wind up sexualizing her. While there is certainly a link between masculinity/femininity and human sexuality, the two are far from inseparable, and it is very possible to display a woman's femininity without making her a sexual object. For ways NOT to do this see the "armor" on the Sisters Repentia:
The equivalent of that on space marine armor is not the masculine armor they currently don, instead imagine space marines with bare upper thighs and abdomens, and then a vaguely dick-shaped codpiece covering their genitalia, and you should have something close.
...Ok now stop thinking about it. You're creeping me out.
39550
Post by: Psienesis
Lynata wrote:Mr Morden wrote:Ahh but thats one of so many good female characters
Psienesis wrote:Let's also be honest and say that a lot of 40K stories are based on/drawn from/inspired by real-life historical events, and most of those events are, given the setting, various real-world wars and conflicts. While women have served in various military forces throughout history, sometimes openly, sometimes not, the bulk of these stories, especially to the Western world, are about men, in combat, with other men, against other men.
Modern society's understanding of history is twisted, though. Example: it's still regarded as "common knowledge" that women couldn't become knights. How many people know that there were entire orders of female knights around in medieval Europe? How many people know that peasant levies for the War of the Roses included armed women? What about Viking shield maidens? Or how many people are aware of these?
Granted, when 40k is meant to represent human history like we are told, then this is of no consequence. Still pretty sad, though.
Psienesis wrote:While we do get our Joans of Arc and Queen Boudiccas and Helens and such in 40K, they're a relatively small aspect of the totality of the setting... mainly because I think having a Joan of Arc-like character pop out of an Imperial World every other week reduces the impact such a character can have on the setting
But why? Or is this referring to a sort of "oversaturation", in the sense that a higher number of female heroes would make them less special? Whilst I could agree on that, is this really a bad thing? And I feel this could be alleviated by still limiting them based on their profession or the uniqueness of the legend they forge. That Special Enforcer Barbaretta in the image above is an example of what I mean. When it works for the male characters, it should work for female ones as well.
I think it would reach a point of over-saturation (and the setting is *already* oversaturated with hyper-masculine male characters in this same vein, and thus has grown boring in much of its fiction to me) where, in this fictional future of BL books and Codex: Yet More Joans of Arcs In Spaaaaaaace! (C:YMJoAiS), to the point where, if we got a female character that wasn't Wonder Woman/Rogue/Samus/Joan of Arc/Brienne of Tarth, fans would be like "OMG! This lady.... she's average!1!oneone!!eleven!!". Speaking only for myself, I think I like the fact that a well-done female character, of any kind, in any role, in any setting, is still seen as something "special"... though, granted, a lot of the fiction I read involves female characters in male-dominated societies overcoming such obstacles and working within/around the constraints of their societies, to out-wit/out-fight/out-whatever the men of their eras, which is not exactly indicative of the setting of 40K.
Though, I would be all for this over-saturation if we start seeing threads like "OMG! Sisters are so OP in fluffz compaerd to Space Mureenz!!!11eleventy!!".
60944
Post by: Super Ready
ragingmunkyz wrote:While there is certainly a link between masculinity/femininity and human sexuality, the two are far from inseparable, and it is very possible to display a woman's femininity without making her a sexual object.
I wanted to pick up on this point in particular. For examples of how to do this properly - rather than with Sisters Repentia - look at the older Bretonnian Sorceresses and the female Vampire Count models. Particularly the ones that are riding their horses side-saddle, which gives a ladylike demeanour.
Regarding ladybump proportions, the most recent Wych and Daemonette models are I feel about right and how they should be. They look fit and healthy, so apt for warriors, but not sexually so - nor are they oversized or misproportioned.
33527
Post by: Niiai
Not all the races do this.
All space marines yes.
Imperial guard yes, and it is a mistake.
Tau, we do not really know how their females look or what passes as masculinaty.
Eldar and Dark eldar: A good represensation of males and females. We could still have more females.
Necroms seems to have a maskuline gender representation but no sex. This is bad. It should be neatral or both.
Orks are also very maskuline gender and no sex. Quite bad.
Tyranids have females (lay eggs) and no males.
45703
Post by: Lynata
ragingmunkyz wrote:For ways NOT to do this see the "armor" on the Sisters Repentia
For some reason, the only thing I don't like is that little bit of leather(?) still covering the nipples. Makes it look like some sort of mini-bra, as if they still need to be ashamed of having teats - when all they'd think about is how to throw away their life in a manner that kills as many enemies as possible. It feels like the designers had an idea, but did not quite "dare" to go all the way because naked breasts are a no-go (look at the new Daemonettes compared to the old ones) ... in essence, modern day political correctness creeping into the setting.
The way I see it, the Repentia's semi-nakedness is not about sexuality, but rather about barenaked violence. The reduction of the human being into a vicious animal, driven only by the need to kill - and thus earn their redemption.
It's actually done better in the artwork, where it's not some sort of leather button but a scroll with holy scripture conveniently covering the chest. The miniature designer should take that as inspiration, imho. Looks less awkward.
But I get what you mean about the difference between masculinity/femininity and sexuality, and I agree.
ragingmunkyz wrote:The equivalent of that on space marine armor is not the masculine armor they currently don, instead imagine space marines with bare upper thighs and abdomens, and then a vaguely dick-shaped codpiece covering their genitalia, and you should have something close.
You mean like the guys in 300? Or many male heroes in any sort of "sword and sandal movie"...
If the Space Marines had something like the Sisters Repentia, I could actually see it work out exactly in that way...
39550
Post by: Psienesis
Wouldn't that be the Adeptus Custodes?
45703
Post by: Lynata
Now that you mention it ...
50012
Post by: Crimson
I have no problem with SoB armours. I like them looking like crazy fetish nuns. If it would be up to me they'd even have heels like in Blanche's artwork. The sheer absurdity of it is glorious. (Repentias are still just stupid, though.)
HOWEVER, it becomes problematic when these are pretty much only (human) female models you have. There should be a wide variety of different sorts of female models, like there is wide variety of male models.
70214
Post by: Disciple of Fate
I think it might be the lingering idea of 'women and children'. The death of these is considered noteworthy to mention in media reports. Men getting killed is nothing special in our view. But the other two are still placed in the category of shocking. 40k is very dark and gw might think it will turn people off if they write too much about the ''brutal slaughter of the .... female regiment''. Gender isnt really mentioned in the big picture, women die by quite a good amount, but it is almost never mentioned as express as certain male guard regiment.
Although Im all for including more women in the fluff (most of it is military). Currently women in the military isnt really that accepted yet, its still mainly seen as the proffesion of males. GW might not want to take the risk in offending some of their costumers. Id like to end my opinion with an example. If women get fully accepted in the fluff, like 50-50, when is it time to include children or the elderly? The Imperium doesnt make much of a difference (whiteshields) on age if you can fight.
18690
Post by: Jimsolo
I notice that your poll has two postive and one negative response, with no neutral response. The available answers seem to slate the numbers towards your opinion. Personally, I would have responded with neutrality. There are plenty of female characters who aren't crazy, stupid, fantasy-fetish characters, or red shirts. Not in every author's work, mind, but Aaron Dembski-Bowden, Sandy Mitchell, and Dan Abnett are all very good about keeping the gender balance positive. Kara Swole, Euphrates Keeler, Colonel Kasteen, Bequin, Octavia, and Medea Betancourt are all reasonable female characters (as reasonable as the well-written male characters, certainly). I grant that the setting is a bit male-dominated and male-oriented. I also grant that a series from an author targeted at a female section of the audience might be a good move, but only if it were well done. I could also see it being a ham-fisted failure, depending on who wrote it.
I think that female characters are on the sparse side in the setting, but I don't find the setting to be particularly misogynistic. If the setting has any fault when it comes to gender relations, it's that it's far, far too chaste for my preference. I'm fine with family-friendly entertainment, but when your violence and mature content are at the 'R' and 'NC-17' levels, respectively, while your sexual content is well within 'G' standards, it makes for a rather odd imbalance, I think.
In any event, that's just my opinion. I could, of course, be wrong.
68355
Post by: easysauce
yeah, they could be throwing ladies in with pretty much every army but space marines (since the genetic template only works on men AFAIK apparently)
I do notice a LOT more females in the books and fluff then on the table,
45703
Post by: Lynata
Disciple of Fate wrote:40k is very dark and gw might think it will turn people off if they write too much about the ''brutal slaughter of the .... female regiment''.
Dunno about that ... looking at some of the fluff bits in which the Sisters of Battle play a less glorious role (Sanctuary 101, GK anointment, ...), the writers seem to have little problem with describing the death of female troops.
It may be fear of the customers, as you say. Or maybe it's some abstract idea about an archetypical image of where the soldier = male, where SoB don't really count as they are more like an army of Jeanne's d'Arcs. Not even truly misogynystic but rather just set to a very specific picture of how an IG regiment "should" look like. An unconscious thing.
Similar to what I touched upon earlier when I remarked how media are dominated by 30-something white male action heroes, often with cropped brown or black hair, and three-day stubble. It's not racism either, it's just that this is the first thing that comes to their mind when they try to think of a hero. Which in turn is a result of the image society has managed to instill in them. Kind of like a vicious cycle where people get this idea because that's what they grew up with, so this is what they show the kids, who will grow up with it, and have the same idea, and will show it to their kids, ...
Disciple of Fate wrote:If women get fully accepted in the fluff, like 50-50, when is it time to include children or the elderly? The Imperium doesnt make much of a difference (whiteshields) on age if you can fight.
With the Whiteshields, you already mentioned one example ... Necromunda juves might qualify as another. And Karamazov pretty much looks like a nagging old grandfather. I'd say elderly and children are already present, unless we're talking even older or younger than those? But at that point we'd probably get to a level where they would not be fighters anymore ... or were you looking at civilians? For civilians really do not get much limelight, I fear.
That said, a 40k rulebook did have this line in its description for daily life in the 41st millennium: "[...] Feral children fight over the dead flesh of the fallen, their struggles lit only by flickering luminas set into crumbling masonry. [...]"
Crimson wrote:If it would be up to me they'd even have heels like in Blanche's artwork
Ughh... please, no heels - they can have their place with some of the assassins, but not in the infantry. Battle Sisters are warriors first and foremost, and heels would be a tad too much for my personal sense of realism.
For an example of women being integrated well into a setting, go pick up a Battletech book. It's almost refreshing how gender plays next to no role whatsoever there.
Actually, here's a funny test for y'all:
...
.. so, how many of you noticed that the exotic dancer was her father, and not the mother? I know of several people who missed this, including me during my first read-through of the entire document.
That's how society indoctrinates us when it comes to gender roles / expectations. It's subtle, innit?
45234
Post by: Void__Dragon
Jimsolo wrote:I think that female characters are on the sparse side in the setting, but I don't find the setting to be particularly misogynistic. If the setting has any fault when it comes to gender relations, it's that it's far, far too chaste for my preference. I'm fine with family-friendly entertainment, but when your violence and mature content are at the 'R' and 'NC-17' levels, respectively, while your sexual content is well within 'G' standards, it makes for a rather odd imbalance, I think.
There are heaping amounts of sexuality in 40k.
Most of it just happens to be between seven foot tall super soldiers.
70214
Post by: Disciple of Fate
Lynata wrote:Disciple of Fate wrote:40k is very dark and gw might think it will turn people off if they write too much about the ''brutal slaughter of the .... female regiment''.
Dunno about that ... looking at some of the fluff bits in which the Sisters of Battle play a less glorious role (Sanctuary 101, GK anointment, ...), the writers seem to have little problem with describing the death of female troops.
It may be fear of the customers, as you say. Or maybe it's some abstract idea about an archetypical image of where the soldier = male, where SoB don't really count as they are more like an army of Jeanne's d'Arcs. Not even truly misogynystic but rather just set to a very specific picture of how an IG regiment "should" look like. Similar to what I touched upon earlier when I remarked how media are dominated by 30-something white male action heroes, often with cropped brown or black hair, and three-day stubble. It's not racism either, it's just that this is the first thing that comes to their mind when they try to think of a hero. Which in turn is a result of the image society has managed to instill in them. Kind of like a vicious cycle where people get this idea because that's what they grew up with, so this is what they show the kids, who will grow up with it, and have the same idea, and will show it to their kids, ...
Disciple of Fate wrote:If women get fully accepted in the fluff, like 50-50, when is it time to include children or the elderly? The Imperium doesnt make much of a difference (whiteshields) on age if you can fight.
With the Whiteshields, you already mentioned one example ... Necromunda juves might qualify as another. And Karamazov pretty much looks like a nagging old grandfather. I'd say elderly and children are already present, unless we're talking even older or younger than those? But at that point we'd probably get to a level where they would not be fighters anymore ... or were you looking at civilians? For civilians really do not get much limelight, I fear.
That said, a 40k rulebook did have this line in its description for daily life in the 41st millennium: "[...] Feral children fight over the dead flesh of the fallen, their struggles lit only by flickering luminas set into crumbling masonry. [...]"
Crimson wrote:If it would be up to me they'd even have heels like in Blanche's artwork
Ughh... please, no heels - they can have their place with some of the assassins, but not in the infantry. Battle Sisters are warriors first and foremost, and heels would be a tad too much for my personal sense of realism. 
I think its still different in the SoB question (you expect them to die, just like space marines if victory isnt an option). They have been trained most of their lives with good equipment, a bit like stormtroopers (a bit of a stretch but comparable). Im talking about just regular female guardsman(women?). The question is if people would still enjoy a book like 15 hours if it was about an all female regiment for example. I think they are afraid to cross a moral line. That is, large scale description of women and child soldiers (under 18 like whiteshields) in some of the more gruesome fiction. Black Library writes book that can be quite harsh sometimes.
On the question of the idea of a hero is male. Its just a question of history mostly. It has many great women, but as long as they werent hacking and slashing their way across some battlefield (like Jeanne d'Arc who you mentioned) they arent really remembered. War has always been important for humans, but its never been really seen as the area of women. This is why the idea seems strange to us. But if you really go beyond just popular history you can find a lot of strong women behind men. But because they werent rulers (which required an active military/combat role) most of us dont remember them, which is why the concept might seem a bit alien.
67781
Post by: BryllCream
Void__Dragon wrote: Jimsolo wrote:I think that female characters are on the sparse side in the setting, but I don't find the setting to be particularly misogynistic. If the setting has any fault when it comes to gender relations, it's that it's far, far too chaste for my preference. I'm fine with family-friendly entertainment, but when your violence and mature content are at the 'R' and 'NC-17' levels, respectively, while your sexual content is well within 'G' standards, it makes for a rather odd imbalance, I think.
There are heaping amounts of sexuality in 40k.
Most of it just happens to be between seven foot tall super soldiers.
The idea that all sexuality is between men and women is intertwined with the very modern notion of feminism. The Ancient Greeks were all for love between men and they (with the notable exception of Sparta) had very anti-female societies. I honestly think there might be something in the notion that mysogony is tied in with repressed homosexuality, being a bi-sexual mysogonist myself
18690
Post by: Jimsolo
Lynata wrote:
For an example of women being integrated well into a setting, go pick up a Battletech book. It's almost refreshing how gender plays next to no role whatsoever there.
Battletech is actually really good on that score. Deadlands was pretty good about it too. (Also, remarkably good at avoiding being racist, especially given the setting.)
39550
Post by: Psienesis
Well... I *am* waiting for an Inquisition-style novel, in the vein of James Bond, where the main character has to seduce his/her way through the ranks of potentially-heretical Hive nobles, while being demonstrably, and openly, homosexual in their non-professional life.
It would be kinda like HIMYM.... in space.
45703
Post by: Lynata
Disciple of Fate wrote:I think its still different in the SoB question (you expect them to die, just like space marines if victory isnt an option). They have been trained most of their lives with good equipment, a bit like stormtroopers (a bit of a stretch but comparable). Im talking about just regular female guardsman(women?). The question is if people would still enjoy a book like 15 hours if it was about an all female regiment for example. I think they are afraid to cross a moral line. That is, large scale description of women and child soldiers (under 18 like whiteshields) in some of the more gruesome fiction. Black Library writes book that can be quite harsh sometimes.
Hmmh, whilst I see your point regarding SoB, for the books I'd suspect it is less about a moral line and more about expectations from the customers. Even here on dakka we have a number of users who have in the past expressed their disapproval of women in the military, so by making a novel not feature female IG, it ultimately makes the book "safer".
It's a shame, but that's business I suppose. The ones to blame are mostly the fans, or at least a portion of them.
Disciple of Fate wrote:On the question of the idea of a hero is male. Its just a question of history mostly. It has many great women, but as long as they werent hacking and slashing their way across some battlefield (like Jeanne d'Arc who you mentioned) they arent really remembered.
And even when they were hacking and slashing their way across some battlefield, they often aren't.
History is written by the victors - I guess this includes gender.
Let's see if public perception shifts a bit more in the coming decades. At least mankind has begun to uncover a lot of lost documents or artefacts and tombs scratching on what is still common perception. Nowadays, we even know of female mercenary captains. And the only reason this bit of history was preserved was because that particular adventuress (who also served as a soldier in the army of the Papal States for some time) was sued at a court for having tried to impersonate Jeanne d'Arc. No-one would have bothered to write down her story if it weren't for some German-Imperial clerks filing a judicial report. How many more women like her lived and fought, unrecognised and unappreciated by modern history?
Psienesis wrote:It would be kinda like HIMYM.... in space. lol
Pitch that idea to BL - maybe Mitchell will pick it up
70214
Post by: Disciple of Fate
Lynata wrote:Disciple of Fate wrote:I think its still different in the SoB question (you expect them to die, just like space marines if victory isnt an option). They have been trained most of their lives with good equipment, a bit like stormtroopers (a bit of a stretch but comparable). Im talking about just regular female guardsman(women?). The question is if people would still enjoy a book like 15 hours if it was about an all female regiment for example. I think they are afraid to cross a moral line. That is, large scale description of women and child soldiers (under 18 like whiteshields) in some of the more gruesome fiction. Black Library writes book that can be quite harsh sometimes.
Hmmh, whilst I see your point regarding SoB, for the books I'd suspect it is less about a moral line and more about expectations from the customers. Even here on dakka we have a number of users who have in the past expressed their disapproval of women in the military, so by making a novel not feature female IG, it ultimately makes the book "safer".
It's a shame, but that's business I suppose. The ones to blame are mostly the fans, or at least a portion of them.
But in the end the moral line is made by us as a society. From here the costumers are brought forth. Remember that altough many might resent the fact of women in the army its also might be a different aspect. GW also gets quite a bit of money from teenagers, with mostly their parents paying. Good luck explaining to a mother of a 12 year old that this book is about the fall of Havenspire, in which the ... female regiment fought a heroic but doomed struggle, being sufficiently graphic. My local gw manager (great guy, this isnt critisiscm) has the worst time trying to explain some darker aspects like slaaneshi deamons, how do you explain such a strange thing to a normal person? Most of those parents give the strangest looks, thats without even seeing their face when looking at the prices  Most already find the hobby weird without such details. Remember how they changed the deamonettes, I remember bare nipples, but that seems to be a no go nowadays.
Just to be clear I have no problem with women in the army or anything. Im all for equality as long as it serves purpose, not getting random quotas like they sometimes do nowadays (sometimes you just have to pick the best person for the job regardless of race or gender, even if it might be a male whih already fills 80% of a company).
54729
Post by: AegisGrimm
I liked the female character in Mechanicus. I dare say that after that book, the entire Imperium owes something very important to a woman.
45703
Post by: Lynata
Wow, I didn't think store managers would actually have to face such questions. I could imagine that being a bit awkward.
On the other hand, it also kinda sounds like a challenge in diplomacy, heh.
Disciple of Fate wrote:Remember how they changed the deamonettes, I remember bare nipples, but that seems to be a no go nowadays.
Still makes me angry. Society is getting way too stuck-up.
What's worst is the hypocricy of it all. Porn consumption and sex trade goes up across all fronts, but you aren't supposed to talk about it in the public. "Everyone does it, nobody wants to admit it".
Oldschool Daemonettes ftw!
Disciple of Fate wrote:Just to be clear I have no problem with women in the army or anything. Im all for equality as long as it serves purpose, not getting random quotas like they sometimes do nowadays.
Hmm, like I said, I think that in some cases, temporary positive discrimination may be necessary to "break the ice", so to speak. To be dropped within one or two decades after you had a generation grow up in this new environment.
But I agree, for the military there need to be equal requirements for all, given the risks involved. And besides, else it isn't really equality, is it?
70214
Post by: Disciple of Fate
Lynata wrote: Disciple of Fate wrote:Just to be clear I have no problem with women in the army or anything. Im all for equality as long as it serves purpose, not getting random quotas like they sometimes do nowadays.
Hmm, like I said, I think that in some cases, temporary positive discrimination may be necessary to "break the ice", so to speak. To be dropped within one or two decades after you had a generation grow up in this new environment.
But I agree, for the military there need to be equal requirements for all, given the risks involved. And besides, else it isn't really equality, is it?
 Agreed, Im hoping that a great degree of equality will be reached reasonably soon. Im about to finish my uni history and the prospects are about equal for males and females from my study (Im male so its no disadvantage to me in the current society). Males still have a slighter advantage, but not by much, latest was about 10% easier to find a job (if looking at employment after first year).
Wh40k has a lot of equality already, mostly about the same ratio of males and females in the military, except for the 'special' worlds we only get to hear about. It just hit me that it might also be the writers. Most are male and might be a bit reluctant trying to write novels/series with a female lead. With the 'women are from venus, men are from mars' sort of thing. They should try to get some more female writers who might find it easier then the male writers to tackle those issues/books.
45703
Post by: Lynata
I liked Swallow's Battle Sister novels. He should do more of them.
Maybe it's really just a matter of personal preferences and visual association. People just not being interested in female heroes. Andy Hoare was once said to have expressed his concerns about the Sisters of Battle in that he was the only one in the GW studio who cared for them, and with him gone there'd be no-one to pick them up. Given the last couple years, I think that may have been true. And the SoB are pretty much the standard bearers for women warriors in 40k, so lack of females elsewhere is not surprising at all.
Let's see if it changes when "fresh blood" revitalises the franchise. And let's hope that it is revitalised in a positive manner.
70214
Post by: Disciple of Fate
It might be a change in generation/focus, as you say. Its a shame, even the HH is shifting away from the human element more to the marine. The first 3 HH books still had a significant female story line with Keeler. This also returned in A Thousand Sons and Mechanicum. But its dissapeared as of late.
Yeah Swallow's books are quite good, but he seems to work on some more Blood Angel books atm. At least that whats the last ending implies.
42494
Post by: nomotog
Ok you know these threads never really solve anything, but lets try that. How could you make 40k a more gender diverse setting? I think you could do it by requiring each codex to have at least two female SC. Even SM and orks would have to follow this rule. It wouldn't be that hard. Necrons would be the easiest because they are robots, you just need to change the pronouns. Orks might be tricky, but if you bring back the idea if imperial advisers you can sneak one in. SMs whould be the hardest unless you dump that silly rule that only men can be SMs.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
To a limited degree I agree. Making an oversexualized or wimpy female character is downright stupid. But a female character that is relatable and can drag the readers in is more entertaining than a male character as a male. Strong female characters are usually better than male characters. I do disagree that the sisters of battle are not overly undone and slaughtered by just about everyone. But being able to identify females and males through power armor is almost impossible without seeing their body shapes.
70214
Post by: Disciple of Fate
nomotog wrote:Ok you know these threads never really solve anything, but lets try that. How could you make 40k a more gender diverse setting? I think you could do it by requiring each codex to have at least two female SC. Even SM and orks would have to follow this rule. It wouldn't be that hard. Necrons would be the easiest because they are robots, you just need to change the pronouns. Orks might be tricky, but if you bring back the idea if imperial advisers you can sneak one in. SMs whould be the hardest unless you dump that silly rule that only men can be SMs.
Its not about forcing anything on people or codeces. Space marines are fine, being countered by SoB (they need an new codex though). Imperial guard its easy, add another steel legion or cadian character, they are males and females, so just pick out a female commander (enough action around Cadia even though they arent shipped off-world often). Drop a catachan or cadian one, enough of those, you could put harker and pask together on one page for example. But they should provide the models. Necrons, just add in females, the robot bodies proly dont make any difference. Orks are a bit asexual, they are fungus after all. Dark Eldar and regular eldar have quite a decent ratio. But the main point is that even though the above takes time and money, just changing the main character of a novel doesnt. Thats the main point, why dont they bring the female role more to the fore in novels. If you should believe the background females are employed almost as heavily as men, yet Black Library doesnt represent this.
