A note before reading from your author: I did this as part of examining the sociology of media which is a huge field of interest for me as part of my degree [insert useless degree joke], and regardless of your views on feminism, racism, sexism, etc etc please keep it friendly and maybe not debate these concepts as a whole in terms of whether they should exist or any stuff like that as this essay uses Feminist Theory, which isn’t the same as Feminism and Feminist Theory, like all theories – Marxist, Queer, etc – merely is a frame to see a piece of media or the world in for analysis. Equally I would love to hear from other academics or even just people’s opinions or maybe if this has just helped clarify the whole mess, because I honestly avoided this topic for a long time wanting to keep my hobby away from depressing things like politics. But if all form of media must have politique, then here we go. Buckle in.
TL;DR - The issue is a lot more complex than thing = good or thing = bad, and this mini essay argues the point that critique isn't critisism and that there's more layers to this issue to explore, like the historical and cultural background.
If you grew up with Warhammer and it’s a huge thing for you with deep meaning, know I am not trying to gak on you for enjoying what you enjoy. There is nothing wrong with liking something, and being critical of that thing doesn’t take it away. Being critical isn’t criticism of the thing itself. However, it’s time to talk female Space Marines. One of the most compelling arguments I’ve heard is that we can’t really tell their gender. Which is fair, big suits hide things. Except both Space Marines and Imperial Guard (ahem, Astra Militarim, whatever they wanna call them) are coded male. With helmets off, they are all male, and they all have a nice bulge in their trousers. All media by its nature contains shorthand, trying to get across something to its audience without saying it. In this case gender coding allows for the audience to make assumptions. When something is coded very male, its saying “my audience is for men,”. In the 1950s we saw a huge increase in traditional gender roles akin to the Victorian era, they rose up again in the media, mainly film, and with it Post Modernism rose. I have been studying sociology for years now and cannot give you a clear cut definition because it’s simply so broad but to try and narrow it down to what’s relevant here, I will simply say it is a tag on from Modernism (the acceptance of the belief that enlightenment is inevitable and we’ll all be modern thinkers, it does go deeper but entire books have been written on modernity) and postmodern feminism began to challenge gender itself. Why were women portrayed one way and men the other? Arguably some of this is history – but they looked at how media shapes our beliefs, we consume it, and reproduce it (oh hi Marx).
In the era Warhammer came about, gender coding was strict. If you grew up in the 90s like I imagine many people here did you know that from adverts. Boys adverts were explosions! Gross stuff! Trucks! Hot wheels! As were their TV shows and girls got ponies, Barbie, hundreds of baby dolls that all did the same things but were totally different and you need to buy them all. (Note, by era, I mean the era of strict gender roles notably the 50s til about 2010 depending who you ask. Things aren’t as aggressively boy/girl as before and many children born past 2010 see huge media changes). But the times they are a changing and with it so is media.
“But if postmodernism wants to deconstruct gender,” I hear you say, “why do we need female coded space marines?” Which is a good question, and comes down to the issue that while theory is great, we have to operate within the real world. Many feminist theories, queer theories, Marxist theories, etc, deconstruct the idea of gender as a whole and call it non-existent. It is a social construct, but this holds other layers of complexity. Race, for example, is a social construct but it still affects our lives, we didn’t need a civil rights movement for white people to be able to sit on buses and use water fountains. Same as representation does affect people’s self-image, self-esteem and what they believe they are capable of doing. As young as 5/6 children internalise the idea of what men and women do career wise, and even 9 year olds have been reported in studies to believe “girls are inherently bad at maths”, which holds no biological basis. But this is a sociological essay, not a psychological one, so I won’t go too deep into stereotypes and how they’re consumed and reproduced.
If you got this far, you’re probably asking – what does any of this mean anyway? Why does it matter? Without talking about the psychological importance of representation, I can say it means that it says a lot about our culture that there is a huge pushback against more women in Warhammer. Media reflects the views and ideals of the time, it’s why so many Disney and Pixar movies have success now talking about identity: because it’s relevant to us and reflects our conflicts. Michael Bay refused to have a female transformer as it would “warrant explanation, and there is no time for that,” which makes no sense because if we can believe in robot cars and have the suspension of disbelief to pretend the plots make sense, we won’t question a female bot. But they’re all coded male, as that’s the intended audience. Alienation thus occurs. In my opinion it’d be a lot cooler to see genderless robots trying to figure out gender through the protagonist’s love story, and allow itself some humour, but instead we’ve so internalised the believe that cars = men we can’t do it.