68477
Post by: ragingmunkyz
With reference specifically to the models:
Crimson wrote:HOWEVER, it becomes problematic when these are pretty much only (human) female models you have. There should be a wide variety of different sorts of female models, like there is wide variety of male models.
This was the point I was making, and I hope that in my posts I was not coming off as anti-sexuality under any circumstances. I don't think sexuality is an inherently bad/shameful thing (I'm in NO WAY socially conservative), it has a place and can be represented in artistically, whether tastefully or provocatively. The problem is the over-representation as compared to more "normal," or at least non-sexualized, portrayals of women. There should be a balance.
I'm all for fully-nude daemonettes, and by all means sexualize them as much as you want, the way their fluff is written its completely appropriate. I like your view of why sisters repentia would forgo any armor, Lynata, unfortunately, the models as they are were clearly designed to sexualize them. I'd actually prefer them more naked to portray an animalistic nature as apposed to some absurd illusion of "sexy" armor. What would help would be toning down the SoB PA a bit, I don't think it's crazy over-the top, just unnecessarily sexual when sexuality isn't called for. Some female guardsman in the same fatigues and flak armor would be an awesome addition as well. If you want sexy female models, at least provide some sensible fluffy background as to why you want to show them that way.
With respect to women as represented in the fluff:
Disciple of Fate wrote:40k is very dark and gw might think it will turn people off if they write too much about the ''brutal slaughter of the .... female regiment''. Gender isnt really mentioned in the big picture, women die by quite a good amount, but it is almost never mentioned as express as certain male guard regiment.
This, unfortunately, is just outright wrong. GW has a history of murdering off women with disturbing frequency. One of the most famous was the Grey Knights killing a bunch of sisters just for the hell of it and because wearing chick blood is cool. Seriously, if they're as resistant to daemons as every bit of fluff says they are, they should never have needed to do that, it doesn't make any sense unless GW just likes killing SoB.
I am by no means the best source of BL fluff, I've read a bunch of the books, but not even a majority, so I cannot speak entirely to how women are represented in all of the literature. I have seen some cases where the women seem fairly portrayed and others which could have done a much better job. Here its less about sexualization and more about just an accurate presentation of women, as most female characters seem to be rather flat. Far too often women are either overly pious and blandly heroic, or else playing the role of victims. I even agree with Jimsolo that this is an 'R' setting, and as such, theres nothing wrong with including some sex with the violence, and in some cases it might actually do more to add some depth. In the end, I just think it would be refreshing to see some well-round, engaging female "main" characters in an overly male-dominated setting.
As to the question of of whether we, as a society can handle seeing female heros and women in combat, I think that very, very slowly those prejudices are eroding (the US now allows women to serve in combat roles for example). I personally want to see all those barriers fall down, and I would encourage any media source to try and further that goal, and to some degree, I believe all media has a social responsibility to deal with issues of gender, sexuality, race, etc in a fair and balanced way. As much as I get that they want to appeal to a customer base, they're denying themselves a chance at actually expanding their base by not including more women.
My main issue here is, the 40k setting has already established, time and again, that women fight and some are heroes. In a way, its sort of GWs fault for only going halfway with the idea. If you're going to have women in the setting, and establish that many are meant to play important roles, even in the violent bits, then go all the way and have more fleshed out female characters. By having them there, but not really giving them much of a spotlight, it makes it seem more male-biased than if you never mentioned them at all. Women are in 40k, they're just relegated to a second-tier status while the ubermales dominate the lead roles.
70214
Post by: Disciple of Fate
ragingmunkyz wrote:With respect to women as represented in the fluff:
Disciple of Fate wrote:40k is very dark and gw might think it will turn people off if they write too much about the ''brutal slaughter of the .... female regiment''. Gender isnt really mentioned in the big picture, women die by quite a good amount, but it is almost never mentioned as express as certain male guard regiment.
This, unfortunately, is just outright wrong. GW has a history of murdering off women with disturbing frequency. One of the most famous was the Grey Knights killing a bunch of sisters just for the hell of it and because wearing chick blood is cool. Seriously, if they're as resistant to daemons as every bit of fluff says they are, they should never have needed to do that, it doesn't make any sense unless GW just likes killing SoB.
Apologies for not explaining it in my initial post, but I adressed it in the next:
I think its still different in the SoB question (you expect them to die, just like space marines if victory isnt an option). They have been trained most of their lives with good equipment, a bit like stormtroopers (a bit of a stretch but comparable). Im talking about just regular female guardsman(women?). The question is if people would still enjoy a book like 15 hours if it was about an all female regiment for example. I think they are afraid to cross a moral line. That is, large scale description of women and child soldiers (under 18 like whiteshields) in some of the more gruesome fiction. Black Library writes book that can be quite harsh sometimes.
The history of murdering women involves mostly sister of battle, I cant really recall many other stories besides the sister ones. Well not updating their codex might be construed as their attempt to have everyone enjoy slaughtering SoB
42494
Post by: nomotog
Disciple of Fate wrote:nomotog wrote:Ok you know these threads never really solve anything, but lets try that. How could you make 40k a more gender diverse setting? I think you could do it by requiring each codex to have at least two female SC. Even SM and orks would have to follow this rule. It wouldn't be that hard. Necrons would be the easiest because they are robots, you just need to change the pronouns. Orks might be tricky, but if you bring back the idea if imperial advisers you can sneak one in. SMs whould be the hardest unless you dump that silly rule that only men can be SMs.
Its not about forcing anything on people or codeces. Space marines are fine, being countered by SoB (they need an new codex though). Imperial guard its easy, add another steel legion or cadian character, they are males and females, so just pick out a female commander (enough action around Cadia even though they arent shipped off-world often). Drop a catachan or cadian one, enough of those, you could put harker and pask together on one page for example. But they should provide the models. Necrons, just add in females, the robot bodies proly dont make any difference. Orks are a bit asexual, they are fungus after all. Dark Eldar and regular eldar have quite a decent ratio. But the main point is that even though the above takes time and money, just changing the main character of a novel doesnt. Thats the main point, why dont they bring the female role more to the fore in novels. If you should believe the background females are employed almost as heavily as men, yet Black Library doesnt represent this.
I think you would have to force it if you want them to change. I also don't think just changing novels would be enough. Add a character to a novel and they don't have the same fame as a codex unit. A novel character tends not to get out of the novel. They also can be removed rather easily. If they are a full model, then they get font billing on the GW web page, you are practically guaranteed to learn about them, they are also unlike to be removed or killed off. A strong change can only come from a change to the core of the setting.
70214
Post by: Disciple of Fate
nomotog wrote: Disciple of Fate wrote:nomotog wrote:Ok you know these threads never really solve anything, but lets try that. How could you make 40k a more gender diverse setting? I think you could do it by requiring each codex to have at least two female SC. Even SM and orks would have to follow this rule. It wouldn't be that hard. Necrons would be the easiest because they are robots, you just need to change the pronouns. Orks might be tricky, but if you bring back the idea if imperial advisers you can sneak one in. SMs whould be the hardest unless you dump that silly rule that only men can be SMs.
Its not about forcing anything on people or codeces. Space marines are fine, being countered by SoB (they need an new codex though). Imperial guard its easy, add another steel legion or cadian character, they are males and females, so just pick out a female commander (enough action around Cadia even though they arent shipped off-world often). Drop a catachan or cadian one, enough of those, you could put harker and pask together on one page for example. But they should provide the models. Necrons, just add in females, the robot bodies proly dont make any difference. Orks are a bit asexual, they are fungus after all. Dark Eldar and regular eldar have quite a decent ratio. But the main point is that even though the above takes time and money, just changing the main character of a novel doesnt. Thats the main point, why dont they bring the female role more to the fore in novels. If you should believe the background females are employed almost as heavily as men, yet Black Library doesnt represent this.
I think you would have to force it if you want them to change. I also don't think just changing novels would be enough. Add a character to a novel and they don't have the same fame as a codex unit. A novel character tends not to get out of the novel. They also can be removed rather easily. If they are a full model, then they get font billing on the GW web page, you are practically guaranteed to learn about them, they are also unlike to be removed or killed off. A strong change can only come from a change to the core of the setting.
Force is never a good way to get them to put out the miniatures, they will drop them at the first possible moment. They still are a business, they see no need in producing these things, even if its as easy as just adding some extra heads to the sprues. The problem atm seems to be a turn away from females in novels. The appearences they are making are becoming less significant. I can understand not producing female models, but not ignoring them in the fluff. This is just their way of thinking, they seem to find women less important, this needs changing. Even at the core of the fluff they still have quite some equality in the Imperium itself... just not inside gw.
19370
Post by: daedalus
Evileyes wrote:What I never liked, was the fact that one in 1000 humans or something similar, are psyker's. And all of them, every single damn one, is male. Hell of a coincidence that.
I believe it's much more slim that that. Also, one of the stories in the GK omnibus, the female inquisitor is a psyker. She has the ability to speed absorb information in books. This leads her to find the true-name of a daemon, and go crazy, or something.
It's always been my opinion that if you try hard enough, you will find something misogynistic, homophobic, phallic, religious, sacrilegious, insert-cause-here, in any sort of medium should you really want (or not) to.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Disciple of Fate wrote:(sometimes you just have to pick the best person for the job regardless of race or gender, even if it might be a male whih already fills 80% of a company).
When you have a history of oppression, the oppressed part of the populace is going to have a long history of NOT being skilled, of NOT having the cultural mindset of the dominant social class, and of having lingering values that negatively effect their ability to thrive. This is the reason behind quotas, behind positive/reverse discrimination, etc. To help develop within various oppressed groups and subgroups the cultural mindset that they CAN get ahead and how exactly to do that. And, quite frankly, this is (the?) one area where the Imperium is more progressive than modern society is. daedalus wrote:It's always been my opinion that if you try hard enough, you will find something misogynistic, homophobic, phallic, religious, sacrilegious, insert-cause-here, in any sort of medium should you really want (or not) to.
And if you try hard enough to ignore it, it all goes away-- as long as you're a member of the dominant social class. It's quite easy for a straight white heterosexual male to ignore the discrimination that non-straight/non-white/non-heterosexual/non-males receive and act as if it doesn't exist even as they perpetuate it.
19370
Post by: daedalus
Melissia wrote:And if you try hard enough to ignore it, it all goes away-- as long as you're a member of the dominant social class. It's quite easy for a straight white heterosexual male to ignore the discrimination that non-straight/non-white/non-heterosexual/non-males receive and act as if it doesn't exist even as they perpetuate it.
And sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar. But I'm a fat white middle class guy. I have my head in the sand and pretend I don't see bigotry when it's actually present.
I'll go back to my sitcoms, Family Guy, South Park, and other forms of entertainment designed for my demographic, and continue being reminded of how the white guy is the utter buffoon, whilst the female is the voice of reason and temperament.
Or, more likely, I won't care, because it really doesn't bother me. Obviously, this is because I've had it so well for so long that the fact that I have it so much better than women, being part of the dominant social class.
29408
Post by: Melissia
daedalus wrote:And sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar. But I'm a fat white middle class guy. I have my head in the sand and pretend I don't see bigotry when it's actually present.
You can be sarcastic all you want, but it's still very much the case. Automatically Appended Next Post: As an aside, the BA nipple-armor bothers me as well. It's an obnoxious and unnecessary addition to the armor, and I get why they did it, but that still doesn't make me like it any more
42494
Post by: nomotog
daedalus wrote: Melissia wrote:And if you try hard enough to ignore it, it all goes away-- as long as you're a member of the dominant social class. It's quite easy for a straight white heterosexual male to ignore the discrimination that non-straight/non-white/non-heterosexual/non-males receive and act as if it doesn't exist even as they perpetuate it.
And sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar. But I'm a fat white middle class guy. I have my head in the sand and pretend I don't see bigotry when it's actually present.
I'll go back to my sitcoms, Family Guy, South Park, and other forms of entertainment designed for my demographic, and continue being reminded of how the white guy is the utter buffoon, whilst the female is the voice of reason and temperament.
Or, more likely, I won't care, because it really doesn't bother me. Obviously, this is because I've had it so well for so long that the fact that I have it so much better than women, being part of the dominant social class.
Are you being sarcastic or honest?
17962
Post by: forrestfire
Reading this thread, I'm reminded of that scene at the beginning of Iron Man where Tony Stark is being talked to by the soldier who's driving the vehicle he's in and responds with "Good god you're a woman." When someone is wearing enough gear, you can barely tell, if at all. I would personally love to see some subtly-sculpted female models, with heads to go with them. Armies like IG and Tau, for instance, should never have the sort of overexaggerated models so many people seem to want. Niiai wrote:Not all the races do this. All space marines yes. Imperial guard yes, and it is a mistake. Tau, we do not really know how their females look or what passes as masculinaty. Eldar and Dark eldar: A good represensation of males and females. We could still have more females. Necroms seems to have a maskuline gender representation but no sex. This is bad. It should be neatral or both. Orks are also very maskuline gender and no sex. Quite bad. Tyranids have females (lay eggs) and no males. At this point you're falling into the trap of wanting female models for political correctness reasons. Look at the fluff, the models are supposed to represent it, not societal views. Space Marines have a fluff justification, and even if they didn't, female space marines would look no different on the tabletop. Their armor is one size fits all, boob-plate shouldn't ever come into it. IG could use some many female sculpts, if they were very subtle, with some head swaps. Tau wear baggy bodysuits and hard body armor--you would literally be unable to tell the difference unless the helmet was off. Eldar and Dark Eldar I agree are a good mix. We could probably use better female guardians, but even then, they all wear full body armor, and you should barely be able to tel. Necrons are metal skeletons. Skeletons don't have a visible sex. This is not bad, it would make no sense to sculpt breasts onto them, or to make fembot versions, when their whole theme is "metal terminator skeletons" Orks have literally no fluff reason to have female models. They don't even have genitals! They reproduce asexually through spores, why would having a single, gorilla-like body type be bad? Tyranids are mostly genderless. If I remember correctly, many of the foot troops don't even have full digestive systems, just weapons.
57210
Post by: DemetriDominov
Melissia wrote: The Bechdel Test: 1: Story has two women, preferably named women. 2: Have at least one conversation... 3: ... that doesn't involve a man or men, or the male population in general.
tl;dr, not everything a female character would talk about in 40k has to do with loving men. Would a book fail the Berscher test if the main character was a guy and therefore (unless he was dropping some ease in the words of Samwise) would inherently be part of every conversation?
19370
Post by: daedalus
Good point. A lot of that is sarcastic. I think claims of misogyny are overblown in 40k, for reasons others have already posted. I could repeat them for you if you want, despite that I do not want to. I AM a fat white middle class guy. I do not think that I'm a misogynist. I hold the door for women. I'll also catch the door for a guy. Over half the people I work with are women, and the majority of them are in positions of power or authority over the men. I think most of them genuinely deserve to be there.
I'm not sure whatever other sanity check I can make to confirm the apparent misogyny I possess from thinking the topic is preposterous. Automatically Appended Next Post: DemetriDominov wrote:
Would a book fail the Berscher test if the main character was a guy and therefore (unless he was dropping some ease in the words of Samwise) would inherently be part of every conversation?
Eaves. He was droppin' eaves.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And really, that's still wrong, 'cuz 'e wadn't droppin' no eaves, mista Gandalf sir.
42494
Post by: nomotog
DemetriDominov wrote: Melissia wrote: The Bechdel Test:
1: Story has two women, preferably named women.
2: Have at least one conversation...
3: ... that doesn't involve a man or men, or the male population in general.
tl;dr, not everything a female character would talk about in 40k has to do with loving men.
Would a book fail the Berscher test if the main character was a guy and therefore (unless he was dropping some ease in the words of Samwise) would inherently be part of every conversation?
I would let it pass if he was a part of a conversation with two women that where talking about a topic that wasn't him or about a man. Like if he was talking with two other women about how lace is so hard to wash. That would pass. It's a very strange test. (Lesbian porn almost always passes.) I find the test works best when used globally rather then on each individual story. If you what to test a story, you can use better measures then the Bechdel test.
65268
Post by: Shlazaor
I only read the first two pages but I just want to say I am really impressed by the discussion. Very reasonable and even tempered analysis of both sides. Then again I voted straight down the middle so it does match up with my opinion lol. I am honestly shocked GW hasn't cashed more in on sex appeal so I think they get props for that.
29408
Post by: Melissia
nomotog wrote: DemetriDominov wrote: Melissia wrote: The Bechdel Test:
1: Story has two women, preferably named women.
2: Have at least one conversation...
3: ... that doesn't involve a man or men, or the male population in general.
tl;dr, not everything a female character would talk about in 40k has to do with loving men.
Would a book fail the Berscher test if the main character was a guy and therefore (unless he was dropping some ease in the words of Samwise) would inherently be part of every conversation?
I would let it pass if he was a part of a conversation with two women that where talking about a topic that wasn't him or about a man. Like if he was talking with two other women about how lace is so hard to wash. That would pass. It's a very strange test. (Lesbian porn almost always passes.) I find the test works best when used globally rather then on each individual story. If you what to test a story, you can use better measures then the Bechdel test.
Correct, it's meant as a test of a genre or media as a whole, rather than of an individual example.
4820
Post by: Ailaros
ZSO, SAHAAL wrote:Include normal female characters
Here's your problem. There are no normal characters in 40k, regardless of gender.
It's a problem of the lack of a "straight man", not that GW hates women.
45703
Post by: Lynata
I dunno - just throwing a bunch of women into the Imperial Guard would go a long way, so much so that I'd actually consider the entire topic a non-issue, for the IG is pretty much the flagship of the Imperium when it comes to representing its populace in all the franchise's media.
One of the things the Space Marine videogame did well was Lieutenant Mira. When I first heard about her I thought she's sort of a "token girl" at best, damsel in distress at worst. But even though I have retained a feeling this is at least part of the truth, after actually playing the game I have to say that the character's visual design and personality were very good and fitting.
So, why not have a mini like her in the range? Could've even been used to promote the game, just like GW produced a mini of Ephrael Stern (complete with rules) for the graphic novel.
The Guardsmen, at least many of them, are probably as normal as it gets ... sufficiently so that people can identify with them. I mean, half the regiments are straight rip-offs from Earth's own history.
When I had to make a character for Only War, all I needed to do was think of the war movies I watched, or browse wikipedia for some inspiration. See the trivia section at the end of this page for what I mean.
(Valhallans ftw!)
[edit] speaking of Valhalla, I just remembered this:
"By the sixth week of fighting, the Orks reached the main food chamber with its hundreds of nutrient slime vats. Almost half the Orks had been killed, but the remainder were every bit as determined as ever. The scent of the bubbling green slime assailed their keen nostrils and they licked their scaly lips in anticipation. The Valhallans prepared to put up a final resistance. If the chamber was captured they would starve within a week. Every man, woman and child that could carry a gun crowded into the chamber and its surrounding galleries. The battle would decide which race would survive on Valhalla."
- 2nd Edition Codex: Imperial Guard
66552
Post by: Admiral Valerian
That depends on your view of the fluff. As far as I'm concerned, as many women serve in the Imperial Guard/Navy as men, and there are as many female heroes/saints/officers as well. I'm not gonna continue this, but I just want to give my two cents on the matter.
34439
Post by: Formosa
I'm all for strong female characters, not Charlie's angels like but decently written,i am so sick to the back teeth of 104lb woman 1 punching a 230lb man in some stupid ass girl power nonsense.
Or any Angelina Jolie crap, anyone who watches game of.thrones? Take a look at that female knight, she is badass, sisters of battle look like HER to me, all worn, beaten a little disheveled... You know.. Not like they just got out of makeup all perfect after a 40ft rtransformer just blew up half.the city...
45703
Post by: Lynata
Like so?
I guess it's all a matter of experience. Battle Sisters enter active service at the age of ~17, where they'd probably still look somewhat young/pure/intact - fitting for the angelic image they are supposed to project towards the populace. However, the older they get, the more battles they see, and the more gritty they become. The miniatures actually represent this as fairly well, what with the Canoness having a bionic eye and scarred face:
Admiral Valerian wrote:As far as I'm concerned, as many women serve in the Imperial Guard/Navy as men
I think everyone in this thread agrees on that, actually.
You just don't see those women. No minis, no fluff in the 'dex, no nothing.
40392
Post by: thenoobbomb
Women are weak and can't grow beards. That's why they need a strong personality.
Tssk.
67097
Post by: angelofvengeance
Are we all forgetting that Eldar and Dark Eldar have mixed gender forces? I should also point out that Lelith Hesperax (Succubus) and Jain Zar (Phoenix Lord) are some of the most badass characters in 40k Automatically Appended Next Post: Formosa wrote:I'm all for strong female characters, not Charlie's angels like but decently written,i am so sick to the back teeth of 104lb woman 1 punching a 230lb man in some stupid ass girl power nonsense. Or any Angelina Jolie crap, anyone who watches game of.thrones? Take a look at that female knight, she is badass, sisters of battle look like HER to me, all worn, beaten a little disheveled... You know.. Not like they just got out of makeup all perfect after a 40ft rtransformer just blew up half.the city... I assume you're on about Brienne of Tarth?
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
Since when was 40K misogynist? Misogyny is a hatred of women. There's less an issue of women being represented poorly in 40K and more just a matter of women not being mentioned much at all- which is kind of expected when you consider that the universe's most iconic aspect, Space Marines, are a fraternity in which it's genetically impossible for women to be apart of. As has been mentioned a couple times already, in the majority of the guard books there's a plethora of well-rounded female characters. Not just the Guard books either. Eisenhorn and Ravenor both have great female characters, with Bequin being one of my favorite women in sci-fi period.
34258
Post by: Pilau Rice
I don't think deviantart helps.
37036
Post by: Sir Pseudonymous
Lynata wrote:ragingmunkyz wrote:For ways NOT to do this see the "armor" on the Sisters Repentia
For some reason, the only thing I don't like is that little bit of leather(?) still covering the nipples. Makes it look like some sort of mini-bra, as if they still need to be ashamed of having teats - when all they'd think about is how to throw away their life in a manner that kills as many enemies as possible. It feels like the designers had an idea, but did not quite "dare" to go all the way because naked breasts are a no-go (look at the new Daemonettes compared to the old ones) ... in essence, modern day political correctness creeping into the setting.
I have to agree with the overall sentiment here. Speaking in more general terms: if you're going to go with sex-appeal, or something which contextually involves nudity, you might as well as actually carry it out properly instead of just halfway, because that leaves you with something in many respects as "inappropriate" or low-brow (as the case may be, and based upon those who would oppose the full/proper work), but necessarily weakened by the censorship, and which marks you out as a coward to boot.
And it's not a modern thing; it's an American thing. If that's spreading to Europe, well that is rather bad, but at the same time we are slowly getting better in this regard.
30490
Post by: Mr Morden
I'm probably giving the author too much flak.
Ultimately, I still feel he "devalued" both the Sisterhood as well as the Commissariat by presenting both organisations in such a drastically different and more humane light. Just like the Space Marines, they're not meant to be like "the guys from next door", and if he wanted to write a story like that he should've picked characters from a more ordinary profession.
But yeah, that has little to do with gender.
Without derailing the thread:
Hmm - one of the recurring themes about the Cain novels is how he makes it very clear that Cain is an exception - so whilst I agree his is drastically different to the normal Commissar - that’s the point.
I don't agree that the Commissariat is changed - indeed they are normally presented as written - indeed again Cain often points out this “normal” behaviour and attitude as a shortcoming - in his view. But again he is the exception, not the rule and few share his views in universe.
Many who he encounter he surprises by some of his decisions - like a recent story where a ranking officer makes a potentially huge mistake that could cost them the city, everyone expects him to execute the man (including several Astartes in the room) but he instead gives him the "you made this mess you sort it out" option.
As I have mentioned before, the darker elements in the mythos are still there – the “nice” characters still find comfort in the images of heretics burning, the routine of prisoners being brought in for weapons practice and interrogation techniques by children at the Schola, etc.
The Sisterhood – I think suffers more from other authors depiction of them as cannon fodder and annoying often as heretics – I note that a new novel is coming out that has a “canoness who had to eradicate her entire order for Hersey” – Really?? The Codexes are little better.
In contrast the Cain novels depict the Sororitas as grim, scary but inspiring warriors who are formidable in battle but importantly don’t always get massacred. The only “in universe” person who has anything bad to say about them is Cain himself and that’s only because he has issues about the Church (despite being a believer) and the Sisters habit of charging into the enemy, although even he has to say its usually effective. We have discussed at length before the Celestain and her actions.
Back OT – GW should produce more female characters for the tabletop – they do turn up in codexes – Inquisitor Valeria is great in the Grey Knights – but no model for her?
They could have done a female Necron Queen as they did for the Tomb Kings (lets face it the Necrons are just Tomb Kings in space in their new incarnation) and it would have given some variety to a somewhat bland collection of character models that is the present range. You don’t need huge boobs for the latter, which sadly is the usual knee jerk reaction by those who seem terrified of female figures – just do a Khalida style character and model.
and so on................
50557
Post by: Thatguy91
The 40k IoM is based on the early to mid middle ages aka the dark ages and IMO thats why women are portrayed the way they are in the game, which is a quite accurate depiction of women in society at that time.
And also its only human females, the eldar have loads of revered women in their society.
Also.. This threads stinks of hardcore aggressive feminism.... Lets not scorn others on the forum because they don't share our views. This is a friendly discussion about a board game, not a debate about the future of gender equality.
41332
Post by: Sille
I once read about 2 very powerful non curropted pyskers in the Imperium, 2 sisters that are always on the run from the imperial Inquisition. The are going around the Imperium helping people when needed. As i understood it the Inquisition considers them too powerful, and want to kill them. 1 of them destroyed a warhound titan when protecting herself.
I also read about women being in high postions in the mechnium aswell as the Imperial fleet.
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
Patience Kys from Ravenor is a psyker.
Bequin was a blank, the anti-thesis of a psyker but still. There's actually been two or three female blanks.
I know for a fact that there's been a few women psykers. Don't remember their names but I remember their existence.
- - - - -
From a non-Psyker topic, those of you who've read Only War might have noticed that nearly 50% of the art in the game shows female guardsmen, from various regiments. Even the Commisar art depicts a female commisar.
44823
Post by: Tiarna Fuilteach
Quite surprise this thread has lasted this long to be honest, but for what its worth......women in black library books, playable special characters etc. are needed no more or less then male characters, there just simply seems to be more roles that are suitable to male characters (for example any books written about space marines which cover a large percentage of them). The codices where its not feasible to have female special characters (Space Marines and all differing chapters, chaos daemons, CSM, nids, orks) only leaves Imperial Guard missing female characters and maybe it should have a female character but to include one purely because people throw hissy fits online is pathetic.........The psyker thing is bat crap carazy as well by the way, just today I put down a book about an extremely powerful human psyker called Xamagundi (I highly doubt I've spelt that correctly)..........Another thing to consider is that the target audience for new GW publications are pre-adolescent boys and for lack of a better term veterans of the game and whether that is right or wrong is possibly worth discussing but it is the situation we live in........I also don't like the argument that female characters shouldn't be there as a love interest as most male characters in the books have love interests.....also the HH books in particular are littered with characters of the female variety
I'm not looking to start a flame war but people shouldn't open discussions if they don't want to hear differing opinions to their own
As a footnote is it even possible to have a "normal" human of any gender in a fictional universe?
52654
Post by: Seb
Tiarna Fuilteach wrote:
As a footnote is it even possible to have a "normal" human of any gender in a fictional universe?
I think that is the point.
I have read a great deal of BL books, along with most Codex(s) since 2nd edition and some of the FFG RPG books. I have yet to come across a normal anything.
The whole setting is supposed to be caricatural. Space marines are all knights/monks, SoB are fanatic templars, GK are even more a caricature that I care to explain (One of them is spending his vacation in the warp, killing greater daemons and only coming back when someone needs to tale paladins as troops - wich every 2 days).
The only regular armd force is the IG, and by regular I mean permanently watched in the back by fanatical commisars regular. So no, nobody's normal. The most normal I found are the Gaunt novels, in wich the soldier depicted (men and women) can be related to. And you'll notice that most of the stuff they face is completely not normal.
Eldar and DA have (good) female characters, fluff and models. The IoM, in general, is pretty lacking. The only image you can find is the one of the SoB, who from the start are fanatical warrior/nuns/zealots - definitely not normal.
Add a female commisar and a female general in the IG book, add those minis + a few female guards, and everything's sorted out.
4817
Post by: Spetulhu
BlaxicanX wrote:Misogyny is a hatred of women. There's less an issue of women being represented poorly in 40K and more just a matter of women not being mentioned much at all.
This. WH40K is Grimdark future battle with huge explosions, people running at each other with chainsaws, aliens attacking with arcane weaponry or huge armor-rending claws. It doesn't matter if a "normal" human is male or female, they're still equally screwed.
29910
Post by: Fire_for_effect
As many others already said, many books have a variety of strong female characters, especially the marvelous "Gaunts Ghosts" series.
Although I agree that 40k could need some more women, I don't think it necessarily NEEDS a system of perfect gender equality. Why? Because it's the grim dark future and everything is grim dark and bad. I think it has pretty much been established that the Imperium is mostly a horrid place to live in. So why is it surprising that in this system that is strongly xenophobic, extremely fascist, that employs forceful conscription of entire populations, genocide and a whole palette of insane atrocities, there is also sexism.
This is not to say it's good, but it's kind of the Imperium's thing.
Besides, has anyone ever given it the thought that the fact that the Imperial Guard is mainly made up of men (although as we just established, there are plenty of mixed gender regiments in fluff) is somehow sexist towards men? I mean I wouldn't call being shipped out to foreign planets to fight aliens or fanatics to act as meat shield with less worth than your gun a privilege.
Seeing as plenty of guardsmen don't actually want to join the Imperial guard and are forced into it or coerced by their culture and religion, I wouldn't really consider it a "freedom" to join the Imperial Guard.
25963
Post by: Miraclefish
You haven't read the Horus Heresy, Purge the Heretic, Gaunt's Ghosts, Commisar Cain, Night Lords or Path of the... eldar series then? Or the Grey Knights Codex?
Hell, the Cain books alone have a very capable lady inquisitor and her mixed-gender kick-ass retinue, a lauded regiment that’s around 50% women troopers, a female colonel who’s a hero, even a character who becomes a Lady General, pretty much the highest rank it’s possible to get in the Imperium.
The Gaunts books have Tona Criid, doctor Ana Curth, Commissar-General Balshin, even the blessed Saint herself.
And saying that Sisters of Battle are portrayed badly misses the point that they’re as strange and weird as Astartes are. Both are at the edges of humanity, be that through genetic enhancement or pious belief.
In the game itself, outside of the Black Library books, we have Inquisitor Valyria, who bested the Necron Tesseract Labyrinth, Commander Shadowsun, the foremost Tau general and warrior and countless mixed-gender Tau units (in the Codex), Wych units for Dark Eldar, Eldar Banshees and Farseers, even Gaunt's Ghosts and Last Chancers have female characters in their units.
Not to mention the largely female Callidus assassins, of course.
There are many, many well written and rounded female characters if you care to look. Both in the books and on the tabletop. There are far, far more female characters than there are in 21st century militaries, let alone in front-line combat units.
Strangely, 40K doesn't lack behind, it actually leads the way in equality with women.
Less so for xenos, who should obviously all be burned.
42494
Post by: nomotog
Melissia wrote:The Bechdel Test:
1: Story has two women, preferably named women.
2: Have at least one conversation...
3: ... that doesn't involve a man or men, or the male population in general.
If we apply the test to 40k, we should also count it when the two women battle each other even if they don't talk. Like if you have two female commanders fighting over a guffen. Even though they aren't talking they are still interacting.
44823
Post by: Tiarna Fuilteach
This bechdel test always annoyed me when applied to media in general, maybe it had a use when it was applied to films alone as first intended but it wouldn't pass any tv shows even ones which are all about the sisterhood such as sex and the city.......and before I'm labelled anything I want to make it abundantly clear I am not a mysognist.........I hate everybody equally
42494
Post by: nomotog
Tiarna Fuilteach wrote:This bechdel test always annoyed me when applied to media in general, maybe it had a use when it was applied to films alone as first intended but it wouldn't pass any tv shows even ones which are all about the sisterhood such as sex and the city.......and before I'm labelled anything I want to make it abundantly clear I am not a mysognist.........I hate everybody equally
Umm TV shows have an easier time passing the test. Most shows will past the test eventually and shows about women do pass easily.
9598
Post by: Quintinus
ZSO, SAHAAL wrote:I think it’s a major flaw and is in fact killing the series and keeping it from being what it could be. This is because well rounded characters and varying personalities and perspectives gives stories depth, people complain about lack of love in 40k but how can you have love when every female character is a pious sexually repressed nun, a snobbish aristocrat, or a sex slave captured by the dark elder. Often those who make fun of the sisters of battle are accused of misogyny and often the accusation is correct but again what do you expect, they've been set up to be Sci-Fi snuff, with dd's and beads and a "device", that looks like a chastity belt around their crotches along with matt wards bizarre fantasies mixed in the sisters of battle are obviously not meant to be taken seriously and for the most part their not. The Solution: Include normal female characters that aren't getting chopped up or sexually enslaved. I believe ADB has done a great job with this in his books particularly in Soul Hunter where he actually had a love story, and had female characters that played non sexual roles such as Octavia’s servants and female members of the bridge crew. I think Chaos would be the best place to start with this introduction, the Imperials have already been fleshed out pretty will and it’s easier to add new material than to change material already in existence. Where lacking fluff on the mortal servants of Chaos, this seems like a great place to add normal female characters, partisans and resistance leaders fighting the Imperium, or captains leading the warmasters ships(their not all commanded by Chaos Marines after all), maybe some that got tired of the old boys club in the Imperium and did'nt want to be either a nun or the wife/plaything of an Imperial officer/gangleader/noble. This is a blunt and honest post and I demand blunt and honest responses. No sugarcoating. I'm making a poll of whether you agree completely, somewhat, or disagree completely so I can gauge overall opinion. We don't need any more tumblrfeminists corrupting yet another decent setting. You guys basically already ruined MtG and vidya gaems. Also, how about we don't have men getting thrown into a nearly literal meat grinder? Why can't we have a couple nice guys in the setting who just relax and have a good time? Oh yeah because 40k is a nightmare future, not tumblr.
45703
Post by: Lynata
Mr Morden wrote:Hmm - one of the recurring themes about the Cain novels is how he makes it very clear that Cain is an exception - so whilst I agree his is drastically different to the normal Commissar - that’s the point.
All I'm saying is that exceptions like that don't really make sense when you read how the Schola and Commissariat are depicted in Codex fluff, how they pick and teach their young. But I think I mentioned that somewhere else already, too. A character like Cain as a Commissar would be like having a nice Black Templar who has a psyker for a friend. I'm sure someone could write a funny novel about such a pairing, too, but it's just not something the existing background has room for.
I guess it's just one of the many examples where the sources deviate from one another, but it's no secret that I don't like the level of inconsistency between the franchise's different outlets.
That's another thing that Battletech does better, by the way.
Mr Morden wrote:They could have done a female Necron Queen as they did for the Tomb Kings
I don't think a female Necron is in any way needed ...
... but if they really wanted to go that route, I suppose they could have added something like an assassination unit like the Deathmark in a thinner, smaller, vaguely female'ish form (no actual breasts ofc). I think a number of sci-fi media have gone that route for their robot designs.
Thatguy91 wrote:The 40k IoM is based on the early to mid middle ages aka the dark ages and IMO thats why women are portrayed the way they are in the game, which is a quite accurate depiction of women in society at that time.
That's not quite correct, though. The IoM is based on a wide variety of things from all across humanity's timeline, and even the existing fluff already makes it very clear that there should be, for example, female Cadians. The rulebook mentions that birth rates and recruitment are synonymous for many worlds, hinting at mixed regiments (or at least mixed recruitment) not being uncommon.
And even in medieval Europe you had female peasants in army levies, as mercenaries, or even knights. This may not be "common knowledge", but easily accessible information in this time and age for anyone with access to the internet, or just a good library in their town.
BlaxicanX wrote:From a non-Psyker topic, those of you who've read Only War might have noticed that nearly 50% of the art in the game shows female guardsmen, from various regiments.
Oh yes, even the male-only regiments.
(I still think the Commissar is supposed to be Raege, btw)
Tiarna Fuilteach wrote:Imperial Guard missing female characters and maybe it should have a female character but to include one purely because people throw hissy fits online is pathetic
I hope you at least realise that this is a fairly controversial point to make.
Seb 510357 wrote:Add a female commisar and a female general in the IG book, add those minis + a few female guards, and everything's sorted out. 
This.
Actually, we already have that Commissar. She just was a limited edition handout for Games Day, if I remember correctly.
I think my own three-step program would be female bitz in the Cadian box, a female Lieutenant SC (rules and miniature) like the aforementioned Mira, and a "honourary mention" of some female officer in Codex fluff. That's all that 40k really needs in order to be brought "into line" with its own background regarding this issue.
Fire_for_effect wrote:I think it has pretty much been established that the Imperium is mostly a horrid place to live in. So why is it surprising that in this system that is strongly xenophobic, extremely fascist, that employs forceful conscription of entire populations, genocide and a whole palette of insane atrocities, there is also sexism.
But there isn't. That's the entire point. This is not an in-setting issue, it's a weird out-of-universe absence of what the setting's background already contains.
Fire_for_effect wrote:Besides, has anyone ever given it the thought that the fact that the Imperial Guard is mainly made up of men [...]
Source?
But even if it were - that may be sexist to the men within the setting, but obviously not to the actual players, whose opinion and perception of social issues is forged in large part by media and toys, and this includes 40k. And ultimately, it is the soldier who is seen as the hero, not the housewife or the baby machine.
Complaining about the IG being so gritty and unfair would be like having a Space Wolf player who complains about the Wulfen curse, or a Blood Angels player who complains about the Black Rage. It's why they picked this army, duh.
50012
Post by: Crimson
Vladsimpaler wrote:
We don't need any more tumblrfeminists corrupting yet another decent setting. You guys basically already ruined MtG and vidya gaems.
...
Are you serious?
50557
Post by: Thatguy91
Lynata wrote: Thatguy91 wrote:The 40k IoM is based on the early to mid middle ages aka the dark ages and IMO thats why women are portrayed the way they are in the game, which is a quite accurate depiction of women in society at that time.
That's not quite correct, though. The IoM is based on a wide variety of things from all across humanity's timeline, and even the existing fluff already makes it very clear that there should be, for example, female Cadians. The rulebook mentions that birth rates and recruitment are synonymous for many worlds, hinting at mixed regiments (or at least mixed recruitment) not being uncommon.
And even in medieval Europe you had female peasants in army levies, as mercenaries, or even knights. This may not be "common knowledge", but easily accessible information in this time and age for anyone with access to the internet, or just a good library in their town.
Yeah sure but here's the thing... Both settings are male dominated. Written by males. For what I would estimate to be an at least 85% male audience. So it is to be expected really.. And just because it is male dominated doesn't mean its misogynous.
There are strong, capable female characters in 40k too, just as there has been strong capable women throughout history.
I like to think alot of women in the IoM work as government officials, industrial workers or stuff like that. Unless they are a part of the IG.
45703
Post by: Lynata
Agreed on all points. It's more a case of the miniatures line not representing what the background already suggests - and, of course, people asking what the reason for that might be.
Personally, I'm not suspecting malicious intent. Rather ... hm, ignorance? As you said, men making stuff for men. It's the same thing in the video game industry*. And the whole argument could just as well be made about skin colours in the Imperium, too. But at least that is fairly easy to fix for the average customer.
*: Although there are a lot of cases where certain influential people have a rather obvious gender bias, too.
801
Post by: buddha
I think the best pro-female example I can think of in 40k were the tertiary PDF grunts in Titanicus. They weren't shown as anything special but still rose to the challenge and lived. Still not the happiest endings for them either.
50557
Post by: Thatguy91
It is and frankly I think its a shame. It would be nice to atleast have some forgeworld female cadians or something... I think that is something that could really spice up armies and get them a whole lot of money in the process.
I do agree with you though
39550
Post by: Psienesis
Vladsimpaler wrote:
We don't need any more tumblrfeminists corrupting yet another decent setting. You guys basically already ruined MtG and vidya gaems.
Also, how about we don't have men getting thrown into a nearly literal meat grinder? Why can't we have a couple nice guys in the setting who just relax and have a good time?
Oh yeah because 40k is a nightmare future, not tumblr.
Seriously, 40K is not, and should not be, a boys-only club, either in-setting or on the table-top. You *can* have a couple (or a lot) of folks just kicking back, having a grand time... Paradise Worlds do exist in the Imperium, after all... but that aspect of life is not represented by the table-top game and barely, if ever, touched by BL. More importantly, though, we have references in Codices and BL novels of gender equality in large swaths of life in the Imperium... in fact, there is a far stronger case for it than against it in most aspects... but this is not represented by the miniatures available, by and large, and is generally under-represented in a majority of BL fiction that isn't centered on Space Marines (in which case the preponderance of male characters is a given), and is further exacerbated by the tendency for the various female institutions, notably the Sororitas, to be used only as cannon fodder in order to escalate the on-page conflicts so that another, male force can come in and save the day. Even the recent GK/Sisters kerfluffle could have been written differently that would have permitted the sacrifice of the Sisters to have been depicted as incredibly brave (they were, in fact, more-pure than the supposedly-incorruptible GK), divinely sacrificial, and absolutely critical to the GK's success against the Bloodtide. Instead, while that is... kinda implied, if one can read into the actions, but you kind of need to be reading above the level at which it was written... what we got is basically some Sisters get killed by the GK because GK are better.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Yes, he's quite serious. Ignore him, don't let him drag a good topic in to feminist-bashing yet again. 40k is actually already more egalitarian in many if not most regards than IRL is. Female Inquisitors are almost just as common as male ones; their armed forces recruit people regardless of gender; the best unaugmented human soldiers are female, not male; none of the high-ranking human authorities have restriction on gender, from governors, to arbites, to even the High Lords of Terra themselves. Amusingly, GW really doesn't have to do much to satisfy many of the requests by feminists in this thread-- that is to say, all it really needs to do is make a few miniatures for the Imperial Guard and maybe include a few more notable females (especially primary characters) in its BL books. It's not like anyone's asking for fundamental changes to 40k. 40k is already fundamentaly more progressive than IRL.
50012
Post by: Crimson
When I design characters for fiction (RP, story, etc) I occasionally randomly swap their genders after I'm otherwise done designing them to avoid gender stereotypes.
I think GW still operates from "unless there is a specific reason for a character to be female, it will be male" perspective, which is annoying. This is especially true for miniatures themselves. All the IG soldiers are male, and even all aspect warriors that are not based on guardian models are male, unless they're Banshees where "being female" is part of their thing.
70080
Post by: workmance
Psienesis wrote:This is not a subject that a simple poll is going to provide sufficient options for.
There are several female characters in the setting (several of the named characters of the Gaunt's Ghosts series are females, after all, including some of the unit's Scouts and Snipers). As mentioned in other threads, there's Inquisitor Amberly Vail. Shia Calpurnia, of the Enforcer series, is a female Arbiter, and the protagonist of the series. The Dark Heresy and Rogue Trader RPGs have plenty of female NPCs at all levels of society within the scope of each respective game.
The Ravenor and Eisenhorn series are filled with female characters, both protagonist and antagonist, as well as populating significant portions of the background. All of these characters are unique, separate, individual characters that are largely integral to the plot.
The Sisters of Battle? Yeah, they're an all-female religious order with gear that is reminiscent of various real-life examples of BDSM fetish-gear. Guess what? That real-life BDSM gear is reminiscent of religious attire, strongly centered around Catholicism. To accuse the SOB of being "leather nuns" is kind of putting the cart before the horse.
Remember that the Ecclesiarchy has female members on some worlds, and not on others. Not every woman in the Ecclesiarchy is a member of the Adeptus Sororitas. This is also true of the Imperial Guard, the Arbites, the Adeptus Mechanicus, the Adeptus Terra, and almost every other Imperial organization you can name, with the exception of the Adeptus Astartes and, it can be argued, the IST.
However, to flip the coin...
If a female character is depicted as being exactly as good as, in exactly the same ways as, a male character... what does the character's gender matter? Is something gained by the character having a pair of X chromosomes? Is this character not, really, just a male character "in drag"?
Why is it that male characters can get chopped up, but female characters cannot? That's a form of sexism in and of itself, though it can be in the other direction as well. I think you're overstating the case of Dark Eldar slave-victims, and missing the point of the Adeptus Sororitas entirely.
Fully agree with this.  The Ravenor and Eisenhorn series are chock full of female characters that give a good solid representation of strong willful non victimized women.
68477
Post by: ragingmunkyz
Vladsimpaler wrote:We don't need any more tumblrfeminists corrupting yet another decent setting. You guys basically already ruined MtG and vidya gaems.
Also, how about we don't have men getting thrown into a nearly literal meat grinder? Why can't we have a couple nice guys in the setting who just relax and have a good time?
Oh yeah because 40k is a nightmare future, not tumblr.
My, my what a charming fellow you must be! I'll bet you're quite a hit with all the young ladies in your middle school.
Melissia wrote:Amusingly, GW really doesn't have to do much to satisfy many of the requests by feminists in this thread-- that is to say, all it really needs to do is make a few miniatures for the Imperial Guard and maybe include a few more notable females (especially primary characters) in its BL books. It's not like anyone's asking for fundamental changes to 40k. 40k is already fundamentaly more progressive than IRL.
This. No one is saying 40k is wildly sexist or inherently misogynistic, simply that females could be better represented, and that if they were, the hobby might be more appealing to the women. We already know that the women are a part of the background ( IG, Eldar, DE, SoB), we just don't get to see them featured very often either in stories or in model ranges. DE is the one real exception, with 2 named female characters and options for female sculpts for almost every model. There have just been simple, logical requests over the course of this thread, and none of them would radically change 40k, in fact they would all give the setting greater depth. I agree, some options for female IG troops, and a couple of featured female characters in BL would go a long way. Even better, make a named character in a codex or two; I'd love to see a female Farseer, or a Commissar or Colonel, or even an Inquisitor for GK.
9598
Post by: Quintinus
Psienesis wrote: Vladsimpaler wrote: We don't need any more tumblrfeminists corrupting yet another decent setting. You guys basically already ruined MtG and vidya gaems. Also, how about we don't have men getting thrown into a nearly literal meat grinder? Why can't we have a couple nice guys in the setting who just relax and have a good time? Oh yeah because 40k is a nightmare future, not tumblr. Seriously, 40K is not, and should not be, a boys-only club, either in-setting or on the table-top. You *can* have a couple (or a lot) of folks just kicking back, having a grand time... Paradise Worlds do exist in the Imperium, after all... but that aspect of life is not represented by the table-top game and barely, if ever, touched by BL. More importantly, though, we have references in Codices and BL novels of gender equality in large swaths of life in the Imperium... in fact, there is a far stronger case for it than against it in most aspects... but this is not represented by the miniatures available, by and large, and is generally under-represented in a majority of BL fiction that isn't centered on Space Marines (in which case the preponderance of male characters is a given), and is further exacerbated by the tendency for the various female institutions, notably the Sororitas, to be used only as cannon fodder in order to escalate the on-page conflicts so that another, male force can come in and save the day.
So? The Imperial Guard is typically only used as cannon fodder in order to showcase the heroics of Spess Mehrens but I never really hear complaints about all that. But it must be because the Sororitas are female and therefore deserve special treatment right? Even the recent GK/Sisters kerfluffle could have been written differently that would have permitted the sacrifice of the Sisters to have been depicted as incredibly brave (they were, in fact, more-pure than the supposedly-incorruptible GK), divinely sacrificial, and absolutely critical to the GK's success against the Bloodtide. Instead, while that is... kinda implied, if one can read into the actions, but you kind of need to be reading above the level at which it was written... what we got is basically some Sisters get killed by the GK because GK are better.
Grey Knights are the best of the best and basically irreplaceable. Sororitas are good troops but ultimately replaceable anyway. Also how do you get more pure than in-corruptable? Is it in-corruptable (x2)? This is where the whole argument falls apart to me at any rate. ragingmunkyz wrote: Melissia wrote:Amusingly, GW really doesn't have to do much to satisfy many of the requests by feminists in this thread-- that is to say, all it really needs to do is make a few miniatures for the Imperial Guard and maybe include a few more notable females (especially primary characters) in its BL books. It's not like anyone's asking for fundamental changes to 40k. 40k is already fundamentaly more progressive than IRL.
This. No one is saying 40k is wildly sexist or inherently misogynistic, simply that females could be better represented, and that if they were, the hobby might be more appealing to the women. We already know that the women are a part of the background ( IG, Eldar, DE, SoB), we just don't get to see them featured very often either in stories or in model ranges. DE is the one real exception, with 2 named female characters and options for female sculpts for almost every model. There have just been simple, logical requests over the course of this thread, and none of them would radically change 40k, in fact they would all give the setting greater depth. I agree, some options for female IG troops, and a couple of featured female characters in BL would go a long way. Even better, make a named character in a codex or two; I'd love to see a female Farseer, or a Commissar or Colonel, or even an Inquisitor for GK. There's already a female Inquisitor in the GK book. Also if 40k is already much more egalitarian towards women, then what's the problem?