This is the point I am forced to address female Warhammer figures and Tyranids. I am pleased Tyranids aren’t coded, and honestly, they’re an awesome Alien race. But female Warhammer figures/characters include things like sisters of battle. Which I love and genuinely find awesome. I love the figures and the idea of space nuns with guns. But why are all the models portrayed in a way that perpetuates the male gaze? And I mean that in the academic sense coined in 1974, not the internet buzzword. The male gaze applies to male and female figures in Warhammer, as seeing men represented more than women especially in certain roles is part of it. Yes, skull breast plates are badass and play into the part of me that wants to see this kind of style. But the way they’re designed, and knowing the creative team behind them and the audience they are marketed to, is arguably made for men, not women. Breast plates for women being domes to cover tits don’t work, and wouldn’t be realistic armour. They’d have to be flat. They are shown to have waists and loincloths. Again, there could be a huge psychology tangent about the impact representing women like this has but despite my major being psychology I will refrain.
But does any of this mean anything? Well…yes and no. We’re allowed to like our epic, sci-fi, fantasy media and enjoy it. I love Sisters Of Battle for their design even if it’s arguably very male gaze like. You’re allowed to want all Space Marines or Imperial Guard to be male because that’s the cannon you have in your head. In my canon all Tyranids are female [granted, this belief has fewer real world implications], and I’m not about to feel bad for it. But understanding why this issue matters and the wider cultural implications makes the whole “feminist 40k thing” less annoying. I want models of all implied genders and races to be produced. I want less sexualised female characters. But the issue is a lot more complicated that thing good or thing bad. If your guilty pleasure is female warriors in tight fitting armour that’s fair (and, you know, same), but anyone who tries to say, “hey, this is problematic and we need more options,” isn’t attacking you or what you love.
[Awaits for literally no one to care, but I would like others POV].
Well, first off I have to say that I feel imminently unqualified to speak in an academic sense about Marxist/Feminist/etc Theory, as I've never studied it.
I will say that as an IG player, I've often thought it would be great to have some female guardsmen to mix into my force; Victoria Miniatures makes some very nice looking models and heads that I've been debating about picking up for a while now, though I would honestly prefer an official GW product that can fully integrate with my existing army (I use Cadian models) without the subtle visual differences. Honestly, I think IG are probably one of the easiest avenues for GW to use to expand the representation of women in 40k; there are already plenty of notable examples of female IG troopers in the extended fluff (look at the Gaunt's Ghosts series for one example).
Fem40k have attacked the community with accusations of "toxic" "sexist" and "racist" behaviour, they refuse to have an open dialogue due to non existent "threats" as such anything they say has been tainted and is viewed as "SJW" noise to be ignored, if they want to be taken seriously they need to issue a public apology for the BOLS article, until then no matter what they say, they will be viewed with suspicion and distrust.
I won't be the first to say that tabletop, and videogames as a whole up until very recently has been a boys club. It's only been the last 5 years where we've started to see real, hard traction towards making it inclusion for women, as an active effort.
That being said, people will be people, and people love to put the vocal minority on display. The argument isn't just between feminists and the worst of the neckbeards, it's about everyone inbetween who really has the opinions that matter most.
It's came down to shaming at this point, but in a good way. If you're a bully, a neckbeard, anything toxic towards women being allowed into the game? People /do/ shame them. And that's the best coures of action. Don't ban them, let them learn.
Tyranids are seemingly led by a very brood mother esque class system, the sisters of battle are /elite/, there is plenty of examples of women. If anything, there seems to be a lack of racial diversity...But that's another arguement for another day.
All in all, I think we're on the right track. The Triumverate boxes had half of the models be female, and that was a fairly major release of important plot characters.
I haven't seen anybody say that he don't want female models in warhammer (Ok, I have seen some individuals on the internet, but bah, fringe individuals exist in both extremes of the spectrum). Tau, Imperial Guard, Eldar, Necron (No I'm not talking about robots with tits), etc... and of course plastic SoB. Theres a lot of room for female models. And Saint Celestine, Greyfax, SoS, etc... show that female models sell.
About Michael Bay. That guy is a horrible director. The Transformers Cartoon had female Transformers nearly from the beginning (I'm no Transformers Expert so I don't know if they where there from the beginning of the female bots were introduced later, but they exist). And if I remember correctly, the autobots that were motorbikes in Transformers 2, where female.
About female space marines: We don't need more space marines, and we don't need female space marines. Why? Because theres no problem with having a 100% male faction. The problem is that the 100% male faction has 60% of the releases of the game, and the 100% female faction has 0.001%. Thats the only problem here, the concepts of the factions are fine.
But what can I say. I was the kind of boy that when it was a kid played with play-doo, playmobil and a little market with my fruits and vegetables and a little kitchen to cook food for my mama. I have never been the prototype of masculine individual.
But the issue is a lot more complicated that thing good or thing bad. If your guilty pleasure is female warriors in tight fitting armour that’s fair (and, you know, same), but anyone who tries to say, “hey, this is problematic and we need more options,” isn’t attacking you or what you love.
The problem is it is never presented in this light. It is presented as "We need these options, and you are indeed bad for liking this so we are going to try and take this away from you as it's problematic/toxic/sexist."
Having male-only Space Marines due tradition in one thing (which I don't necessarily agree with, but still) but having no female models in factions that supposedly are mixed-gender (such as guard) is just inexcusable. Let's start with getting actual equal representation on the factions that should have it, and not focusing on the bloody Space Marines all the time. One faction being male-only would not be such an issue, if 90% of the marketing and fluff would not centre on that faction, while supposed mixed-gender armies are still represented solely by male models, and the female-only faction languishes neglected.
One thing I also despise is that when writing new fluff GW has established more male-only factions. SM thing was written a long time ago, I think it was a mistake, but there is massive resistance for changing it now. However, when Imperial Knights got their first codex, it was stated that Knight pilots were exclusively male too! Thankfully that has been abandoned in later iterations. I was also annoyed to read in the new Custodes codex, that the Custodians are recruited from sons of noble families. That was unnecessary, they could have at least left it vague. (I will definitely be converting some female Custodians regardless.)
Crimson wrote: Having male-only Space Marines due tradition in one thing (which I don't necessarily agree with, but still) but having no female models in factions that supposedly are mixed-gender (such as guard) is just inexcusable. Let's start with getting actual equal representation on the factions that should have it, and not focusing on the bloody Space Marines all the time. One faction being male-only would not be such an issue, if 90% of the marketing and fluff would not centre on that faction, while supposed mixed-gender armies are still represented solely by male models, and the female-only faction languishes neglected.
One thing I also despise is that when writing new fluff GW has established more male-only factions. SM thing was written a long time ago, I think it was a mistake, but there is massive resistance for changing it now. However, when Imperial Knights got their first codex, it was stated that Knight pilots were exclusively male too! Thankfully that has been abandoned in later iterations. I was also annoyed to read in the new Custodes codex, that the Custodians are recruited from sons of noble families. That was unnecessary, they could have at least left it vague. (I will definitely be converting some female Custodians regardless.)
Yeah, female Custodians was a missed opportunity. As they are hand-crafted individually I see no reason for them to be all male. At least all of mine have helmets, so my Captain-Shield on bike will be named as female
Formosa wrote: There needs to be a disconnect established here.
Fem40k
More female models
Asking for more female models is fine.
Fem40k have attacked the community with accusations of "toxic" "sexist" and "racist" behaviour, they refuse to have an open dialogue due to non existent "threats" as such anything they say has been tainted and is viewed as "SJW" noise to be ignored, if they want to be taken seriously they need to issue a public apology for the BOLS article, until then no matter what they say, they will be viewed with suspicion and distrust.
I suppose, but I think that opens the debate about how the internet has changed how views are expressed. Like my semi point about the Male Gaze because I had to condense everything, because the idea of the Male Gaze has basically, online, become any woman dressed sexually when actually it goes a lot deeper than that. Like, yes, there is an air of sexism and racism when nearly all models are male and have european features.
But I do fully see the point about how these points when said on an online medium without proper explanation of what these buzzwords mean causes people to switch off and view it as you say, noice to be ignored. I personally find the BOLS article fine, and find this admin response http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2017/10/feminist-40k-admins-respond.html to really explain how annoying it can be to have a select few in the community who get genuinely upset at the idea of female characters.
I don't mean to be so wish washy or sound centrist on the argument as that is far from where my allignment is, but I will say understanding why this blacklash exists, as I overviewed in the OP, is kinda key to understanding how to get a point across.
But internet culture as I will losely call it leads to people having the agency to say "screw you guys for being sexist" and "screw feminist 40k for attacking the hobby I love" and both sides aren't right or wrong. In my own opinion I'd say that yeah it is problematic to only want male figures for your army but you're still allowed to do it. SOB are problematic and I love them, and sadly, that's part of any movement like feminism - disagreement within it, as some people will yell misogyny at me and others will agree.
However it is good to not see too much backlash against female models themselves like there's a term for it I forget someone please find it for me when the argument over an issue becomes bigger than the issue itself. It feels all the emotions we have around feminism have charged the Feminist 40k movement to end up being a bigger deal than it was to want female models. Wording there isnt perfect, but I hope that makes sense.