48706
Post by: Viersche
Well there was that sororitas in Cain's last stand who did jump around someone elses bed so i guess the sisters weren't all that repressed
50012
Post by: Crimson
And she doesn't have a model.
45703
Post by: Lynata
Vladsimpaler wrote:So? The Imperial Guard is typically only used as cannon fodder in order to showcase the heroics of Spess Mehrens but I never really hear complaints about all that. But it must be because the Sororitas are female and therefore deserve special treatment right?
You have it the wrong way around. Is it not "special treatment" if they are the faction that suffer more than the others? Even the Guard is credited with more important victories (understandable due to numerical differences) and less massacres/fails (this is where it gets weird). The IG is the underdog - but an underdog that is ultimately meant to pull through. That is what endears them to many, including me. Few people would like the Guard if they'd be "all fail".
Also, you seem to lack a certain understanding of what the role of both the Imperial Guard and the Battle Sisters is within the setting. The latter are not meant as cannon fodder, and thus also should not be treated as such - just like you would not treat Space Marines, their equals, in this manner.
Vladsimpaler wrote:Grey Knights are the best of the best and basically irreplaceable. Sororitas are good troops but ultimately replaceable anyway. Also how do you get more pure than in-corruptable? Is it in-corruptable (x2)? This is where the whole argument falls apart to me at any rate. Everyone is replaceable.
Personally, I never had a problem with that particular incident, by the way. I simply rationalised it as the Grey Knights' incorruptability not being a fully innate ability, but rather something that may require paraphernalia to be used to full effect. Paraphernalia like the "blood of the innocent", the lifeforce of those whose faith and conviction had preserved their purity against taint. And the GKs are supposed to employ Warp Sorcery now, are they not?
Also, the incident goes to show that the Grey Knights, or ultimately the Inquisition as a whole, is uncompromising and does not shy back from slaughtering allied forces if it serves their interest. Makes sense to me.
Vladsimpaler wrote:Also if 40k is already much more egalitarian towards women, then what's the problem?
Are you actually reading the thread? It has been pointed out a few times by now.
-> missing miniatures and/or SC representing that which already exists in the background
-> once in a while, dropping a few hints in fluff bits like short stories or communiques found throughout the codices
Viersche wrote:Well there was that sororitas in Cain's last stand who did jump around someone elses bed so i guess the sisters weren't all that repressed 
I told you, Mr. Morden!
64143
Post by: En Excelsis
You know what the problem with the internet is?
It's that you can't see me shaking my head in disgust at the act that I'm dignifying this post with a response.
40k is a hobby. More specifically it is a hobby grounded in fiction. Fictional characters, fictional places, fictional rules.
I know I risk sounding "sexist" by today's standards for saying this, but equality of the sexes is an illusion. I would say that equality in general is as well, but that's another discussion for another time.
I say this not to add fuel to a fire, but because the ONLY reason women are perceived the way they are today, is as a result of specific factors that took place in AMERICAN history in fairly recent history. It wasn't a terribly long time ago that women lived VERY different lives than they do now. And it's not because humanity has "evolved" or "progressed" at all... it's because socially and economically it became necessary for women to work in the place of men in post WWII America. This led to many women having jobs that would not otherwise have had, and after a few years, when the men returned to work the women were simply dismissed. This led to a feeling of abuse, which women rallied behind and started a series of movements that eventually resulted in them being given greater social responsibilities and "rights".
For all intents and purposes, the "equality" of women to men is a political issue. Politics exist in WH40k only as part of the background. It has no place in the spotlight. It would just tarnish the overall experience.
Besides, in a the fictional world of 40k, where daemons ravage worlds, psykers rip reality asunder, and giant hulks of men stride to battle in mechanical suits of space armor, the "norm" is pretty far removed from what it is in our world. What would a "normal" women do in 40k? probably just as the writers have already said that they do, with a few exceptions as noted in the books they appear in.
"nuns" as you so bluntly put it, are perfectly "normal" in that sense. If you try and apply our rules of normalcy to 40k, you'd end up with something like:
Codex: Mothers against drunk driving. (err.... mothers against drunk daemons).
45703
Post by: Lynata
En Excelsis wrote:It's that you can't see me shaking my head in disgust at the act that I'm dignifying this post with a response.
Perhaps you should have read the entire thread first before "dignifying" it, given that half your post was already debunked before you typed it.
Also, lol @ American history. Women have fought oppression for centuries across the world. I'm not sure how many people here actually assume that "men>women" is some sort of natural law or some silly thing like that, but looking at various cultures throughout the history of this planet, the rights of women have expanded and shrunk and expanded again for millennia. Even the division of the sexes in ancient hunter-gatherer society did not exist prior to the late stone age.
The US granted the right to vote to women way before WW2, by the way - and it was certainly not the first country to have done so, having been preceded by various European nations. The Soviet Union did a lot more for equality, too. Much more than the US would do for decades. I have no idea how you get the idea that this is somehow an "American thing".
31872
Post by: Brotherjanus
I choose to ignore the fluff about the female bodies rejecting the geneseed and have added a squad of female marines to my army. I find it more pleasing to see the variety of people represented in my models than just guys all the time. Now if only the story would reflect that.
69128
Post by: Super Newb
Does Warhammer Fantasy do a better job? I've only looked at Fantasy for bits, but the Wood Elves have normal looking females. Well normalish since they are elves.
64143
Post by: En Excelsis
Lynata wrote:En Excelsis wrote:It's that you can't see me shaking my head in disgust at the act that I'm dignifying this post with a response.
Perhaps you should have read the entire thread first before "dignifying" it, given that half your post was already debunked before you typed it.
Also, lol @ American history. Women have fought oppression for centuries across the world. I'm not sure how many people here actually assume that "men>women" is some sort of natural law or some silly thing like that, but looking at various cultures throughout the history of this planet, the rights of women have expanded and shrunk and expanded again for millennia. Even the division of the sexes in ancient hunter-gatherer society did not exist prior to the late stone age.
The US granted the right to vote to women way before WW2, by the way - and it was certainly not the first country to have done so, having been preceded by various European nations. The Soviet Union did a lot more for equality, too. Much more than the US would do for decades. I have no idea how you get the idea that this is somehow an "American thing".
I'm not sure why are you taking such a defensive approach to my statement, since it really isn't attacking anyone, and not you in specific to be sure.
Anyway, I don't recall stating anywhere in my post that the United States was the only country to experience a shift in gender roles. However I am an American and NOT a citizen of any other nations, thusly I am not qualified to give a detailed historical account of their cultural evolution and (out of respect) did not attempt to clump them all together. I in fact agree that the genders have gone back and forth a number of times throughout the ages. I'll pass completely on your statement about the Soviet Union and it's version of "equality". You either understand that or you don't. Nothing I can type on a forum will suddenly enlighten you there.
Also no one has debunked anything in this thread. It is a sharing of opinions about what role women could or should have in the fictional WH40k setting. Keyword there being opinions. You can no more debunk my opinion than I can clue you in on the realities of "Soviet Equality".
11655
Post by: smeezilla
The world of warhammer 40k is supposed to be sexist. The world of 40k is a mixture of a dark ages/ inquisition era europe with futuristic technology. That odd mix is what makes the setting so unique and compelling. It is the same reason there are very few, if any openly gay characters, or other "minorities" (I really don't like that term, but you know what I mean). By making the setting more progressive, it ruins the dark feel of the setting. Besides, the majority of factions in 40k are portrayed in a mostly negative manner, so their sexism in know way makes sexism seem good, in the same way that their xenophobia or excessive violence is never thought to be positive.
With that said, I do think when it comes to areas of the cannon where sexuality is portrayed, 40k could do a better job with sticking to their canon rather than appealing to teenage boys. For example, Deamonette's, are supposed to be androgynous and yet they are more feminine looking except they are missing a single breast. So yes, in the few situations where games workshop decides to deal with gender, they could perhaps do it slightly better, but I do not think they should make the setting more progressive, as it would defeat the point of it.
45703
Post by: Lynata
En Excelsis wrote:I'm not sure why are you taking such a defensive approach to my statement, since it really isn't attacking anyone, and not you in specific to be sure.
Well, the post came along as somewhat derisive/dismissive. I suppose I can "lose my cool" from time to time on certain issues I have a strong opinion on, so I apologise if I was somewhat lacking in diplomacy there.
En Excelsis wrote:Anyway, I don't recall stating anywhere in my post that the United States was the only country to experience a shift in gender roles. However I am an American and NOT a citizen of any other nations, thusly I am not qualified to give a detailed historical account of their cultural evolution and (out of respect) did not attempt to clump them all together.
Fair enough - from your wording ("...a result of specific factors that took place in AMERICAN history..." ) it sounded like this "political movement" supposedly somehow originated in the US, and that the only reason that sexism/misogyny are even recognised as issues nowadays is a hypothetical pioneering role of the 'States.
En Excelsis wrote:Also no one has debunked anything in this thread. It is a sharing of opinions about what role women could or should have in the fictional WH40k setting.
Opinion based on what? Personal preferences, or what the books suggest? Because the books present a rather openminded society as far as sexuality is concerned, and posts such as these ... ->
smeezilla wrote:The world of warhammer 40k is supposed to be sexist.
<- ... suggest that some people have apparently neither read the previous posts in this thread (which have already discussed this), nor the books whose contents have been pointed out in said posts.
Honestly, it's almost like people are just looking at the Space Marines, and take their "all male" trait as "THE IMPERIUM HATES WOMEN!!"
Admittedly, the very nature of how the fluff in 40k is handled by the company renders everything we read a possibility or interpretation rather than some sort of truth, allowing us to pick and choose or dismiss and ignore as we wish. At the same time, however, deviating opinions should not be presented as fact. Someone might actually believe it. Lots of "urban myths" have spread throughout the community this way.
50012
Post by: Crimson
En Excelsis wrote:
I know I risk sounding "sexist" by today's standards for saying this, but equality of the sexes is an illusion. I would say that equality in general is as well, but that's another discussion for another time.
Oh, wow! Well, if the intent was to sound sexist, mission bloody accomplished!
So do you think things were better a century or two ago? That it was totally OK that women didn't have same rights as men?
9598
Post by: Quintinus
You're moving the goalpost. All the post asked for was a named female character, no mention of a model.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Vladsimpaler wrote:Also if 40k is already much more egalitarian towards women, then what's the problem?
Because it's not represented very well on the tabletop or in the BL stories, even if it's there in the lore.
39550
Post by: Psienesis
Actually, no... the thread *is* about female representation on the tabletop, not just in general fluff. The lack of female models is a significant portion of the thread's contents. As I've highlighted in a few posts, the fluff is not as misogynistic as it can be made out to be, taken in total (yes, SM books have few to no female protagonists... that's expected, SM are an entirely male organization, Sisters novels have few to no male protagonists... that's expected, the SoB are an entirely female organization). The tabletop, however, has few options for depicting the established egalitarian nature of the IoM.
If you're not playing a Sisters army, it can be damned hard to find female miniatures from GW to fit your Imperial armies.
29408
Post by: Melissia
The goalposts haven't been moved. You're just not paying any attention,
50012
Post by: Crimson
The models are exactly the issue!
We know that there are female IG soldiers in the fluff, but there are no models!
We know that there are female Primaris Psykers, but there are no models!
We know there is female Farseers and Warlocks, but there are no models!
I like GWs models, there are so many different kits and bits that you can create stunning variety of characters... except if you want to make a female character, then the options are truly limited.
70279
Post by: pax_imperialis
what about the dark eldar? they seem pretty egalitarian. wyches don't seem too oppressed...
50012
Post by: Crimson
pax_imperialis wrote:what about the dark eldar? they seem pretty egalitarian. wyches don't seem too oppressed...
Dark Eldar are certainly the best model range regarding the gender diversity.
70279
Post by: pax_imperialis
yes they have the best range of women in the, eherm, workplace. I really like the dark eldar, despite them being "wafer thin". there's something so judas priest about them. when i see the model for the archon i just can't help but start singing "TWISTING, THE STRANGLED GRIP WON'T GIVE NO MERCY! FEELING, THOSE TENDONS RIP, TORN UP IN ME!" \m/
45703
Post by: Lynata
Hahah
I have to say, though, the old Wyches looked cooler than the new ones. More ... acrobatic rather than the new "brute force" design. Maybe I'm just too entrenched in the "elf" cliché, though.
39550
Post by: Psienesis
Yeah... the Wytch Elves definitely have that mid-80s "metal chick" thing going on. Worse, though, is that it's mid-80s-Euro-metal-chick".... all fawning over Europeans, with their big hair-dos, instead of giving their money, where it belongs, to a decent American artist...
... er, sorry, fell into some Dead Milkmen there.
45703
Post by: Lynata
Your fault for bringing it up.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Those models are always good for a laugh!
70279
Post by: pax_imperialis
i like where this thread is going. lusty 80's euro-metal babes.
39550
Post by: Psienesis
... I need those for my current Fallout: Dark Heresy Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Exterminatus campaign. Like.... seriously.
29408
Post by: Melissia
I like it because it reminds me of Mad Max and Fist of the North Star.
And honestly, can anything that reminds me of either of those be bad?
Well yes, it can, but it has to really try!
45703
Post by: Lynata
Hey, I said fault, not vault...
The campaign sounds fun - are you running a Fallout game with DH rules, or is that more like Dark Heresy with a FO-themed (Warzone/Deathworld) scenario?
On a sidenote, I actually never noticed how detailed those Escher gang minis look like. Maybe it's just the paintjob, but check out the armour from the first gal. Awesome design.
PS: Mad Max ftw!
9598
Post by: Quintinus
Lynata wrote:Vladsimpaler wrote:So? The Imperial Guard is typically only used as cannon fodder in order to showcase the heroics of Spess Mehrens but I never really hear complaints about all that. But it must be because the Sororitas are female and therefore deserve special treatment right?
You have it the wrong way around. Is it not "special treatment" if they are the faction that suffer more than the others? Even the Guard is credited with more important victories (understandable due to numerical differences) and less massacres/fails (this is where it gets weird). The IG is the underdog - but an underdog that is ultimately meant to pull through. That is what endears them to many, including me. Few people would like the Guard if they'd be "all fail". Also, you seem to lack a certain understanding of what the role of both the Imperial Guard and the Battle Sisters is within the setting. The latter are not meant as cannon fodder, and thus also should not be treated as such - just like you would not treat Space Marines, their equals, in this manner.
Ever since their introduction, Sisters of Battle have been fairly Pyrrhic in their victories, it's what defines them. "Order of Our Martyred Lady" sound familiar? Vladsimpaler wrote:Grey Knights are the best of the best and basically irreplaceable. Sororitas are good troops but ultimately replaceable anyway. Also how do you get more pure than in-corruptable? Is it in-corruptable (x2)? This is where the whole argument falls apart to me at any rate. Everyone is replaceable. Personally, I never had a problem with that particular incident, by the way. I simply rationalised it as the Grey Knights' incorruptability not being a fully innate ability, but rather something that may require paraphernalia to be used to full effect. Paraphernalia like the "blood of the innocent", the lifeforce of those whose faith and conviction had preserved their purity against taint. And the GKs are supposed to employ Warp Sorcery now, are they not? Also, the incident goes to show that the Grey Knights, or ultimately the Inquisition as a whole, is uncompromising and does not shy back from slaughtering allied forces if it serves their interest. Makes sense to me.
Interesting about the first part and warp sorcery. I fully agree with the second part however. Vladsimpaler wrote:Also if 40k is already much more egalitarian towards women, then what's the problem?
Are you actually reading the thread? It has been pointed out a few times by now. -> missing miniatures and/or SC representing that which already exists in the background -> once in a while, dropping a few hints in fluff bits like short stories or communiques found throughout the codices  So really it just boils down to wanting a few models? Trust me, if female models were popular (and not just enjoyed by a radical minority), GeeDubs would've had more of them. Melissia wrote:The goalposts haven't been moved. You're just not paying any attention,
Oh MAN you got me there. Excuse me for ignoring all of the "BUT MUH RIGHTS" and "B-BUT MISOGYNY" and actually reading the dude's post as it was written.
39550
Post by: Psienesis
DH in an FO-like world. Once a Hive world, got infiltrated by Chaos. Liberation Fleet arrives. Seven Imperial Saints (locally considered) arise to defeat Chaos. Chaos causes Hives to nuke one another. Warpstorm breaks out due to having a whole lotta people dying all at once. A thousand years later, Warp-storm is still there, survivors are scratching out a living, shattered remains of normal Imperial Adepti are having a go of it, but are torn by factionalism and in-fighting. One of the Ecclesiarchal factions happens to learn, through their seers, of a way to reincarnate one of the Saints. One of their members is what passes for an Inquisitor on this world... he just needs some Acolytes...
26241
Post by: Soo'Vah'Cha
Hey if it helps anyone , Having served in combat with females in the Army , I can safely say, just imagine the stormtroopers or kasarkins with enclosed helmets are female, since in full gear and kit, the only way you can actually tell a male soldier from a female one at a distance is by their face, (and sometimes not even that)
Otherwise carry on.
68477
Post by: ragingmunkyz
Vladsimpaler wrote:You're moving the goalpost. All the post asked for was a named female character, no mention of a model.
No, there was no goalpost moving, if you'd been paying any attention to the discussion and read all of my post, it should have been fairly obvious that I meant that should make the model. I actually even meant to type "the" Inquisitor for GK rather than "an" Inquisitor, but it should have been very apparent regardless. The lack of models has been the point of like half the posts. Please actually read before responding. En Excelsis wrote: I know I risk sounding "sexist" by today's standards for saying this, but equality of the sexes is an illusion. I would say that equality in general is as well, but that's another discussion for another time. I say this not to add fuel to a fire, but because the ONLY reason women are perceived the way they are today, is as a result of specific factors that took place in AMERICAN history in fairly recent history. It wasn't a terribly long time ago that women lived VERY different lives than they do now. And it's not because humanity has "evolved" or "progressed" at all... it's because socially and economically it became necessary for women to work in the place of men in post WWII America. This led to many women having jobs that would not otherwise have had, and after a few years, when the men returned to work the women were simply dismissed. This led to a feeling of abuse, which women rallied behind and started a series of movements that eventually resulted in them being given greater social responsibilities and "rights".
You want to know what the real problem with the internet is? It gives uninformed bigots a place to spread their nonsense. Where to start with this? First of all, I wouldn't worry about sounding sexist, it seems pretty clear that you are sexist and you even seem to embrace it. Secondly, way to derail a thread that had been focused on a reasonable conversation on the role women play in 40k, and what roles they could play, by introducing your oh-so-enlightened take on the women's rights movement. Since you brought it there, I feel the need to point out the fallacies in your statement. En Excelsis wrote:However I am an American and NOT a citizen of any other nations, thusly I am not qualified to give a detailed historical account of their cultural evolution and (out of respect) did not attempt to clump them all together.
Fair enough, at least you admit that you don't know world history, so perhaps you weren't aware that the fight for women's rights has existed for many, many centuries and has been fought across the globe. Unfortunately, clearly have absolutely zero understanding of American history as well, so I'm afraid you're not really qualified to even speak to the American civil rights movement. The American women's rights movement or "suffrage" movement, is generally accepted to have begun in 1848, with the Seneca Falls Convention, feel free to wiki that, its kind of a big deal. Note that the movement did not start because women suddenly got jobs in WWII and then when it was over they were all like "Wait, I like working, I want to do that some more." It "officially" started about a CENTURY earlier than that, although the earliest case involving women's rights in America occurred in the 1630's with Anne Hutchinson. They didn't "feel abused" they were abused. They had little control over their lives, almost no legal recourse against men (with regards to rapes, divorce, etc), no representation, and no vote. If they could get a job, they'd be paid half of what a man would get, and they often could not legally own property (contracts, deeds). They were second class citizens. Women wanted fair jobs well before there was economic pressure in WWII making them work, because they wanted independence. So I'm sorry, but your "theory" on how women's rights evolved in America is based in absolutely no facts, only in your own prejudice. Anyways, back to relevant 40k discussions!
39550
Post by: Psienesis
So really it just boils down to wanting a few models? Trust me, if female models were popular (and not just enjoyed by a radical minority), GeeDubs would've had more of them.
Mayhaps you should investigate, oh, I dunno, the *rest* of the miniatures world? Female Figs are very, very, *very* popular in other miniatures wargames, not to mention the figs released for standard RPGs, like Pathfinder or Dungeons & Dragons.
29408
Post by: Melissia
You have not earned that privilege. Psienesis wrote:Mayhaps you should investigate, oh, I dunno, the *rest* of the miniatures world? Female Figs are very, very, *very* popular in other miniatures wargames, not to mention the figs released for standard RPGs, like Pathfinder or Dungeons & Dragons.
Well yes, but GW doesn't really do market research.
64143
Post by: En Excelsis
Crimson wrote:En Excelsis wrote: I know I risk sounding "sexist" by today's standards for saying this, but equality of the sexes is an illusion. I would say that equality in general is as well, but that's another discussion for another time. Oh, wow! Well, if the intent was to sound sexist, mission bloody accomplished! So do you think things were better a century or two ago? That it was totally OK that women didn't have same rights as men? I think it is very easy for people of this day and age to confuse terms that they personally have formed no associations with. Equality is almost always used in a legal, or political sense and is incorrectly imposed upon the social setting where it doesn't belong. Legally the distinction is perfectly acceptable. I quite like the fact that both genders can enjoy the same liberties and freedoms, but I would be a fool to think that every woman and every man should be the treated "equally" in every situation. Simply put that is a naïve or juvenile point of view. At the very lest it is uneducated. My region of the country was recently truck by a series of back-to-back blizzards and thunderstorms. We received a large amount of snowfall that literally shut down the city for a day. Some areas were without power, but not for very long. The company that I work for shut down early and sent everyone home about mid day during the first storm. We had already received nearly 12" of snow by that time and it caused a LOT of problems for folks as the scrambled to get home. There were quite a few accidents. As I was leaving the building and heading my usual parking lot, my workmates and I noticed that a good deal of people had gotten their cars pretty well stuck in the snow, and were not only unable to leave themselves, but were preventing other people from leaving behind them. We quickly banded together and started helping people out as best we could. Some of us helped push the stuck vehicles while others helped drive or navigate the people who were stuck. It took nearly two hours for everyone to leave the parking area before my mates and I left ourselves. I am proud to say that we were VERY sexist in our approach. We made sure that all the women were given priority. We made sure that they did not have to get out in the snow and get their feet wet in the heavy snow to push heavy cars around. We guided them out first, making sure to give them safety instructions before moving on the stuck men, who in some cases waited over an hour for our help. I don't feel bad at all that I intentionally drew a line between men and women. That I issued them different treatment. I would do it again if the situation called for it. This comes back around to that false sense of entitlement I mentioned earlier. I don't recall a single woman complaining that she was given preferential treatment. I don't think any of them bothered to rally behind the men who were clearly being forced to wait longer for help "just because they were men". They happily took the special favors that helped them move along more quickly. Now, given my social insight to the people I live and work with every day... I can promise you that many of those same women, if they even caught the scent of "sexism" in the office, would literally single a flag and rally behind to defend their gender from "inequality". It's a double edged sword, and a sharp one. By the social definition, I am quite sexist. I have been, currently am, and will be for the foreseeable future. I will continue to distinguish between the genders and treat them quite differently. Yet at the same time, I have no plans to infringe upon the legal rights of either. Since WH40k is strictly a social part of my life, and one that I play almost exclusively with my mates. I don't really feel that it needs to conform to any of the rigid legal guidelines regarding gender equality. While I don't personally think WH40k is even remotely sexist, I firmly believe that if it wanted to be it should have every right. It's a piece of fiction, of fantasy. In the real world, I have to put up with LOTS of things that I don't like... in my fantasy I can be as misogynistic I damn well please, and since it's a freakin' fantasy, not a soul out there has a right to complain. Every honest man has had a fantasy about being with more than one woman (or at least enough men have that this analogy still works). And when you are playing that scene out in your mind you don't round out the figures and think "hey there are 10 women in my room, statistically 1 in 10 of them should be a minority of such and such ethnic decent." That never happens... your fantasy plays out however the hell it does. However, I am getting off topic. As it pertains to 40k, I think that the current amount of "sexism" is perfecting fitting given the setting, the characters, and the fact that it's a work of fiction. Also remember that it's a game designed to sell plastic models of fictional toy soldier to men between the ages of 13 and 40 who will "battle" each other by rolling cups of dice back and forth. Think about that. IF GW made any changes to the role females play in their game, it would be to attract more men, and would probably not portray women in a light that they would be particularly fond of. (but it would help sales  )
29408
Post by: Melissia
Which is not an argument for the status quo.
45703
Post by: Lynata
En Excelsis wrote:This comes back around to that false sense of entitlement I mentioned earlier. I don't recall a single woman complaining that she was given preferential treatment. I don't think any of them bothered to rally behind the men who were clearly being forced to wait longer for help "just because they were men". They happily took the special favors that helped them move along more quickly.
Now, given my social insight to the people I live and work with every day... I can promise you that many of those same women, if they even caught the scent of "sexism" in the office, would literally single a flag and rally behind to defend their gender from "inequality".
And what does that have to do with gender?
You're not trying to propagate the idea that it is a "female thing" to readily accept benefits yet complain about perceived injustice, do you? Because I assure you, there are many men (even on this very forum) who have voiced their dissatisfaction regarding things like positive discrimination or some courts' autmatic preference for mothers when it comes to child custody, just like there are many men who are quite happy with the continueing (but slowly declining) advantage they have in other sectors of social life and business (also voiced on this very forum).
If you do not recognise that this is a -human- thing, I guess you're really just biased.
En Excelsis wrote:As it pertains to 40k, I think that the current amount of "sexism" is perfecting fitting given the setting, the characters, and the fact that it's a work of fiction.
As has been pointed out numerous times, the Imperium as written in GW's material is not sexist, regardless of how much you would like that to be. It's rather that the current range of miniatures as well as the frequency in fluff do not represent the society well, by omitting the women that the books have already said should be there.
"On the most war-torn planets, the entire population is destined for a military life; the recruiting and birth rates are synonymous."
- 6E Rulebook p.148
The most obvious example of the above would be the Cadians, also the current "default" IG regiment, yet made up entirely of male soldiers if you go by the box.
It is an oddity and inconsistency between how the setting is described in the fiction, and how it is then represented by its miniatures and rules.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
En Excelsis wrote:in my fantasy I can be as misogynistic I damn well please, and since it's a freakin' fantasy, not a soul out there has a right to complain.
Of course people have a right to complain. "But it's just my fantasy" isn't an absolute defense. Imagine if GW decided to release an army composed of a white HQ and a bunch of black slaves to use as human wave attacks and meatshields (complete with chains and a white "sergeant" in every unit). Would this be offensive? Would people have a right to complain? Of course they would.
And no, your fantasy isn't as bad as that extreme example. But it does have consequences. Don't forget that women might want to play the game too, and by insisting on your "fantasy" you push them away from it.
Also remember that it's a game designed to sell plastic models of fictional toy soldier to men between the ages of 13 and 40 who will "battle" each other by rolling cups of dice back and forth. Think about that. IF GW made any changes to the role females play in their game, it would be to attract more men, and would probably not portray women in a light that they would be particularly fond of. (but it would help sales  )
GW's insane marketing decisions and complete refusal to consider any other audience is not justification. A sensible company would understand that women are also a potential market and take appropriate action.
64143
Post by: En Excelsis
I suppose not. But think of it like this: If 40k were your brain child, and you had envisioned it the way it currently is. Does it even matter that a few peeps would like to see a few more female models? Hell why stop there. Why not make two versions of every model. One male and one female. That way everyone can arrange their armies in whatever combination of genders they like. The time-tempered concept of supply vs demand be damned right? ragingmunkyz wrote: You want to know what the real problem with the internet is? It gives uninformed bigots a place to spread their nonsense. Anyways, back to relevant 40k discussions! Gosh I forgot what a wonderful and decent place the internet is. I must have missed the memo that went out saying how it's suddenly home to such enlightened fellows as yourself who resolve every conflict of interests by resorting to name-calling. You'll have to pardon my ignorance oh great historically enlightened one. Honestly... did you just Wikipedia random events involving women and then list them off as though there were all the start of some sort of over-arcing movement? wow... I bow to your superior understanding of history. Since I am apparently a sexist bigot anyway though, I may as well turn it around on you. If this topic is really just about how GW should throw the ladies a bone and cast a few new models so they can "fem" up their armies a bit. How do you honestly think that the real world population of females would respond? Does having a few more female models suddenly make the game better? And do the currently existing female models in ANY way embody a sense of gender equality? You'd be literally mad to think so. Take Lilith Hesperax for example. She's an almost entirely naked elf woman of unrealistic proportions bouncing around a battlefield of oddly modest IG, SM, Tau, and even Eldar. The female models that currently exist in the game are not marketed towards women in search of gender equality in table top games. They're marketed to 13 year old boys. Any additional female models they cast will probably also be marketed to the same demographic. So while you're think up new an ingenious ways to accuse me of being sexist and unfair to women, think a little bit first about how adding more half-naked Barbie warriors models to the line up is going to improve anything. Automatically Appended Next Post: Peregrine wrote:
GW's insane marketing decisions and complete refusal to consider any other audience is not justification. A sensible company would understand that women are also a potential market and take appropriate action.
I would like to think that GW's ultimate goal is to make money. And like most companies, they have a shark-like nose for it. If there were money to be made from doing something, they would be doing it. As a company I don't think they need more justification than that
63000
Post by: Peregrine
En Excelsis wrote:But think of it like this: If 40k were your brain child, and you had envisioned it the way it currently is. Does it even matter that a few peeps would like to see a few more female models?
Good question. Is it better to sell more models or to exclude potential customers and sell fewer models?
Hell why stop there. Why not make two versions of every model. One male and one female. That way everyone can arrange their armies in whatever combination of genders they like. The time-tempered concept of supply vs demand be damned right?
Nice straw man. Nobody is arguing for perfect 50/50 equality with every single model having male and female versions. Now can we limit the conversation to the reasonable proposals people actually do suggest?
Does having a few more female models suddenly make the game better?
Sure it does. The fact that it doesn't necessarily make it better enough to offset finecast/insane prices/mistreatment of independent retailers/etc doesn't mean that it wouldn't be an improvement.
And do the currently existing female models in ANY way embody a sense of gender equality?
You realize that's part of the problem, right?
The female models that currently exist in the game are not marketed towards women in search of gender equality in table top games. They're marketed to 13 year old boys. Any additional female models they cast will probably also be marketed to the same demographic. So while you're think up new an ingenious ways to accuse me of being sexist and unfair to women, think a little bit first about how adding more half-naked Barbie warriors models to the line up is going to improve anything.
Yeah, this makes complete sense.
GW wants to add female figures to make the game more appealing to women --> GW completely forgets about women and instead asks what 13 year old boys want --> GW produces more sexist garbage.
What about how a sensible company would do it?
GW wants to add female figures to make the game more appealing to women --> GW asks what women want --> GW produces reasonable female models.
Automatically Appended Next Post: En Excelsis wrote:I would like to think that GW's ultimate goal is to make money. And like most companies, they have a shark-like nose for it. If there were money to be made from doing something, they would be doing it. As a company I don't think they need more justification than that
You mean like how GW openly states that they make a "beer and pretzels" game and don't care about competitive players? Meanwhile companies like WOTC market to both "beer and pretzels" players AND competitive players and sell more copies of their game as a result. GW might want to make money, but the idiots running the company only know how to make money by cutting costs (closing stores, canceling events, etc) and raising prices.
54729
Post by: AegisGrimm
Luckily for the Imperium, there was a woman to create the technology for the Astronomicon.
68477
Post by: ragingmunkyz
En Excelsis wrote:Equality is almost always used in a legal, or political sense and is incorrectly imposed upon the social setting where it doesn't belong.
WOW.
I don't even know how to respond to that one. I'm trying to imagine what the world would look like if people who thought like this made all the rules, and it's pretty terrifying. You realize that all of those things - legal, political and social - are intrinsically linked, right? Or maybe you just think that women should be able to vote, just so long as they stay in the kitchen. I'm going to quote you a little something, brace your self, its from "history times."
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
Thats the beginning of the Declaration of Independence. Now of course it was poorly applied at the time, as it really meant land-owning white men, but the philosophy with which those words were conceived remains strong. The idea is that equality is so much more than a legal or political notion. Its something which we all fundamentally have a right to. The laws aren't there to impose equality. They're there to protect equality.
En Excelsis wrote:You'll have to pardon my ignorance oh great historically enlightened one.
Honestly... did you just Wikipedia random events involving women and then list them off as though there were all the start of some sort of over-arcing movement? wow... I bow to your superior understanding of history.
Did I have to wikipedia Seneca Falls? Literally the single most recognizable and historically significant moment in the women's suffrage movement? No. See, I went to this place called a "college," where you can participate in these things called "classes," and there you can learn about a variety of subjects like "History," "Political Science," and "Gender Studies." Maybe if you also took some time to educate yourself you would become a better informed human being and you wouldn't have such incredibly misguided theories on history and civil rights.
It's not like I just randomly showed up and started throwing some facts around, you presented a version of history which literally never happened, and I pointed out how very wrong you were. You got called out, its what happens when you don't know what you're talking about. I love your response though. It essentially sounds like this: "Hey, everybody! Look at this guy! He actually knows stuff! I bet he had to read things! What a loser, amirite!?"
Maybe if you also read, oh I don't know, the first couple of pages in this thread, you would realize that I and several others have already discussed your incredibly clever response on female models. But, boy, oh boy you sure turned it around on me!
En Excelsis wrote:If this topic is really just about how GW should throw the ladies a bone and cast a few new models so they can "fem" up their armies a bit. How do you honestly think that the real world population of females would respond? Does having a few more female models suddenly make the game better? And do the currently existing female models in ANY way embody a sense of gender equality? You'd be literally mad to think so.
Take Lilith Hesperax for example. She's an almost entirely naked elf woman of unrealistic proportions bouncing around a battlefield of oddly modest IG, SM, Tau, and even Eldar.
The female models that currently exist in the game are not marketed towards women in search of gender equality in table top games. They're marketed to 13 year old boys. Any additional female models they cast will probably also be marketed to the same demographic. So while you're think up new an ingenious ways to accuse me of being sexist and unfair to women, think a little bit first about how adding more half-naked Barbie warriors models to the line up is going to improve anything.
I'll give you the bullet points of the previous discussions, since you haven't even bothered to read anything before responding to a thread because you assumed it was all about how GW was sexist.
- No one is asking them to "fem" up their armies, just make models to represent the women which the fluff says are already in those armies
- I, and several others do think it would make the game better, it would add depth to the game, support the fluff, and give us more fun models to assemble, paint and play with.
- Of the current models, some do and some don't represent gender equality, as covered earlier. Lelith Hesperax's model isn't that bad, DE are supposed to be lean and lithe, and she's also running around amongst other dark eldar men who are shirtless/shoeless/have lots of exposed flesh. Its DE, they aren't modest, it fits.
- We aren't just asking GW to make new female models, we're asking them to make female models that aren't absurdly and unnecessarily sexual.
En Excelsis wrote:I must have missed the memo that went out saying how it's suddenly home to such enlightened fellows as yourself who resolve every conflict of interests by resorting to name-calling
I don't think it was name calling, in fact I technically didn't even refer to you specifically, though implications may have been made. Either way, it's a true statement. You are uninformed, you've proved it in every post with straw man arguments, wild assumptions, and made up history. You also outright state that you are against social equality, so, yes, I suppose that makes you a bigot.
Please go back under your bridge now.
29408
Post by: Melissia
En Excelsis wrote:But think of it like this: If 40k were your brain child, and you had envisioned it the way it currently is. Does it even matter that a few peeps would like to see a few more female models?
Yes. Because 40k tabletop having a few more female models would make it more representative of the way it currently is depicted in the fluff. It represents that the Imperial Guard is made up of the masses of humanity, conscripted without care for extenuating circumstances. That the Schola Progenium produces exceptional people regardless of gender, as shown by numerous examples in the lore of female commissars and the like. It shows that the psyker gene doesn't care for gender, just like in the lore-- in fact, some of the most powerful psykers in human history, the most dangerous alpha-plus, were a pair of creepy little girls. It represents that the Eldar are a society where gender is mostly irrelevant save for reproduction. It would represent that the Inquisition takes only those of indomitable will, regardless of background, to defend humanity against threats from within,from without, and from beyond. It would represent in the Tau (even just including more female special characters but NOT making it physically obvious that they are female) that they have an entire caste that is dedicated wholly and utterly to the making of war on land. It would represent in the forces of Chaos that the dedication of cultists, and the insanity of their dedication and belief in their god, is more important than something the chaos gods don't likely even understand or care about in the first place, like gender. Tell me, did adding new female models to Dark Eldar make that race worse? Hell no, they were some of the most prized models of the new army! The fanbase fething loved it. There's a market out there you know. GW's incompetence doesn't mean that there isn't. And some of us actually give a gak about the lore. You might not, but I certainly do, and I would love to see GW release more models to better represent the massive, and massively interesting, lore that's already there.
70279
Post by: pax_imperialis
Defo be cool to see women guardsmen, like vasquez from aliens. Totally agree with you melissia, only just read ghostmaker as of last night, lelith is freakin badass. Im a bit rusty on lore, but aren't several of the progenoid glands male specific? So no chick marines maybe?
29408
Post by: Melissia
Marines are male-only, but the way GW tried to justify it is lame and unscientific, so I'd really rather not derail; this thread with that discussion
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
So what do you have to do to earn that privilege?
Like, foot massages?
50557
Post by: Thatguy91
Melissia wrote:Marines are male-only, but the way GW tried to justify it is lame and unscientific, so I'd really rather not derail; this thread with that discussion 
To be fair the entire 40k setting is pretty unscientific. It is sci-fi after all.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Well it's science fantasy really, but even 40k has things that make sense in scientific terms. Such as the effect lasguns have on people-- when hot enough, a laser would literally superheat body fluids (blood, etc) on the point of impact, creating massive, nasty wounds and NOT cauterizing the wound, creating a wound as nasty as any high caliber rifle or heavy machinegun. So one can easily see such a nasty weapon killing people in one hit, even marines and Orks. And while boltguns are silly in some regard, there is actually a good reason to have such a weapon design-- even if it's not utilized by the Astartes. Namely, a two-stage weapon like a boltgun could be very accurate over long ranges and have much longer range than a standard bullet (which is why there's rocket-assisted artillery in the real world, often making use of laser guidance and the like to increase accuracy making it almost pinpoint accurate).
65597
Post by: amudkipz
I don't play the TT game so i can't say modelwise but there is no shortage of well written female characters.
As far as BL and fluff goes goes, you normally wouldn't be able to tell the gender of characters without the book saying which gender it was.
Ex. Inquisitor Adrastia, Lieutenant Mira, Tona Criid, Patience Kys.
Nobody who dies in the name of the Emporer dies in vain, be they man, woman, or on death worlds children.
25963
Post by: Miraclefish
Neither do Tyranid Mycetic Spores, and they've been around four times longer.
Is 40K also unacceptably biased against 25- ft high chitinous spore pods?
26241
Post by: Soo'Vah'Cha
Melissia wrote:Well it's science fantasy really, but even 40k has things that make sense in scientific terms. Such as the effect lasguns have on people-- when hot enough, a laser would literally superheat body fluids (blood, etc) on the point of impact, creating massive, nasty wounds and NOT cauterizing the wound, creating a wound as nasty as any high caliber rifle or heavy machinegun. So one can easily see such a nasty weapon killing people in one hit, even marines and Orks.
And while boltguns are silly in some regard, there is actually a good reason to have such a weapon design-- even if it's not utilized by the Astartes. Namely, a two-stage weapon like a boltgun could be very accurate over long ranges and have much longer range than a standard bullet (which is why there's rocket-assisted artillery in the real world, often making use of laser guidance and the like to increase accuracy making it almost pinpoint accurate).
Sorry just a 13F chiming in, but RAP (Rocket Assisted Projectiles) are horribly inaccurate compared to standard, and the copperhead has been replaced by the Excalibur (GPS guided round) and while the RAP rounds do add a considerable boost to a artillery systems range it also makes it dangerous to fire into a danger close enviroment, carry on.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
I've always seen 40K as entirely asexual.
50012
Post by: Crimson
Miraclefish wrote:
Neither do Tyranid Mycetic Spores, and they've been around four times longer.
Is 40K also unacceptably biased against 25- ft high chitinous spore pods?
Possibly, but because there is only one example of a missing model for a chitinous spore pod it is hard to draw definite conclusions. However, there is a really long list of missing models for females that do exist in the fluff.
I do wish that both females and chitinous spore pods would be better represented in the model range.
52734
Post by: scrunty
Ive read through most of this thread and i have to agree there arent enough female models in 40k. Female guardsmen would be gratefully received by most i think. But having said this i cannot agree with the derision that some of the existing/past sculpts have been given, especially regarding SoB and necromunda Escher.
Earlier someone posted a picture of escher gangers. If you have ever painted these models then you will probably know that the sculpting of these models is good and some specific models are fantastically sculpted. A lot of the flak that they get is due to the overly colourful paint jobs that the 'eavy metal team gave them back in the mid 90's. If you take away the garish colours, and replace them with a more up-to-date scheme of neutrals and realistic colours then these models look great. I know they are still not "normal" as they are very punky looking, but that is a taste issue rather than a sculpt issue. There are far far far worse sculpts than these particularly regarding non-armoured "normal" humans (look at the current Catachan range for instance, they are terrible particularly the plastics). Im currently in the process of amassing an all-female IG ally force for my SoB army using, primarily Escher models, with a smattering of other models such as the missile launcher carrying woman from the Last Chancers and from other manufacturers, such as Copplestone Castings.
One thing that the Escher models and the SoB models suffer from is un-dynamic poses due to the casting restrictions at the time of sculpting. The current SoB models are in general 10-15year old sculpts, the Escher sculpts are even older. The standard SoB models have a great level of detail on them and arent as Fetish-y as people let on. Especially if not given a "leather" look paint job. This said, the repentia models are a definite exception, as well at the mistress repentia. Both of which arent great in my opinion as they lack realistic proportions.
I would like to see IG-females sculpted along the lines of the last chancer missile launcher. See below:
She looks exactly how i would imagine a guardswoman to look. Drab, un-remarkable, tough but obviously a woman. Much like a Vasquez-like figure. I dont see woman in the IG being overtly feminine or standing out from their male counterparts. For authority figures or charcters i see sculpts like the female inquisitor with slightly less crazy hair being a nice place to start. Sophisticated looking but not too over the top (except hair as stated):
I think GW have struggled with sculpting female models in the last few years, especially when you look at the old wych models, but the newest female sculpts are much better (new wych plastics, current inquistor above, Valkia the Bloody), so they can produce the models they just arent for other reasons. If the were to produce current technology plastics/finecast for female guardsmen, characters, cultists, inquisition and maybe Tau, then i believe the models could be very good, but from fluff reasons i cant see very many other areas (i am happy to stand corrected) where female models would fit into the fluff and the current army lists.
50012
Post by: Crimson
Escher models are indeed excellent, and a good starting point for IG soldiers or Chaos cultists.
However, I think the main strength of GWs model range is the the multipart plastic kits, as those allow wide array of customisation and mixing and matching bits, and that is the area where the problem is. There just is no plastic human female models of any sort at all.
25963
Post by: Miraclefish
The other element, of course, is market forces.
There are very few girls, relatively, who play 40K. Potentially adding more female rank-and-file as well as character models would add some, but would it generate enough sales to counter the cost of additional development, sculpting, mould creation etc?
And would those figures/characters sell to male gamers also? Maybe, sure.
It's a bit chicken and egg, the models aren't there, so the demand isn't. The demand isn't there, so the models aren't.
All said and done, 40K is much more equal and egalitarian than 2K, so I don't feel like it's an issue. When real life catches up and exceeds 40K, then it is.
16387
Post by: Manchu
In books about Space Marines, female characters will always be secondary whether as supporting cast or antagonists. The rest of the 40k franchise can easily support female characters. The trouble is that fans think of the franchise as an alternate universe rather than IP. As a fictional universe, we probably wouldn't go far wrong in assuming that 50% of everyone involved is female. As IP expressed via product, it's closer to 10% of everyone being female. Think of this in terms of Space Marines: In-universe, only an infinetsimal percentage of humans are Space Marines. That number is tremendously over represented in terms of the product line. This is because 40k is basically a game about Space Marines. Whoever they fight with or against is generally a secondary matter, as I said.
The recent exception to this, or so the rumors go, is that IG outsold Marines the year before the DE release. But even if that's true, it doesn't seem to have happened again or to have been supported by GW.
Anyway, the point is that there's really no reason that the product line needs to be representative of the fluff. The fluff is only there in the first place to help market the products. Only with regard to BL are product and fluff genuinely the same thing. Unsurprisingly, this (along with the RPG) is where 40k is its most inclusive.
30490
Post by: Mr Morden
Miraclefish wrote:The other element, of course, is market forces.
There are very few girls, relatively, who play 40K. Potentially adding more female rank-and-file as well as character models would add some, but would it generate enough sales to counter the cost of additional development, sculpting, mould creation etc?
And would those figures/characters sell to male gamers also? Maybe, sure. It's a bit chicken and egg, the models aren't there, so the demand isn't. The demand isn't there, so the models aren't. .
Most of the female models that I have seen on the table top have been fielded by men - often big strapping men - but men  I have loads...... make of that what you will!
Those female models that have been produced recently - for instance the Dark Eldar - I think I am right in saying they met with universal aclaim - especially Lelieth. Unlike say the new Space marine flyers, the new demons etc which tend to have as many detractors as supporters
There are plenty of awesome female models in:
Warmachine / Hordes
Malifeux
They don't seem to be suffering or having problems selling them? In fact a very high proportion of their range are female?
I also have no problem with the present SOB / Escher models - I was using my Sisters last night and only narrowly lost................
29408
Post by: Melissia
Miraclefish wrote:There are very few girls, relatively, who play 40K. Potentially adding more female rank-and-file as well as character models would add some, but would it generate enough sales to counter the cost of additional development, sculpting, mould creation etc?
More likely than not, yes. It's not just women that want these models. Female soldier models are quite popular in non- GW lines (look at Infinity for example, and plenty of other places), and there's very little reason to think that 40k would be an exception to this.
66506
Post by: Neutralista
I'm just gonna toss out my two bolter shells.
If you don't like the supposed lack of women in the fluff, write your own. My homebrew Space Marines are going to have two Land Raiders named after women and their Fortress built where these women lived. Now, how can Land Raiders be named after women? Easy. They performed an act that inspires Space Marines. I'm going to try and make it a full short story with character development and everything.
Also, look at fluff reasons... SM implants only work with the male physiology. That's not sexism, that's genetics. Orks have no gender, Necrons are skeletal. >.>
29408
Post by: Melissia
Neutralista wrote:SM implants only work with the male physiology. That's not sexism, that's genetics.
Dude, don't even fething start. The Space Marine implants and physiology/genetics bullgak is anything but scientific. A brother and sister have closer genetics than two non-familial men do, yet one is supposed to believe that the genetic implants, which are picky based off of genetics, work better on those who are LESS genetically similar than those who are more. Despite the fact that it says otherwise. The Y-gene really doesn't code for much (it's a very tiny gene and basically just codes for male genitalia, and things not related to that are also coded for in the X gene, which the Y gene is derived from), and women use the exact same hormones and the like as men do-- yes, women use testosterone and steroids in their body. In fact, testosterone is more important to a developing female then it is to a developing male, and women who lack it are hit much harder than men who lack it. There is no science behind limiting Space Marines to male-only for biological reasons. Games Workshop is not staffed by scientists, they don't know what the feth they're talking about. It's a cultural thing amongst the Imperium to have space marine be only men, nothing more. And that's really enough reason. It's the same reason that there's no "male Sisters of Battle"-- the Imperium's culture demands that there be no such thing, so there isn't. Don't try to bring pseudoscience in to the discussion. It just sounds stupid.
50557
Post by: Thatguy91
Well thats just the way its written. If it bothers you that much then maybe its time to look for another table top wargame. Though it may seem ridiculous to some I highly doubt they will retcon 30 years of canon to make a small minority in the community happy.
Its just the way things are, for better or for worse.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Thatguy91 wrote:Well thats just the way its written. If it bothers you that much then maybe its time to look for another table top wargame. Though it may seem ridiculous to some I highly doubt they will retcon 30 years of canon to make a small minority in the community happy.
I never asked for a retcon to make female space marines. I only stated that GW's reasoning is stupid with a side of stupid. And it is. That argument? Yeah... That still continues to fail to be a good argument for the status quo.
50557
Post by: Thatguy91
I'm not arguing. I'm merely stating my opinion. I would love to have some female models in my armies, it would really add some flavor but unfortunately we have to do without.
Just because people aren't with you doesn't mean they are against you. If you honestly want to make a difference and try to make a change then I doubt arguing on an online forum is the right way to go about it.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Thatguy91 wrote:I'm not arguing. I'm merely stating my opinion. I would love to have some female models in my armies, it would really add some flavor but unfortunately we have to do without. Just because people aren't with you doesn't mean they are against you. If you honestly want to make a difference and try to make a change then I doubt arguing on an online forum is the right way to go about it.
I send GW emails and the like. But they don't pay attention to fans, and they don't DO market research. Still despite this, the more it is talked about, the more likely someone in GW will take notice. Therefor it gets talked about. And it will continue to get talked about.
50557
Post by: Thatguy91
Melissia wrote:
Still despite this, the more it is talked about, the more likely someone in GW will take notice. Therefor it gets talked about. And it will continue to get talked about.
This is true. Unfortunately the only time GW seem to change anything in the fluff is when they get a writer with the balls to make changes and as we have come to realize that isn't always a good thing.. *Cough* Matt Ward *Cough*
64143
Post by: En Excelsis
Melissia wrote: Thatguy91 wrote:Well thats just the way its written. If it bothers you that much then maybe its time to look for another table top wargame. Though it may seem ridiculous to some I highly doubt they will retcon 30 years of canon to make a small minority in the community happy.
I never asked for a retcon to make female space marines.
I only stated that GW's reasoning is stupid with a side of stupid. And it is. That argument?
Yeah...
That still continues to fail to be a good argument for the status quo.
Sooner or later you will tire of your own argument. The status quo as you are clearly very fond of saying, is not in need of justification. If you do not like it... too bad? GW is not forcing you to purchase their models or gather with friends at your FLGS. If you do that at all it's because you enjoy it. If you stop enjoying it, stop doing it. YOU are responsible for the status quo, not GW.
Like it or not, women are not a large enough part of the wargaming demographic to be catered to by a company whose sole product base is wargaming. It is silly to assume that GW as a company should create a lineup of models marketed toward 5% or less of their potential buyers. I honestly don't think that sexism is a factor, just marketing.
25990
Post by: Chongara
Mr Morden wrote:
There are plenty of awesome female models in:
Warmachine / Hordes
Malifeux
I wouldn't go that far. I do applaud PP for it's better-than-average inclusion of women in the setting, in both leadership and non-leadership roles. I also love the general artistic direction of the game as well. However I find the number of female models they have that I would really call "Awesome" is somewhat limited. PP seriously has an issue with Boob-Plate, Combat Heels & Inability to wear armor that covers the vitals. There is maybe 1/5 female miniatures that does not have at least one of these issues.
Sometimes If something like eDenny is trying lampshape it (she got cut in half RIGHT across the area where her armor didn't cover her midriff), but that's probably giving them too much credit. It really wouldn't excuse some of the more eye-rolling stuff they have.
I mean they've got a handful of female sculpts I really like - The Female Gunmage comes to mind. However PP is certainly far from perfection though given they've got a whole "Elf Cleavage" faction.
I can similarly Applaud malifaux for the inclusion of women, but still question some design choices. Like when they have those undead hunters that all take on a ghoulish appearance as a result of their trade, except for the female character she's a hotty in super-tight low-cut pants and t-shirt a size too small.
Of course, if you're the kind of person who doesn't mind combat heels, boob-plate or the like the ranges are a godsend.
29408
Post by: Melissia
I've been making this argument for close to ten years. Ain't gotten tired of it yet, buddy-boy. En Excelsis wrote:The status quo as you are clearly very fond of saying, is not in need of justification.
Yes, it is. It is logically fallacious to say that "things are the way they are and therefor they should stay this way." The status quo is not a logically sound justification for the continuation of the status quo, it never has been and it never will be.
50012
Post by: Crimson
En Excelsis wrote:
Like it or not, women are not a large enough part of the wargaming demographic to be catered to by a company whose sole product base is wargaming. It is silly to assume that GW as a company should create a lineup of models marketed toward 5% or less of their potential buyers. I honestly don't think that sexism is a factor, just marketing.
I'm pretty damn sure that it is not only women who wish there were more female models.
57210
Post by: DemetriDominov
The only people tired of the argument, are those who don't understand it. It's a tireless argument to be had, because those who argue against it are part of an inexhaustible system of ignorance.
25990
Post by: Chongara
Crimson wrote:En Excelsis wrote:
Like it or not, women are not a large enough part of the wargaming demographic to be catered to by a company whose sole product base is wargaming. It is silly to assume that GW as a company should create a lineup of models marketed toward 5% or less of their potential buyers. I honestly don't think that sexism is a factor, just marketing.
I'm pretty damn sure that it is not only women who wish there were more female models.
Not just more, but better qualify. Even just looking for minis when I run RPGs is a trial. For every 20 bare-chested pouty-lipped elves I can't even find 1 woman in armor and sensible shoes.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Melissia wrote:I only stated that GW's reasoning is stupid with a side of stupid.
All in-universe explanations are horse gak so far as real life reason goes. Automatically Appended Next Post: The number one feature of top selling miniatures.
39550
Post by: Psienesis
En Excelsis wrote:
Like it or not, women are not a large enough part of the wargaming demographic to be catered to by a company whose sole product base is wargaming. It is silly to assume that GW as a company should create a lineup of models marketed toward 5% or less of their potential buyers. I honestly don't think that sexism is a factor, just marketing.
Uh, what about us men who want female troopers in our IG squads but aren't very good at converting, or don't want an army made of 12 pounds of greenstuff? Or a female Inquisitor without crazy hair? Women in carapace? Where's my Judge Anderson and Judge Hershey Arbiter figs? Judge Beeny?
Marketing, incidentally, by its very nature, is sexist. This is how we are convinced that all women must love the color pink, because everything made for them is pink. That you are not a "real man" if you are not spending $500 on *these* flowers and *this* bracelet and *this* box of chocolates for her on Valentine's Day, because that is what "real men" do, and don't you want to be a "real man"? That *this* motorized vehicle will compensate for your... performance issues.
Currently, and historically, yes, 40K is a male-dominated game. This has been true in every format that RPGs (and miniature wargaming is most certainly an RPG) have taken in the last 40 years. That, however, has been changing, slowly, in the 21st century. Being a geek, or a nerd, a "gamer", is growing in popularity across the board, but also becoming more socially acceptable, *especially* for women. Various conventions are seeing female attendees, of all ages, in record number. While 40K, specifically, has not seen a sudden, huge influx of female players, they do exist, and they exist in proportionately larger numbers in other wargames. Though this cannot be definitively said to be caused by the better-representation of females on the table-top (I'm not sure if such market research has been done), I'm sure it doesn't hurt (also not hurting is a more streamlined rule-set and less-byzantine structure, but I digress).
65268
Post by: Shlazaor
I agree with Melissia to the extent that if we don't change it won't change.
I despise all arguements say that if you don't like it then leave or say nothing. That type of logical fallacy obliterates any chance of improvement. The sheer idiocy of the arguement just makes me angry. I know saying that doesn't make me persuasive but I just hate how many people use it and believe it's true. It's not. Things don't change unless you say something. Nothing is perfect. I could have liked Bush but thought Iraq was complete bs. I can like Warhammer but think their books could involve less bolter porn. You can enjoy 40k and want more female models. They are not mututally exclusive!
But I think the marketing factor is legitimate. Chongara mentioned that if you like that stuff then it's good. I'll be the guy to fall on the grenade. I like that stuff. Not neccessarily with models but definitely for the artwork. The recent success of Kingdom Death speaks to that. It absolutely had a lot of stuff going for it but you can tell just from the comments on the kickstarter that the pin-up models and artwork were also a signigicant and positive contribution toward its success. I think 40k gets marks for not sexualizing their content almost at all. The writers and modelers could all be feminist and they could still make the models the way they are so that they sell better. That is probably the biggest, not only, but biggest reason they are how they are.
25990
Post by: Chongara
Shlazaor wrote: I agree with Melissia to the extent that if we don't change it won't change.
I despise all arguements say that if you don't like it then leave or say nothing. That type of logical fallacy obliterates any chance of improvement. The sheer idiocy of the arguement just makes me angry. I know saying that doesn't make me persuasive but I just hate how many people use it and believe it's true. It's not. Things don't change unless you say something. Nothing is perfect. I could have liked Bush but thought Iraq was complete bs. I can like Warhammer but think their books could involve less bolter porn. You can enjoy 40k and want more female models. They are not mututally exclusive!
But I think the marketing factor is legitimate. Chongara mentioned that if you like that stuff then it's good. I'll be the guy to fall on the grenade. I like that stuff. Not neccessarily with models but definitely for the artwork. The recent success of Kingdom Death speaks to that. It absolutely had a lot of stuff going for it but you can tell just from the comments on the kickstarter that the pin-up models and artwork were also a signigicant and positive contribution toward its success. I think 40k gets marks for not sexualizing their content almost at all. The writers and modelers could all be feminist and they could still make the models the way they are so that they sell better. That is probably the biggest, not only, but biggest reason they are how they are.
I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with T&A. Hell even I like it, sometimes, in the proper context. I tend to not think my Wargames are one of them. In all honesty I'd be much less down on the whole cleaving-bearing pouty-lipped elf thing if I could just find like a handful of models that catered to my taste. I mean seriously I'm at the point where I might toss out 2-3x the money I normally pay for miniatures for something well designed, with qualify sculpt.
There is seriously a market for this stuff. "Shut up and take my money" if any of you miniature makers are reading this.
65268
Post by: Shlazaor
I'd check out Kingdom Death if you want well crafted female models. There is a division between the realistic female armor and the pin-ups so you can get either one you're interested in and then use them for wargaming. For the record I'd love to have female guardsman at the very least but I also wouldn't want to pay more for gakky female guardsmen models so...
30490
Post by: Mr Morden
Where's my Judge Anderson and Judge Hershey Arbiter figs?
right here :
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/miniatures/judge-dredd.html?p=11
plus some other useful female figures including citi def
42494
Post by: nomotog
Psienesis wrote:En Excelsis wrote:
Like it or not, women are not a large enough part of the wargaming demographic to be catered to by a company whose sole product base is wargaming. It is silly to assume that GW as a company should create a lineup of models marketed toward 5% or less of their potential buyers. I honestly don't think that sexism is a factor, just marketing.
Uh, what about us men who want female troopers in our IG squads but aren't very good at converting, or don't want an army made of 12 pounds of greenstuff? Or a female Inquisitor without crazy hair? Women in carapace? Where's my Judge Anderson and Judge Hershey Arbiter figs? Judge Beeny?
Marketing, incidentally, by its very nature, is sexist. This is how we are convinced that all women must love the color pink, because everything made for them is pink. That you are not a "real man" if you are not spending $500 on *these* flowers and *this* bracelet and *this* box of chocolates for her on Valentine's Day, because that is what "real men" do, and don't you want to be a "real man"? That *this* motorized vehicle will compensate for your... performance issues.
Currently, and historically, yes, 40K is a male-dominated game. This has been true in every format that RPGs (and miniature wargaming is most certainly an RPG) have taken in the last 40 years. That, however, has been changing, slowly, in the 21st century. Being a geek, or a nerd, a "gamer", is growing in popularity across the board, but also becoming more socially acceptable, *especially* for women. Various conventions are seeing female attendees, of all ages, in record number. While 40K, specifically, has not seen a sudden, huge influx of female players, they do exist, and they exist in proportionately larger numbers in other wargames. Though this cannot be definitively said to be caused by the better-representation of females on the table-top (I'm not sure if such market research has been done), I'm sure it doesn't hurt (also not hurting is a more streamlined rule-set and less-byzantine structure, but I digress).
Marketing is about the most evil thing in the world. If there was one person you could blame for sexism it would be advertisers and marking people.
16387
Post by: Manchu
They even have Inaba:
42494
Post by: nomotog
Shlazaor wrote:I'd check out Kingdom Death if you want well crafted female models. There is a division between the realistic female armor and the pin-ups so you can get either one you're interested in and then use them for wargaming. For the record I'd love to have female guardsman at the very least but I also wouldn't want to pay more for gakky female guardsmen models so...
Kingdom death disappointed me when I actually saw some of the armored female models. In the unarmed modes everything is fair because everyone is half naked wearing a torn sheet, but the armor sets have small alterations that make the female armor less practical and more pinup like. Like the phoenix armor has pants on the male legs and no pants on the female legs. Also in the pictures I looked at the female models had kind of weak poses well the male ones had more assertive poses. The poses could have just been how those models where assembled.
Then KD has the pin up. Pin ups are pin ups, so ya.
39550
Post by: Psienesis
Yeah, I can get 3rd party figures that support these images and character-looks pretty much all day long. This is kinda the crux of the issue, though. Would GW not rather that I give them my money for my female Arbites, female Guardsmen, female Vindicare Assassins, female characters-of-any-stripe-for-use-in-Dark-Heresy, rather than one of their competitors?
We've been around and around with conversion kits, 3rd party retailers, scratch-building and every other way available to the hobbyist to model their GW Army to match the fluff... but, sometimes, you just don't have the time to kit out 140 female Guardsmen for your 800 model army, know what I'm saying?
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
Why do you guyseven want female models in the game? The ones we have now look like gak. Even the Dark Eldar ones, which are the best ones GW's ever had, look pretty damn manly. I don't really know a whole lot about how molding and making the figures works, so I'm not sure if they suck because it's just hard to female figurines, or if it's just lack of effort on GW's part. To date I've never seen an actually decent looking female model though, even outside of GW. From my experience they tend to look like men with breasts.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Because it's more representative of the lore, and the lore is the only reaosn the game doesn't suck ass.
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
Yes, the principle of it.
The models look so terrible though.
29408
Post by: Melissia
I say the same thing about the male ones, too. The vehicles are the only thing that don't suck to paint
30490
Post by: Mr Morden
BlaxicanX wrote:Why do you guyseven want female models in the game? The ones we have now look like gak. Even the Dark Eldar ones, which are the best ones GW's ever had, look pretty damn manly.
I don't really know a whole lot about how molding and making the figures works, so I'm not sure if they suck because it's just hard to female figurines, or if it's just lack of effort on GW's part.
To date I've never seen an actually decent looking female model though, even outside of GW. From my experience they tend to look like men with breasts.
Whyy would we not - otherwise I disagree with every part of your statement
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
That's actually pretty true. The Guardsman models in particular look horrible. I don't mind certain Space Marine models too much though, and most of the Xenos ones look okay. Mr Morden wrote:BlaxicanX wrote:Why do you guyseven want female models in the game? The ones we have now look like gak. Even the Dark Eldar ones, which are the best ones GW's ever had, look pretty damn manly. I don't really know a whole lot about how molding and making the figures works, so I'm not sure if they suck because it's just hard to female figurines, or if it's just lack of effort on GW's part. To date I've never seen an actually decent looking female model though, even outside of GW. From my experience they tend to look like men with breasts. Whyy would we not - otherwise I disagree with every part of your statement
What you said just now doesn't make any sense. You can't say "otherwise I disagree with you" when you didn't agree with anything I said at all.
39550
Post by: Psienesis
Baby-steps, man, baby-steps...
Step 1 is to get GW making them in the first place (other companies show that it can be done and done well). Step 2 is to force GW to design them well. Step 3... profit???
45703
Post by: Lynata
BlaxicanX wrote:What you said just now doesn't make any sense. You can't say "otherwise I disagree with you" when you didn't agree with anything I said at all.
I think I get what he means.
The first part of his response was to address your question with a counter-question, thus challenging its validity.
In the second part, he disagreed with all the female minis already existing looking bad - and I have to say, I don't agree with that assessment, either. Some are bad, but some are perfectly alright. Not outstanding, especially when compared to non- GW minis, but certainly alright.
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
I understood what he said. It was just kind of a silly post so I responded with something silly.
48281
Post by: Eggs
The thing about the status quo, is that its in the majority of 40k players interests to keep it so, just like in other things like business and movies.
Caveat: I'm a white male, and a long way from being a feminist.
The majority of 40k players are male, and the majority subset is white. 40k as is, is designed around that. It's understandable that this group wants to protect their plastic space men, because its human nature to fear change. What I don't understand, is that in a setting that is so culturally diverse, even just within the IoM, there is such a fear of some differently shaped genitalia.
In reality, I think most 40k players would be happy to see more/better female models, but just saying 'it is what it is', doesn't cut the mustard for me. Rewind a hundred years. Black people are used as slaves and oppressed because of the colour of their skin. Would 'it is what it is' be a rational way to think given a 21st century context?
16387
Post by: Manchu
Lelith's alright, surely.
25990
Post by: Chongara
*looks up the model since it's been forever since I followed 40k*
The quality of the sculpt seems solid, but I'm not sure who they're trying to target with that look. Her body type really isn't traditionally feminine enough for most of the folks who I think would appreciate that outfit. Most of the folks who'd appreciate that they've got sort of a muscular lady there probably would kind of roll their eyes at the outfit. I mean it feels like you'd have to be someone who can both simultaneously enjoy having sort of muscular lady and likes the skimpy-outfitted BDSM elf thing they've got going on. I'm not sure how big that particular segment of the community is.
64143
Post by: En Excelsis
Melissia wrote:I say the same thing about the male ones, too.
The vehicles are the only thing that don't suck to paint 
It is clear that you have many more issues with WH40k than just it's lackluster selection of female models. And given your arguments I don't think that having any more females models, just for the sake of having them, will improve your experience at all. If the models still suck to paint (in your opinion) but half of those models are female, how does that resolve the problem?
The representation of females in the lore is not in direct proportion to the number of female models available for purchase.
Another poster mentioned previously that a number of conventions are noticing an increase in attendance by females. This will serve as a good analogy. Most conventions (I am assuming he meant things like comic-con and not work related business conventions) are already catering to a VERY small minority of the human population. If 1% of people show up at a typical convention, and 1% of those people are female. That is an extremely small number. If that number suddenly rose to show that 30% of those attendants were female, it would still only be 30% of 1% of the worlds population.
Extrapolate that into the world of 40k. The Imperium of Man encompasses billions of worlds, and countless trillions of human beings. Of that, the sisters of battle, even if their number were a million strong (which it is not) they would still represent only a fraction of a percent of the Imperium at large. The same is true of the Inquisition, or the Assassin Houses. How is that showing any kind of equality?
It's been said more than once in this thread Cadia has a birthrate that is synonymous with it's recruitment rate. While that's a fine quote from the codex, it doesn't make any further leaps in logic to assume that literally every person so enlisted becomes a Guardsman. There are countless offices within the Imperial Guard and its interconnected militant branches that must be filled. This includes everything from logistics and communication to propaganda, uniform production, food distribution, construction, repair, and navigation. And countless more besides. Many of those station are either gender-neutral, or would be better filled by a female than a male. Even if a equal number of females are conscripted as males, that does NOT imply that they are given the same role once conscripted.
Billions of Guardsman die every day in the service of the Emperer, Billions died yesterday and billions more will die tomorrow. That kind of lust for death requires a heavy influx of new humans to fill the gap. As strange as it is when compared to our reality, the most probable role of women in 40k is giving birth... whether by choice or because they were enlisted to due so. The survival of humanity would depend on it.
So... I suppose you're right. We should make some models of that. have a few models of women in Sanctions Birthing regiments or some such. I mean, it fits with the lore right?
16387
Post by: Manchu
Chongara wrote:I'm not sure how big that particular segment of the community is.
It seems to be exactly as larger or slightly larger than the segment that like Dark Eldar.
50012
Post by: Crimson
Chongara wrote:
The quality of the sculpt seems solid, but I'm not sure who they're trying to target with that look. Her body type really isn't traditionally feminine enough for most of the folks who I think would appreciate that outfit. Most of the folks who'd appreciate that they've got sort of a muscular lady there probably would kind of roll their eyes at the outfit. I mean it feels like you'd have to be someone who can both simultaneously enjoy having sort of muscular lady and likes the skimpy-outfitted BDSM elf thing they've got going on. I'm not sure how big that particular segment of the community is.
C'mon, everyone loves muscular BDSM ladies!
Biggest problem with Lelith is the kinda gaunt and angular face like all GW elves have. I don't think that this is particularly great look for a woman. Oddly, the human inquisitor has same type of a face.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Well sh'es not a woman. She's a female space elf.
25990
Post by: Chongara
Manchu wrote:Chongara wrote:I'm not sure how big that particular segment of the community is.
It seems to be exactly as larger or slightly larger than the segment that like Dark Eldar.
I don't know, looking over the other Dark Eldar models the vast majority don't seem to be ladies with cheese-grater abs. I'm seeing a lot of models with ornate armor, some-fully clad dudes with whips & armor, skeleton guys and some kind of mutant cyborg thing, a unit of shirtless muscle-men. I mean I'm looking over the range and I'm not seeing anything else quite like her.
The generic succubus maybe a bit, but her even outfit is a bit closer to "Reasonable" and as result she's not really showing off that less-than-volupous physique as much. Even the witches seem to be either mostly armoured or not quite at the "Muscle March" level of the that character model.
Maybe I'm missing something but I could easily see people outside the narrow segment of the population that would enjoy her, enjoying the Dark Eldar range. It's not *my* thing but there certainly seems to be more to them than "Extremely Muscular Women in Skimpy Outfits"
39550
Post by: Psienesis
It's been said more than once in this thread Cadia has a birthrate that is synonymous with it's recruitment rate. While that's a fine quote from the codex, it doesn't make any further leaps in logic to assume that literally every person so enlisted becomes a Guardsman. There are countless offices within the Imperial Guard and its interconnected militant branches that must be filled. This includes everything from logistics and communication to propaganda, uniform production, food distribution, construction, repair, and navigation. And countless more besides. Many of those station are either gender-neutral, or would be better filled by a female than a male. Even if a equal number of females are conscripted as males, that does NOT imply that they are given the same role once conscripted.
That's the Departmento Munitorum, not the Imperial Guard. The DM oversees the Guard, but does not draw its bureaucrats from the ranks of the Guard. These people are Administratum clerks, and are drawn from the Administratum's own worlds, the Schola Progeniums, mid-Hive families, the lesser children of nobles, and the other sources of desk-drones that one finds in such societies.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Chongara wrote:I mean I'm looking over the range and I'm not seeing anything else quite like her.
I dunno, the female Wyches are pretty buff.
25990
Post by: Chongara
Manchu wrote:Chongara wrote:I mean I'm looking over the range and I'm not seeing anything else quite like her.
I dunno, the female Wyches are pretty buff.
Yeah they are. I'd be willing to concede they're roughly in the same category as her, even if not as extreme. Still I don't see "Muscular Women in Skimpy Outfits" as defining the look of the faction as whole. They've got a of models that don't have anything to with that (the majority in fact!). My only point was I don't think the number of people who would enjoy that model for those design elements == the number of people who like Dark Eldar. I'll certainly give them credit for doing something a bit different. There are women there, and they aren't strictly pin-up models or something close to it. That's worth something in my book, not much but it's something. That's more than I can say about some ranges I've seen.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Chongara wrote:I'd be willing to concede they're roughly in the same category as her, even if not as extreme.
Which makes good sense, considering Lelith is the most extreme of the Wyches. Automatically Appended Next Post: I think you're selling the DE abit short. I mean, it's sci-fantasy. No one is wearing anything sensible and I suspect models dressed for respectable, good paying jobs that young women should aspire to hold are not really what you want anyway.
25990
Post by: Chongara
Manchu wrote:I think you're selling the DE abit short. I mean, it's sci-fantasy. No one is wearing anything sensible and I suspect models dressed for respectable, good paying jobs that young women should aspire to hold are not really what you want anyway.
I may be selling them a bit short, I'll admit to having become particularly picky and particularly grumpy about female character design in nerd media. I think there are maybe 3 models unit I'd be confident giving a passing mark to (Second row middle model, bottom row two rightmost models), at least in terms of bucking the stupider design trends. Assuming they're not wearing heels I failed to spot.
64580
Post by: Boggy Man
Melissia wrote:Because it's more representative of the lore, and the lore is the only reaosn the game doesn't suck ass.
And as you noted, there's a lot of problems with it too. I'm really sick of hearing "the reason there's no female marines is gene-seed, blblabla"
No that's the EXCUSE, as to why there are no female space marines. The follow-up question "Why did they write that" would reveal the real reason. (I can't answer that as I wasn't there, but I could venture some very pointed guesses.)
Why do I want normal female models so bad? I've spent the last 3 months building two armies (Guard and Slaanesh) and because I didn't want them to look like a sausage fest or a playboy shoot I had to scratch build half my models. (Amusingly enough, I'll have to do the same for my daemonettes, because the only GW models who SHOULD look sexual look like odd lizards instead, but I digress.)
16387
Post by: Manchu
Lelith is barefoot: points added, points lost, or neither?
64143
Post by: En Excelsis
Boggy Man wrote: Melissia wrote:Because it's more representative of the lore, and the lore is the only reaosn the game doesn't suck ass.
And as you noted, there's a lot of problems with it too. I'm really sick of hearing "the reason there's no female marines is gene-seed, blblabla"
No that's the EXCUSE, as to why there are no female space marines. The follow-up question "Why did they write that" would reveal the real reason. (I can't answer that as I wasn't there, but I could venture some very pointed guesses.)
Why do I want normal female models so bad? I've spent the last 3 months building two armies (Guard and Slaanesh) and because I didn't want them to look like a sausage fest or a playboy shoot I had to scratch build half my models. (Amusingly enough, I'll have to do the same for my daemonettes, because the only GW models who SHOULD look sexual look like odd lizards instead, but I digress.)
http://www.ragingheroes.com/collections/complete-collection/products/preying-mantis
These models are very well sculpted and look much better than the deamonettes that GW currently has in their lineup. I doubt they are marketed towards too many female games but they sure hit the mark for appealing the males in the audience. I'd buy them if I had a use for them in any of my armies.
25990
Post by: Chongara
Manchu wrote:Lelith is barefoot: points added, points lost, or neither?
Neither. Here's roughly how my analysis for female character designs works.
Gain Points:
-Anything I think looks cool, even if it's not female character specific.
-Having 0 checks on the "Lose Points" list
Lose Points:
-Combat Heels
-Being mostly naked*
-Boob Plate
-Armor that doesn't cover the midriff.
-Proportions of Hitomi Tanaka
*There can be rare exceptions to this, with proper context. Most probably won't come up in miniatures/a war game.
Neutral:
-Anything Else
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
Boggy Man wrote: Melissia wrote:Because it's more representative of the lore, and the lore is the only reaosn the game doesn't suck ass.
And as you noted, there's a lot of problems with it too. I'm really sick of hearing "the reason there's no female marines is gene-seed, blblabla" No that's the EXCUSE, as to why there are no female space marines. The follow-up question "Why did they write that" would reveal the real reason. (I can't answer that as I wasn't there, but I could venture some very pointed guesses.) Contrary to popular belief, not every action has an ulterior motive. Why was Frodo a man and not a woman? Why was Mon Mothma a woman and not a man?!?!?! sidenote: Why do men think that a female character isn't appealing to females if the character is scantily clad? Do men not buy Catachans because most of them have rippling 6-packs and aren't wearing shirts? Wonder Woman's a feminist icon and she's been wearing underwear into battle for decades.
16387
Post by: Manchu
@Chongara: She's also rocking a thong. Would that be more points off or points off as included in "mostly naked"? Also, does Lelith's in-universe job curb her points deductions? She's a performer. She sensually fights for the titillation of spectators. Setting aside whether that's misogynistic (arguably not, as there is no reason to suspect Lelith is the best at this because she's female), I think that makes her outfit kind of appropriate.
25990
Post by: Chongara
Manchu wrote:@Chongara: She's also rocking a thong. Would that be more points off or points off as included in "mostly naked"?
Also, does Lelith's in-universe job curb her points deductions? She's a performer. She sensually fights for the titillation of spectators. Setting aside whether that's misogynistic (arguably not, as there is no reason to suspect Lelith is the best at this because she's female), I think that makes her outfit kind of appropriate.
That gets filed under "Mostly Naked". That was a general overview, I'm sure I could find instances where I would take points off for a thong but I don't think it particularly changes anything with this model. Obviously If I stopped and listed out every little detail that could sort of count as "-50 DKP!" I'd be here a while.
There certainly are situations where say being an entertainer could prevent the docking of points for being mostly naked to naked. Depending on specifics, and this is key: So long as the character is being depicted in the context of solely being an entertainer.
In this case she may be an entertainer and that might be fine, it depends a lot on how it's handled. Though I'm not really confident enough in GW to give them the benefit of the doubt on that one. However, all that's irrelevant here because the context this model appears in is that of battlefield, here she's a warrior (and no if they've got some kind of thing with combat-as-performance it doesn't help make it "Count') when being depicted in this model.
Heck I'll even give it points for exploring different body types, even if that's not quite my thing. On the whole it doesn't really come out favourably for me. I'll say this much, it doesn't feel oversexualized in a particular exploitive manner the way a lot of designs to, which keeps it pretty far off the bottom of the barrel. I'm just not sure "not the bottom of the barrel", is particularly high praise, even coming from someone as admittedly critical as I am.
29408
Post by: Melissia
I like Lelith. You look at her and think "holy gak taht is one scary mother[bleep]er right there." It can be argued that she's wearing skimpy clothes, but she is given a pose, a body type, and the equipment taht makes it apparent that she is good at her job, and it involves creating carpets made out of enemy corpses. Even on a model that's skimpily dressed, a good pose taht doesn't just scream "we copied this from a softcore porno mag" can make or break the model. At least her clothes make SOME sort of sense, she is an agility fighter rather than a heavily armored one. En Excelsis wrote:A bunch of amateur psycho-analyzing by some random person on the internet.
No, we're not having this discussion.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Melissia wrote:At least her clothes make SOME sort of sense, she is an agility fighter rather than a heavily armored one.
I agree. I think Lelith is suitably dressed for the battlefield considering she takes to the battlefield less as a matter of war in the IG sense and more as a matter of a publicity stunt.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Yeah, she's pretty much explicitly not a soldier-- she's a performer and her art is death. So I have no problem with her model. I kinda like it.
16387
Post by: Manchu
To me, the supreme example of GW "getting it right" with a female character is Shadowsun. That said, I would not be at all adverse to a "Zero Suit" version of Shadowsun.
39550
Post by: Psienesis
BlaxicanX wrote: Boggy Man wrote: Melissia wrote:Because it's more representative of the lore, and the lore is the only reaosn the game doesn't suck ass.
And as you noted, there's a lot of problems with it too. I'm really sick of hearing "the reason there's no female marines is gene-seed, blblabla"
No that's the EXCUSE, as to why there are no female space marines. The follow-up question "Why did they write that" would reveal the real reason. (I can't answer that as I wasn't there, but I could venture some very pointed guesses.)
Contrary to popular belief, not every action has an ulterior motive.
Why was Frodo a man and not a woman? Why was Mon Mothma a woman and not a man?!?!?!
sidenote: Why do men think that a female character isn't appealing to females if the character is scantily clad? Do men not buy Catachans because most of them have rippling 6-packs and aren't wearing shirts?
Wonder Woman's a feminist icon and she's been wearing underwear into battle for decades.
Because James Kahn, who created the character for the novelization of Return of the Jedi, had experience with working with women in important social and business roles, and translated those experiences to the page? The character appearing in EpIII was as-yet unnamed.
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Mon_Mothma
Why was Frodo male? Because Tolkien was male, and he based the Hobbits on the people of England before, during, and after the 2nd World War. There's rather a lot of author projection into the Hobbits of Middle Earth, though not in a Mary Sue sort of way.
As far as the attire thing goes? Eh... I think this is a hold-over from most of Western societies' habit of slut-shaming and other body-shaming issues that we have. I know several female players (not of 40K, specifically, but of other fantasy and/or sci-fi games) who prefer their characters, or the figs used to represent them, to be either in something skin-tight or in as little as possible, whether this is an RPG, a table-top minis game or an MMO. This is not surprising to me, really, because RPGs are a form of escapist fantasy, where we guys get to be some kind of heroic figure, however we like to personally interpret that, whether we are some bronzed barbarian with 18/00 Strength and a 20 Constitution, a devastatingly intelligent, powerful wizard of moral ambiguity and weak physiology, a race-traitor who has forsaken his evil people to become a champion for Good, and so forth and so on, so why should it not be the same for women in the hobby? There's no easy answer to the question, though, as there's a number of reasons, some valid, that can cause it to be an issue.
Wonder Woman.... she's been doing more than *just* fighting in her underwear for half a century. There's... a lotta baggage in that character's history.
64580
Post by: Boggy Man
Those are excellent, a bit spendy but still better quality than what GW's putting out.
BlaxicanX wrote:
Contrary to popular belief, not every action has an ulterior motive.
Why was Frodo a man and not a woman? Why was Mon Mothma a woman and not a man?!?!?!
sidenote: Why do men think that a female character isn't appealing to females if the character is scantily clad? Do men not buy Catachans because most of them have rippling 6-packs and aren't wearing shirts?
Wonder Woman's a feminist icon and she's been wearing underwear into battle for decades.
Frodo was a man? I thought he was a halfling! This changes everything!
I get what you mean, I myself was a little disgusted at Nostalgia Chick when she fell into the sophomoric 'orks=minorities' humbug in her LOTR reviews this month. I wouldn't hang blatant motives on the original writers ( 40k was originally a self parody of grimderp) but I do think whoever wrote that particular tidbit was very shortsighted. (Early 80's nerd culture was still a boys club, and insularity breeds myopia.)
I'm a big fan of Wondy myself (In her better incarnations that is; Perez and Simone, not that Byrne or Miller gak.) It's not so much exposed arms and legs that I have a problem with, it's the total presentation. Tank Girl is naked in half her stories but still kicks ass. Elen Ripley escaped in underwear but is still a strong character. "Samus In Name Only" in Other M wears a full body armor suit but still manages to invoke the worst stereotypes of weak man-dependent "girls" that the developers could toss out.
I don't have a problem with sexy, but sexy to me does not equal "tittering blond wearing shoelaces".
29408
Post by: Melissia
A better discussion of Wonder Woman is done here by Linkara.
http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/linkara/at4w/5109-amazons-attack-prologue
There has been a long and unfortunate history in how DC's various writers have handled her.
64143
Post by: En Excelsis
BlaxicanX wrote:
Contrary to popular belief, not every action has an ulterior motive.
Why was Frodo a man and not a woman? Why was Mon Mothma a woman and not a man?!?!?!
sidenote: Why do men think that a female character isn't appealing to females if the character is scantily clad? Do men not buy Catachans because most of them have rippling 6-packs and aren't wearing shirts?
Wonder Woman's a feminist icon and she's been wearing underwear into battle for decades.
Excellent point. And one I don't have a concrete answer for.
I think the beginning of an answer can be found though in the context if not the content of the previous posts.
There are many facets to this particular hobby. The collecting, assembling, painting, and sculpting of models are all hobbies in their own right. But one you get to the playing of the game, it becomes about conquest. Sure it is ultimately a game and since no one is actually injured by defeat it remains friendly and even amicable. IMO friends make the best opponents. But there is still the lingering fact that the game itself is about conquest. victory. It's about defeating your opponent.
Just like Orks know what is inherently "Orky", men know what is inherently "Manly" (obviously some exclusions apply). One of those inherently "manly" things is conquest. Competition. Pitting your self via mind or body against a foe and struggling for dominance. It's been part of our history for... ever. From warfare to sporting events, competition is been part of male society since the beginning of time. It's not a bad thing... the Olympics are a great example of how nations can put their differences aside and compete against ne another in a peaceful way.
And while the nature of competition does not, by it's nature preclude the involvement of females, it does carry with it some intangible quality that could be called "manly".
For that reason, when I am constructing my army, I would obviously like to win, and that becomes a factor in my collection of models, not just the appearance of the models themselves. Yes, Catachans are huge bulky dudes clearly crafted to appear like Rambo or other "action heroes" from pop culture... but that is not their sole appeal. they are also a useful, and quite practical unit in an Imperial Guard army.
When looking at the female models, the same rules apply. A perfect example recently presented itself: My CWE army formerly contained a few squads of Howling Banshees. After the shift to 6th Edition that particular group of models was no longer able to perform to m expectations and I replaced them with Striking Scorpions.
That choice had very little to do with the model itself, and was motivated more by my desire to emulate a specific splay style, and in part because I thought it would increase my overall chance for victory.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
BlaxicanX wrote:sidenote: Why do men think that a female character isn't appealing to females if the character is scantily clad? Do men not buy Catachans because most of them have rippling 6-packs and aren't wearing shirts?
Because those two are not equivalent.
The scantily-clad female models are meant to appeal to a male audience by saying "look at how sexy she is, you want to have her".
The scantily-clad male models are meant to appeal to a male audience by saying "look at how powerful he is, you want to BE him".
In both cases it's primarily about the male fantasy.
(And yes, some women are attracted to one or both of them. That doesn't change the intent of the marketing.)
39550
Post by: Psienesis
Just like Orks know what is inherently "Orky", men know what is inherently "Manly" (obviously some exclusions apply). One of those inherently "manly" things is conquest. Competition. Pitting your self via mind or body against a foe and struggling for dominance. It's been part of our history for... ever. From warfare to sporting events, competition is been part of male society since the beginning of time. It's not a bad thing... the Olympics are a great example of how nations can put their differences aside and compete against ne another in a peaceful way.
Several queens throughout history would like to have a word with you. There is nothing inherently "manly" about conquest. There is something inherently *human* about it, though. Competition? There have been historically female sports, too. After all, Nike was the goddess of victory.
Unit stats are completely separate from their appearance on the table-top. Hence various "counts as" processes. If you want, field a bunch of female soldiers from other product lines for Catachans. They'll perform exactly the same.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Also, I should note that during the recent MMA bouts, the womens' bout was considered much more exciting than the male bout-- the men danced about and were extremely cautious, while the women were highly aggressive. One of them obtained a vicious rear naked choke hold within five seconds of the round starting, and the other one just barely managed to get out of it, before winning via an armbar submission. Despite it never getting past the first round, that match was rated higher by fans and sponsors alike for the athleticism, skill, and aggression that the women showed than any of the mens' matches. The men danced about, took pot shots, and had many long rounds, but they weren't very competitive or aggressive compared to the women. If you think women can't or won't be intensely competitive, apparently you haven't been paying much attention to the women in your life. Even in things that aren't about fighting or warfare, we are very competitive. Competitiveness is a human trait, not a male one
45703
Post by: Lynata
I have to say, I don't really like the new Wyches. Muscular women are perfectly fine, and I think this might be what the designer went for, but ... it just doesn't really look all that good.
Perhaps it's just the paintjob, or my resistance to deviate from the "elves = lithe" idea that is almost hardcoded into fiction these days.
Like with GW's Daemonettes, I actually prefer the old Wyches. The new ones look a bit too much like "brute force" rather than acrobatics/speed - and whilst I am certain that DE Wyches employ it all, I believe emphasis should be on the latter.
Lelith herself actually looks much better, so maybe it's just individual models looking "off" rather than the entire range?
En Excelsis wrote:If 1% of people show up at a typical convention, and 1% of those people are female. That is an extremely small number. If that number suddenly rose to show that 30% of those attendants were female, it would still only be 30% of 1% of the worlds population.
I guess GW should just close their office then if 1% is such a small number that 30% of that would be entirely irrelevant. I'm sure there's better business to be had elsewhere.
En Excelsis wrote:Extrapolate that into the world of 40k. The Imperium of Man encompasses billions of worlds, and countless trillions of human beings. Of that, the sisters of battle, even if their number were a million strong (which it is not) they would still represent only a fraction of a percent of the Imperium at large. The same is true of the Inquisition, or the Assassin Houses. How is that showing any kind of equality?
Protip: Two of those are girls.
Also, I would rather ask what, in your mind, shows any kind of inequality in the setting, as far as the Imperium at large is concerned. I think you're really just projecting your own preferences onto the background, and whilst that is, in general, a perfectly valid approach given the "soft" nature of its canon, it would be wrong to claim said preferences as fact.
En Excelsis wrote:This includes everything from logistics and communication to propaganda, uniform production, food distribution, construction, repair, and navigation. And countless more besides. Many of those station are either gender-neutral, or would be better filled by a female than a male.
There is so much wrong in this short segment of your post ... yet at the same time it explains a lot regarding the message of your previous posts.
I guess the 21st century just isn't for everyone.
And the difference between the Imperial Guard and the Departmento Munitorum has already been explained by Psienesis.
Melissia wrote:Also, I should note that during the recent MMA bouts, the womens' bout was considered much more exciting than the male bout-- the men danced about and were extremely cautious, while the women were highly aggressive.
That actually reminds me of historical accounts regarding female warriors encountered by Roman Legions in Europe, or French Colonial Troops in Africa.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Melissia wrote:If you think women can't or won't be intensely competitive, apparently you haven't been paying much attention to the women in your life.
And you certainly haven't played any mixed-gender sports. In my experience the men may have some physical advantages, but in terms of who is serious and competitive even in a friendly pickup game it's a pretty even split between men and women even though women overall are significantly less than half the group. Similarly there are plenty of men whose goal is to be the embodiment of casual play and not caring about winning. In this case gender is completely worthless for predicting competitiveness.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Aren't you agreeing with me in a disagreeable way? After all, check the end of my post. Maybe I just read it wrong.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Continuing from the quoted sentence using the same hypothetical "you", not you the author of the post. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
64580
Post by: Boggy Man
This very video got me started reading Wonder Woman as a matter of fact.
64143
Post by: En Excelsis
Melissia wrote:Also, I should note that during the recent MMA bouts, the womens' bout was considered much more exciting than the male bout-- the men danced about and were extremely cautious, while the women were highly aggressive. One of them obtained a vicious rear naked choke hold within five seconds of the round starting, and the other one just barely managed to get out of it, before winning via an armbar submission. Despite it never getting past the first round, that match was rated higher by fans and sponsors alike for the athleticism, skill, and aggression that the women showed than any of the mens' matches. The men danced about, took pot shots, and had many long rounds, but they weren't very competitive or aggressive compared to the women. If you think women can't or won't be intensely competitive, apparently you haven't been paying much attention to the women in your life. Even in things that aren't about fighting or warfare, we are very competitive. Competitiveness is a human trait, not a male one  Part of the reason I will fail in my coming argument is because people spend so much time "reading between the lines" that they seem to miss what is actually written in those lines... You read something I wrote, made an inference about what you probably thought I meant, and then made a completely new statement yourself. Then you somehow pass it back to me as if it were mine. Here are two quotes from this thread: My Statement: And while the nature of competition does not, by it's nature preclude the involvement of females, it does carry with it some intangible quality that could be called "manly". Your Statement: If you think women can't or won't be intensely competitive.... I am seeing two totally different statements. I said that I think something (competition) as an inherently "manly" quality to it. No part of that statement implied that women at large, or a given woman in particular could not even would not be competitive. You prove that point quite nicely by being as "competitive" as you in this forum discussion. I'm not saying this to derail the thread, which incidentally is called "Misogyny and the lack of normal women in 40K." I am saying it because the word misogyny was used. The title of this thread is an attack on the integrity of the game on the grounds that its makers ( GW) hate women and have not included "normal" women in it's fiction. Throughout the following posts this was redirected to specify that the game is lacking in female miniatures. My contention has never been that the game does not have a skewed ratio of male to female models. This is evident on any store shelf. But to attribute that ratio to misogyny is exactly the same fallacy of logic that I highlighted above. I would have no problem with GW producing more female models, but I won't accuse them of being sexist if they do not. Personally I think there are far more pressing matters at hand than the lack of female miniatures. I would rather they devote their resources to improving the finecast mixture so that the existing models do not suffer from so many defects and imperfections, (which would also improve the quality of any female models they produce in the future) or to finish the process of replacing all the pewter models with either plastic or finecast kits. And if the complaint is solely with the fact that models and rules are not "in line with the fluff" than why is no one complaining about the fact that part of the entrance exam for being a GK Paladin involved wondering naked into a frozen wilderness and hunting down one of the 666 named greater daemons, but when you put a Paladin on the table fully clad in his wargear he is no match for even a normal greater daemon? 40k is rife with this kind of inconsistency, but it's a bit much to assume that it's motivated by a hatred of women.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Pointing out something you don't like to acknowledge isn't an attack on the hobby
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
Peregrine wrote:Because those two are not equivalent. The scantily-clad female models are meant to appeal to a male audience by saying "look at how sexy she is, you want to have her". And my point is that this: The scantily-clad male models are meant to appeal to a male audience by saying "look at how powerful he is, you want to BE him". Applies to women as well, which is why the double-standard is stupid. That the shirtless catachans were created to cater to the male audience is entirely irrelevant. What's important is why shirtless Catachans is considered catering to men. And the answer to that question is: Shirtless catachans appeal to men because being extremely buff, and fit, and badass, is appealing to men. Similarly, when women see Wonder Woman in her underwear, beating the gak out of people, their first thought isn't "oh my god, why is she in her underwear, that's so sexist." Their first thought is "Wow, she's so sexy and fit, and kicking ass. I want to BE her."
29408
Post by: Melissia
No, it doesn't. Not the way you phrased it to be sure. Wonder Woman has far, FAR more character, history, and personality than any Catachan. She is a distinct individual, rather htan being a generic everywoman. Who she is and what she does are very important to her success, not just her being a surrogate for power fantasies (at least, not THAT kind of power fantasy, given the history of the character's creators and the often pathetic treatment she got from DC). The same can't really be said of the faceless nameless characters of 40k tabletop. And that's fine. Not every character NEEDS to be in depth, sometimes having an audience surrogate is perfect. But if all you ever have is an audience surrogate for one specific part of the audience ,the rest of the audience will be left out. And really, nothing you said is a justification for the status quo, it's a lame argument, unable to get itself off the ground. If you had said, say FemShep, then yeah, that's arguably true. But Mass Effect has far fewer problems with accessibility to the female audience than 40k does-- for one, it actually makes an effort to reach out to us.
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
What does that have to do with the fact that women see Wonder Woman and think "I wish I was sexy like her?" Most people who know of Wonderwoman aren't even aware of her personality and history as a character- that doesn't stop her appearance from being iconic, however. Walk up to ten random people who don't read comics and show them a picture of Wonder Woman. Most of them are going to say"that's Wonder Woman". Ask those same 10 people to summarize her origin story and defining personality traits, most of them are going to say "Uhhhh..." That she has more history than Catachans is neither here nor there. I don't see the relevance.
29408
Post by: Melissia
BlaxicanX wrote:What does that have to do with the fact that women see Wonder Woman and think "I wish I was sexy like her?"
Wonder Woman was never actually built to be a sex object. She was built to be a role model, a powerful woman who did what she thought was right with the powers granted to her. If you're trying to argue "most people", you're really just pulling it out of your ass. What is done with her character IS important because what she DOES defines her, not how she looks. That is the very reason why she is so beloved-- she was the most influential superheroine in breaking the "women are judged by their looks, men are judged by what they do" crap that society tries to force down our throats.
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
Melissia wrote:BlaxicanX wrote:What does that have to do with the fact that women see Wonder Woman and think "I wish I was sexy like her?"
Wonder Woman was never actually built to be a sex object.
And this is important, how? I'm not sure if you're arguing with me for the sake of arguing, or just missing the forest for the trees. She's a sex symbol, and her appearance is more iconic than her origin/personality. Whether that was the intention from the start or not is rather immaterial, and it's definitely immaterial to my point, which is that women like women who are fit and attractive, just like men like men who are fit and attractive.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Except she's not. Frankly, I get the idea that you would define someone as a sex symbol simply for BEING female.
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
Of course I would, because I hate women and I'm a dirty sexist, right?
29408
Post by: Melissia
You are pulling "facts" out of nowhere, and speaking for huge groups of people who you do not know very much about, assigning labels to pop culture icons based off of... nothing, really. Wonder Woman's uniform being iconic doesn't make her a sex symbol. It just means that her uniform is very well designed and memorable. Even amongst the non-comic reading public consciousness, more likely than not the Lynda Carter Wonder Woman that would be remembered more than anything, or perhaps the DCAU Wonder Woman-- and again, she wasn't treated as a sex object in either of those settings. The various outfits of the various Doctor Who characters are iconic, yet they aren't sex icons. Batman, superman, the x-men, etc-- again, iconic uniforms, not sex symbols. You're really reaching here.
40392
Post by: thenoobbomb
Melissia wrote:Except she's not.
Frankly, I get the idea that you would define someone as a sex symbol simply for BEING female.
No. He defines her as sex symbol because she walks around with big,silicon breasts and skimpy clothes.
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
Melissia wrote: It just means that her uniform is very well designed and memorable..
You're right. Having incredibly unrealistic proportions, basically the "perfect" female body, barely contained in a skimpy pair of drawls and a sports-bra is a well designed and memorable outfit. It's certainly why my dirty, oppressive male mind remembers it so well.
29408
Post by: Melissia
thenoobbomb wrote:No. He defines her as sex symbol because she walks around with big,silicon breasts
Nah uh uh. You're thinking of Power Girl. Which Wonder Woman are you thinking of?
40392
Post by: thenoobbomb
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
"That's just that artists interpretation of the character" Calling it now. Automatically Appended Next Post: Two separate covers, from separate artists.
29408
Post by: Melissia
thenoobbomb wrote:http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/3/30154/623109-wonder_woman_super.jpg
The waist is somewhat thin, but that isn't exactly unrealistic proportions otherwise, especially by comic standards. A bigger issue is that the artist is incapable of drawing clothes-- which is a problem that the artist has, not the character. If you want to use art like that, allow me to post some art that is likely to be far more recognizable in the public consciousness:  (first live-action series)  (DCAU) Neither of which are really unrealistic body types, and both of which are far more iconic.
40392
Post by: thenoobbomb
Face it, she still has nearly no clothes whatsoever.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
'Cause the ones wearing* clothes are sooooooo much better.
*That look as though they're painted on.
30490
Post by: Mr Morden
Chongara wrote: Manchu wrote:@Chongara: She's also rocking a thong. Would that be more points off or points off as included in "mostly naked"?
Also, does Lelith's in-universe job curb her points deductions? She's a performer. She sensually fights for the titillation of spectators. Setting aside whether that's misogynistic (arguably not, as there is no reason to suspect Lelith is the best at this because she's female), I think that makes her outfit kind of appropriate.
That gets filed under "Mostly Naked". That was a general overview, I'm sure I could find instances where I would take points off for a thong but I don't think it particularly changes anything with this model. Obviously If I stopped and listed out every little detail that could sort of count as "-50 DKP!" I'd be here a while.
There certainly are situations where say being an entertainer could prevent the docking of points for being mostly naked to naked. Depending on specifics, and this is key: So long as the character is being depicted in the context of solely being an entertainer.
In this case she may be an entertainer and that might be fine, it depends a lot on how it's handled. Though I'm not really confident enough in GW to give them the benefit of the doubt on that one. However, all that's irrelevant here because the context this model appears in is that of battlefield, here she's a warrior (and no if they've got some kind of thing with combat-as-performance it doesn't help make it "Count') when being depicted in this model.
I think your missing the point / ignoring some of the 40k background and context - battlefield and entertainment is the same thing to her and the other wyches. Armour is also less required as, on real space attacks many Dark Eldar usually keep a body part to be recloaned from on ice (if they can aford it), they mostly don't care about "dying" and pain - like with Slaaneshi cultists is simply annother expereince to spice up their life.
Protecting soldiers from their enemies has often not been a priority in warfare - soemtime armies have good qulaity armor - somethimes nothing more than rags or bright shiny cloth.
Also if they count combat as a performance - how can it not "count"? Very wierd
Also it goes back to the historical gladiatiors - for the most part you don't want lots of clothes / armour as you can't see the blood and injuires, the impacts and the sweat and oil. The current Spartacus TV series shows this very well, the whole point is to display semi-naked bodies for the titliation of the auidiance and to watch them bleed.
Dark Eldar take this to the extreme as they feed off the cruelty and agonies of the performers /and their victims as well as enjoying the view.
Lastly we all know of historical forces that fought naked or near naked - for various reasons including culturally or being used as canon fodder and as 40K is a hodge podge of influences, plus can allow for almost invisible protection such as energy shields.
Lastly I am confused what you actually want from a 28 -32mm model - there is presenrtly a vast variety of female figures across large amount of manufactuers in all types of dress, pose, style and influence and you can't find any worthy of you? Can you point to a larger sculpture or image and say this is what it should be - or is it simply that there never will be one that works for you and so why bother making any?
Are there any male figures that are "right" to your eyes?
53740
Post by: ZebioLizard2
Her original look as well wasn't to off.
Course back then the authors had some odd fascination with bindings, being tied up, and some other off fetishy things, as Suffering Scappo of Superdickery.com shows.
29408
Post by: Melissia
A stylized leotard suitable for acrobatics and physical action, a tiara, a pair of vambraces, and boots. The only real problem is the boots have heels-- low heels, but heels. That aside, it's suitable clothing for an Olympic athlete, which she is in more ways than one. Have you ever paid any attention to Olympic level gymnasts, runners, and so on? Their leotards aren't as flashy or stylized, but they cover about the same amount of skin usually-- sometimes they cover the arms as well, but not always. The purpose of a leotard is specifically to leave the legs free. There IS another kind called a unitard that covers the legs. Both are used for things such as yoga, gymnastics, and the like. Amusingly, leotards were originally designed for men. H.B.M.C. wrote:'Cause the ones wearing* clothes are sooooooo much better. *That look as though they're painted on.
A LOT of comic book artists have no fething idea how to draw clothes. This incompetence applies both male and female characters however. Mr Morden wrote:Lastly I am confused what you actually want from a 28 -32mm model
First and foremost? I'm looking for female Cadians, myself. Automatically Appended Next Post: This entire tangent is pointless, irrelevant, and off topic. Let's talk about 40k some more instead.
55408
Post by: Graphite
Random points:
Ripley wasn't actually written as a woman for Alien. The script allowed for casting of whoever seemed best.
The first instance of a Sister of Battle (that I'm aware of) showed her shooting a Marine:
http://gregorhutton.com/roleplaying/sister-sin.jpg
More of both would be nice.
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
No, no, no. You can't quote a post that wasn't even directed at you, talk a bunch of gak to the person who made it, and then be like "well this all off-topic".
My post was entirely on-topic, until someone decided to take the thing that was being used as an example and make a big deal out of it. =|
This thread is now about Wonder Woman, and how she is nearly naked.
Someone change the title.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Ah yes, that old image. As amusing as it is, I'm still glad the art style shifted since then. That marine just looks kind of dorky. Then again I've never liked beakies More characters like Kasteen or Criid would be nice at the very least.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
BlaxicanX wrote:Similarly, when women see Wonder Woman in her underwear, beating the gak out of people, their first thought isn't "oh my god, why is she in her underwear, that's so sexist." Their first thought is "Wow, she's so sexy and fit, and kicking ass. I want to BE her."
Nonsense. Some people might see it that way, but the intent of the generic minimally-dressed female character* is to appeal to a male fantasy about who they want to have sex with. I'm sure the people in charge of the marketing decision are very happy if a few women want to be the character, but that's not the primary goal. For example, if you look at wargaming examples can you really plausibly argue that the minimally-dressed female characters are a power fantasy for women, who make up a small percentage of the total players, rather than a sex fantasy for the men who are the majority of the customers? Of course not.
*I'll put aside the issue of whether or not Wonder Woman specifically is one, since that wasn't part of my argument.
64143
Post by: En Excelsis
Peregrine wrote: Nonsense. Some people might see it that way, but the intent of the generic minimally-dressed female character.... ...Is not up for interpretation. You are no more qualified to speak definitively about the intents of a fictional character than I am. Perhaps the original artist was a raging sexist and only wanted to draw women with 1/3 or less of their body covered. Contrastingly he/she many have been genuinely interested in providing women with a positive role mode and wanted to show some other side of that... who knows? You're not more in the artist's head than I am. The "intent" is irrelevant. All that remains are facts. The FACT is, that she is a scantily clad animated character on a comic book (which was marketed and sold predominantly to males). This is yet another example of my previous complaint. Stop imposing your own reasons into the statements (or artist works) of other people. They are what they are. If you think it's sexist, fine, think that. But you're way out of line to make an accusation about the creator's intent.
42494
Post by: nomotog
WW is actually a good example of why you can't just judge a character by the square footage of there outfit. Even though she wears less total clothing then a t-shirt, she dosen't look like a pin up.
16387
Post by: Manchu
If WW is a role model for women and their bodies do not match hers in terms of sexiness and fitness generally, is the image of WW oppressing them in the sense of telling them they are not good enough? Similarly, if I'm supposed to be like a Catachan -- well, I can tell you my arms have never and will never look like that. Maybe the issue is that for whatever reason I'm okay and many other men are okay with not looking like a Catachan while (some) women are very disappointed with and feel like failures because they don't look like WW or Lelith. Can we really disagree with the fact that women encounter more pressure to be attractive than men? I mean, when was the last time any of the guys here spent more than ten minutes (and even that is a crazy amount of time) on their hair? How many of us have worried about putting make up on before going to work or school? I'm not saying that curling irons and masscare are the chains of womanhood and the ladies should burn their bras. Just, isn't it obvious why us guys don't have the same complaints about beefcake that ladies seem to have about cheescake?
40392
Post by: thenoobbomb
I've spent more then 10 minutes on my hair.
I was getting it dry because me mom told me too.
16387
Post by: Manchu
And not because you wanted, nay, needed to look pretty that day?
68355
Post by: easysauce
the 40k universe as a GW creation is not mysonogyst...
there is just a lack of female models, fluff wize females are just as screwed as everyone else in the IoM, no more, no less
I think some of the elf types actually have matriarchies too
that the female models there are can be over sexualized at times, is no worse then all the male models being over sexualized..
putting huge unattainable exaggerated muscles on a male model is just as sexist as putting unattainable exaggerated breasts on a female model.
in RL men are just a sexually objectified/oppressed as women...
its just with different methods,
men dont need to be skinny belimick types with surgically enhanced breasts, like some women feel they need to be
men are supposed to be rich, tall, muscle bound steroid freaks who never show emotion, and are disposable lives compared to women.
of course, neither gender actually HAS to crumple to those pressures to be the "real" man or woman
42494
Post by: nomotog
Manchu wrote:If WW is a role model for women and their bodies do not match hers in terms of sexiness and fitness generally, is the image of WW oppressing them in the sense of telling them they are not good enough?
Similarly, if I'm supposed to be like a Catachan -- well, I can tell you my arms have never and will never look like that.
Maybe the issue is that for whatever reason I'm okay and many other men are okay with not looking like a Catachan while (some) women are very disappointed with and feel like failures because they don't look like WW or Lelith.
Can we really disagree with the fact that women encounter more pressure to be attractive than men? I mean, when was the last time any of the guys here spent more than ten minutes (and even that is a crazy amount of time) on their hair? How many of us have worried about putting make up on before going to work or school?
I'm not saying that curling irons and masscare are the chains of womanhood and the ladies should burn their bras. Just, isn't it obvious why us guys don't have the same complaints about beefcake that ladies seem to have about cheescake?
Something to keep in mind, is that there is a difference between a buff man made to appeal to women and a buff man made to appeal to men.
If you exposed guys to nothing but male pinups deigned to appeal to women, then the guys would be uncomfortable. Men aren't immune the effect of exploitative pinups. They just get exposed to them a lot less. Try sending a guy to a male scrip club and see how he feels in that kind of environment.
68355
Post by: easysauce
women, get hit on by men,
men, get hit on by men
hmmmmmmmm, maybe men are actually the downtrodden now...
64143
Post by: En Excelsis
Manchu wrote:If WW is a role model for women and their bodies do not match hers in terms of sexiness and fitness generally, is the image of WW oppressing them in the sense of telling them they are not good enough?
Similarly, if I'm supposed to be like a Catachan -- well, I can tell you my arms have never and will never look like that.
Maybe the issue is that for whatever reason I'm okay and many other men are okay with not looking like a Catachan while (some) women are very disappointed with and feel like failures because they don't look like WW or Lelith.
Can we really disagree with the fact that women encounter more pressure to be attractive than men? I mean, when was the last time any of the guys here spent more than ten minutes (and even that is a crazy amount of time) on their hair? How many of us have worried about putting make up on before going to work or school?
I'm not saying that curling irons and masscare are the chains of womanhood and the ladies should burn their bras. Just, isn't it obvious why us guys don't have the same complaints about beefcake that ladies seem to have about cheescake?
I agree that men an women have different standards. But that just goes back to my original argument that we are not truly equal.
Physically I am a tall man, tall even by male standards. I'm 6'4" and right around 200 pounds (91kg). Being a man of my size I have a pretty healthy metabolism and require more food than other people might. I also have to pay a premium to get "long" jeans or slacks, and sometimes shirts. I am held to live a little differently than other men, and I should certainly assume women as well.
When I say that women are not equal to men, I don't mean that they are better or worse. I mean that they are not equal. They are not the same. It is illogical to think that two beings as radically different as human males and human females should be held to the same standards. Or be represented equally in every facet of human life. The most "equality" a rational person should expect is to be treated with respect by his or her peers, and to not be judged based solely on gender/color/faith/etc. anything after that is expecting too much. I try my best not to look down at anyone based on their ethnic background, gender, or religion, and I sure as hell don't think that the world owes me anything for being a White, Christian Male.
So why expect GW to alter their works to give women (a much smaller chunk of their audience) an equal representation in their game. At this point, it's just illogical. Especially given that GW has not been particularly disrespectful towards women. They aren't actively keeping them from playing, and they aren't creating a fictional world where women are in any way inferior or given unfair treatment (at least in context). We've already established that in 40k it is possible for women to be Inquisitors, Planetary Governors, and other ranks that are basically high as can be achieved in that world. They clearly have an "equal" opportunity to excel. In universe, they are equal enough that I think we can agree...
But meta-game, as it concerns the models, it ceases to be a matter of equality. Unlike Wonder Woman, I would be truly worried if any RL females looked at 40k females as role models. An inquisitor is a perfectly fun work of fiction in the context of the game. They are even kind of badass. But that character were transposed into our world, they'd be evil melon-fethers... If they were role models to anyone I'd be deeply concerned.
68844
Post by: HiveFleetPlastic
The Sisters of Battle have never sat super well with me. On the one hand, they're pretty awesome. On the other hand, they come off to me as "girls can't be space marines, but here, have some special girl-marines who aren't as good." I think they're cool and I'd be sorely tempted to collect them if it wasn't like a thousand bucks for a small army, but that's always bothered me.
Anyway, more cool female characters please. I loved Lieutenant Mira in the recent Space Marine game because she was a female character who was competent and, to my incredible surprise and delight, didn't require rescuing by the male protagonist, not even once.
I'm pretty easy to please, I think. They don't need boob plate or heels. I mean, geez, look at Eldrad. If you'd told me Eldrad was a woman, that would be fine. I just want female characters to exist and the assumption that male is the default to go away. It's weird, for instance, how in the Eldar codex it tells you that all the Eldar troops can be male or female, but then explicitly describes all of them as male other than Howling Banshees, which it describes as female (even though, AFAIK, there's no reason there can't be male Howling Banshees).
40392
Post by: thenoobbomb
Manchu wrote:And not because you wanted, nay, needed to look pretty that day?
My mom thought so.
65597
Post by: amudkipz
Why don't female models accurately represent women? Because GW probably didn't make a good enough profit to justify the production. That's all there is to it I'm guessing. Sure FW can make a profit, but FW is also much more expensive. Really I can't understand the need to psychoanalyze every female character in every story. They're just people, some are strong, some are weak, some are good and others are bad.
29408
Post by: Melissia
IT's hard to make a profit by not doing anything at all. Unless you're a politician.
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
Manchu wrote:If WW is a role model for women and their bodies do not match hers in terms of sexiness and fitness generally, is the image of WW oppressing them in the sense of telling them they are not good enough?
Similarly, if I'm supposed to be like a Catachan -- well, I can tell you my arms have never and will never look like that.
Maybe the issue is that for whatever reason I'm okay and many other men are okay with not looking like a Catachan while (some) women are very disappointed with and feel like failures because they don't look like WW or Lelith.
Women are under more pressure to look good than men are (to an extent of course. As has been noted by many political analysts, Chris Christie would have a decent shot at becoming President if he wasn't like 350 pounds), however, not only is peer-pressure not gender-exclusive, but one can argue that women are more interested in comparing themselves to other women then men are interested in comparing themselves to other men. Not just some women, but many imo, are very disappointed with their bodies when they compare themselves to other women, especially regarding weight, but that doesn't stop 99% of the "America's Next Top Model" audience from being women, despite the fact that the body type of the women on that show represent like 1% of how most women on the planet look, lol. It's almost masochistic in a way. The large majority of women who watch the show look nothing like the women on the show, yet they anxiously hop onto the couch and watch it week after week. Most women look nothing like models in magazines, yet many of them go out of their way to read those magazines as much as they can.
And I'm going to out on limb and say that this particular problem isn't even something you can blame men on solely. The reason I say that is because the type of women that women compare themselves to the most are women that are rarely considered "extremely attractive" by male standards.
Your average model looks like this. Very skinny, no ass, no breasts, no hips.
Research of the type of porn men watch the most shows that, when they're fantasizing about women, their ideal women tend to look like this, and this. Wide hips, decent sized breasts, pretty thick all around. Hardly "the average woman", but closer to average than the first picture, imo.
So anyway, TL;DR: I'm of the opinion that while, yes, many women feel a sense of pressure and shame when they don't match the beauty of certain fictional characters and real-life models, that doesn't stop many, or even most of them, from finding those women very appealing, if not in an envious kind of way.
16387
Post by: Manchu
It sounds like you are saying, the fact that they feel pressure doesn't keep them from feeling pressure.
Or you might be saying that they inflict the pressure on themselves? But it must be more nuanced than women waking up in the morning and saying "gee, my goal for today is to seek out images that decrease my self worth."
I mean, if that's what you believe women are doing, then what you are really saying about women is that they are psychologically unhealthy as a general matter.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Why the hell is this guy speaking for all women? I don't even do that and yet I'm a thousand times more qualified...
16387
Post by: Manchu
To be fair, he's saying they speak for themselves by doing things like watching America's Top Model in huge numbers.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Manchu wrote:To be fair, he's saying they speak for themselves by doing things like watching America's Top Model in huge numbers.
Does the fact that MASH's finale was the most watched episode of any show ever mean that people want to be a psychotic wreck like Pierce at the end of the series? "Reality TV" is often watched more like watching a trainwreck (it's fascinating in the most vile ways), or because your'e invested in the characters and honestly want to see them succeed, such as people rooting for the contestants on Survivor.
20983
Post by: Ratius
No excuse for dipping the proverbial toe into RT TV ever :(
Sorry, not really ontopic - just a pet hate.
16387
Post by: Manchu
The difference is that we're talking about models. As the name implies, these women are held up as ideals that one should measure oneself against. His question seems to be, what makes women accept these body types as the models for their own?
20983
Post by: Ratius
what makes women accept these body types as the models for their own?
But do women accept these body types as the models for their own Manchu, nevermind the what?
16387
Post by: Manchu
Ratius wrote:what makes women accept these body types as the models for their own?
But do women accept these body types as the models for their own Manchu?
If they don't, then there is no problem. The argument here is that women are being excluded from certain sectors of society because the images of women that predominate in those sectors are offensive to women in the sense that they propagate impossible standards based on objectification. If a woman can look at a GW model, say the SoB slave girl from the DE range, and just have a laugh rather than feeling excluded or offended then ... again, there's no problem.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Amusingly, America's Top Model is having a Guy's edition. I wonder how that will turn out. All in all it was fairly low in the ratings rankings, even if it was The CW's top show, so I really dunno what the point of this discussion is.
16387
Post by: Manchu
That show is just an example of a huge variety of products and services that women encounter, to some extent voluntarily, where they compare their own bodies disfavorably to bodies that look nothing like theirs.
68355
Post by: easysauce
men are under just as much pressure to conform to what sociaty thinks they should be like as women are,
women have unrealistic physiques as the norm, and so do men...
all the male models are just as over skinny with perfect abs as the female models, except they also have to be really muscular on top of this.
not to mention men are expected to weild a lot of money/power in addition to the looks
and if men complain about social pressures, they are ignored, ridiculed, and told its nothing, to man up, and realize that only women have these kinds of pressures in a way that matters.
really though, both men and women, only submit to the social pressures they choose to submit to,
both sides have different "perfect images" that are both grossly unattainable for 99% of us, and that 1% that does usually needs unhealthy things (like annorexia or steroids) to achieve that image.
I always find it ironic, like in fight club when brad pitt gets on the bus with edward norton and sees a calvin kline model ad with perfect abs and remarks "pfft, is that what a man should look like?"
30 seconds later mr pitt is fighting with his shirt off showing even of even MORE defined pretty boy abs...
42494
Post by: nomotog
Ratius wrote:what makes women accept these body types as the models for their own?
But do women accept these body types as the models for their own Manchu, nevermind the what?
They are the kinds of models used on women magazines and in aids directed at women. When an advertiser wants to offer up what they believe women want, it's this super thin super tall body type. I don't think this image matches up with reality, but advertisers are evil.
16387
Post by: Manchu
easysauce wrote:men are under just as much pressure to conform to what sociaty thinks they should be like as women are
Maybe so but that misses the point. Our social expectations of men regarding appearance are not nearly as severe as our expectations of women, at least measured in the amount of thought and effort it takes on the part of the individuals attempting to meet those expectations.
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
Manchu wrote:It sounds like you are saying, the fact that they feel pressure doesn't keep them from feeling pressure. Or you might be saying that they inflict the pressure on themselves? But it must be more nuanced than women waking up in the morning and saying "gee, my goal for today is to seek out images that decrease my self worth." I mean, if that's what you believe women are doing, then what you are really saying about women is that they are psychologically unhealthy as a general matter. it is more nuanced than that, but yeah, I think women judge themselves, and other women, very harshly, and very unfairly. It's certainly unhealthy, imo.
45703
Post by: Lynata
HiveFleetPlastic wrote:The Sisters of Battle have never sat super well with me. On the one hand, they're pretty awesome. On the other hand, they come off to me as "girls can't be space marines, but here, have some special girl-marines who aren't as good."
I think that's primarily an issue with outsourced fiction and the fanbase. GW's own website wrote: "As the Chamber Militant of the galaxy-spanning Ecclesiarchy, the Sisters of Battle are fierce warriors that are equals to their brother Space Marines. What the Sisters lack in genetic enhancement they make up for in faith and devotion."
Nominally weaker due to missing genetical augmentation, they possess the ability to temporarily push past what a Marine can do, thus in the grand scheme of things evening it out. And their equipment is the same, at least as per GW's books. Again, some non- GW books disagree.
It's just whenever you bring up that line quoted above you have a hundred Marine fans screaming out how GW was "wrong" writing that.
amudkipz wrote:Why don't female models accurately represent women? Because GW probably didn't make a good enough profit to justify the production.
Well, theoretically speaking, a miniature has to be produced to fill a specific role in an army's Codex - regardless of whether the mini is male or female. I'm not entirely sure how it works with plastics, but of the metal minis many are sculpted differently by default so that you end up with a squad that can have different poses etc.
I remember my first box of Space Marines all having "cloned" parts, however, so maybe the same applies to Cadians and GW just generally cheaped out on alternate molds. In that case, however, there was no reason why they could not have made one of the many "one-offs" a girl, such as the Sergeant, the Comm-Trooper, the Banner-bearer, the Commissar etc.
I think the thought just kinda didn't occur to them because the designers still see male as a default gender, much like I think it is in most movies or video games. People have to make a mental effort to remember women as potential options.
Manchu wrote:Maybe the issue is that for whatever reason I'm okay and many other men are okay with not looking like a Catachan while (some) women are very disappointed with and feel like failures because they don't look like WW or Lelith.
I think you may be on to something here, at least regarding the pressure. "Traditionally", men shall attain success and wealth, emit confidence and the ability to support whatever family they may raise - whereas women shall attain beauty, so as to be picked as brides by said men.
This has been shifting slowly in the past couple decades, especially since marriage is no longer regarded as a necessity, and women have started to join all sorts of careers and become successful and rich themselves.
You still have a notable bias in how the media portrays the gender, however. Do an experiment. Walk through your city of choice or watch some TV, and compare the amount of advertisement for beauty/health products showing slim, pretty girls compared to men of the same fashion.
It should be noted that, or at least this has been my impression, women who join traditionally male hobby communities tend to be somewhat less impressed by the media bias as they are already "breaking the rule", so to say, and thus may have less of a problem with somewhat skimpy characters as long as it still comes across as a fitting choice of fashion rather than portraying obvious sexism. Case in point -> Lelith.
At least that's what I picked up from various forums, talks, conventions etc. Of course, at the same time they are also more aware of the issue, leading to debates such as the ones in this thread.
Regarding Wonder Woman, I think that's an interesting topic. I for one have to admit that I agree with her appearance being primarily intended to cater to male readers, as that was (and probably still is) the primary audience for comic books in the western world. At the same time, the character is strong and independent. One could almost say that WW is some sort of "gender infiltrator", trying to subtly undermine a reader's opinion by first luring him with a skimpy outfit and then going "look what I can do!".
It's probably a silly theory, but that thought just popped up in my mind as I read people's impression of that character.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Manchu wrote:That show is just an example of a huge variety of products and services that women encounter, to some extent voluntarily, where they compare their own bodies disfavorably to bodies that look nothing like theirs.
And most of them aren't exactly very highly rated or ranked. Last year approximately a million people watched that particular show. Out of 315 million people in the USA total-- even if all of those were women (which I guarantee you is not the case), that's less than a single percent of all women in the USA. Yeah, women are constantly subjected to unnatural beauty standards from a very early age, I won't deny that, but these sorts of things aren't really all that popular. Beauty contests are universally pretty low in the ratings rankings, for example. What IS popular are contests where people actually DO something.
|
|