They are the ones that destroy franchises (see the SJW revolution in Marvel that saw multiple comics tank). They hammer and hammer on "problems" in say comics/card games/ tabletop games but they aren't the ones investing time and money in said hobbies. They're just a very vocal (and obnoxious) minority and they are the ones bringing toxicity.
The gaming clubs i have been to (i haven't been playing to long) were always very friendly (both had 1 female player and the rest male).
And who cares if there's only a couple of factions with wich females can "identify"... i don't think anyone can "identify" with space bugs/demonic monsters with tentacles all over the place.
As for the look of SoB, they have always been weird fetishy battle nuns, and that is a big part of their appeal. Again, that itself is not a problem, problem is that's pretty much only sort of female representation that there is. If there was a large variety of different sorts of female models, then some of them being somewhat fetishy would not be problem.
Though for balance we should have some male models in similar style. How about some male death cult assassins with skull codpieces, stiletto heels and leather corsets?
Esasb wrote: None should take modern feminists seriously.
They are the ones that destroy franchises (see the SJW revolution in Marvel that saw multiple comics tank). They hammer and hammer on "problems" in say comics/card games/ tabletop games but they aren't the ones investing time and money in said hobbies. They're just a very vocal (and obnoxious) minority and they are the ones bringing toxicity.
The gaming clubs i have been to (i haven't been playing to long) were always very friendly (both had 1 female player and the rest male).
And who cares if there's only a couple of factions with wich females can "identify"... i don't think anyone can "identify" with space bugs/demonic monsters with tentacles all over the place.
And on top of that, the two females in my playgroup (out of 7 people total) play Nids and Necrons respectively they aren't concerned with playing females. They just think that space bugs are cute, and death robots are badass.
Esasb wrote: None should take modern feminists seriously.
They are the ones that destroy franchises (see the SJW revolution in Marvel that saw multiple comics tank). They hammer and hammer on "problems" in say comics/card games/ tabletop games but they aren't the ones investing time and money in said hobbies. They're just a very vocal (and obnoxious) minority and they are the ones bringing toxicity.
The gaming clubs i have been to (i haven't been playing to long) were always very friendly (both had 1 female player and the rest male).
And who cares if there's only a couple of factions with wich females can "identify"... i don't think anyone can "identify" with space bugs/demonic monsters with tentacles all over the place.
As I've said, this isn't a place I'm going to discuss feminism as a movement as was said in the forward. But I do see a very emotionally charged argument you make (destroy, obnoxious), and as someone more interested in society as a whole and the power of representation and the years of research behind saying why it matters, I don't feel comfortable using terms like SJW or talking about what it does to a certain hobby or franchise. I more tried to outline the critical stance of, "Why does this offend people? Why are people feeling attacked by more female characters/need for representation?" and gave my two cents on why as well as the historical context of how through consumption and replication, women haven't felt like they have a place in many hobbies or interests.
It is regardless interesting to hear yours and everyone's opinions and I'm pleased to see people being so receptive to this thread, I was a bit worried of a "we have this thread every week" response haha.
Feminist40k Admin's response wrote:...and shaming other people for daring to enjoy the same hobby.
Poor WAAC players. I think what many people thinks is "misoginy", or "bigotry", or "racism", is just people being overly angry on the internet. When you see that same person arguee like it is the end of the world about minutiae, you understand that people on the internet is prone to exaggerate, hyperbole, and to be overly agresive about everything.
Thats why I hate (See what I did here? ) Twitter. If you stay many time on the internet you can forgot that the real world is very different. And warhammer40k is no different. If you go to actual stores, tournaments, etc... you'll see that the internet community is not the real world community. And lets me say that both FeministActivist/SJW (As much as I hate to use that label) and AntiFeminist/Bigots/ETC... spend A LOT of time on the internet arguing agaisnt each other. And I'm very thankfull for that.
Crimson wrote: As for the look of SoB, they have always been weird fetishy battle nuns, and that is a big part of their appeal. Again, that itself is not a problem, problem is that's pretty much only sort of female representation that there is. If there was a large variety of different sorts of female models, then some of them being somewhat fetishy would not be problem.
Though for balance we should have some male models in similar style. How about some male death cult assassins with skull codpieces, stiletto heels and leather corsets?
Feminist40k Admin's response wrote:...and shaming other people for daring to enjoy the same hobby.
Poor WAAC players. I think what many people thinks is "misoginy", or "bigotry", or "racism", is just people being overly angry on the internet. When you see that same person arguee like it is the end of the world about minutiae, you understand that people on the internet is prone to exaggerate, hyperbole, and to be overly agresive about everything.
Thats why I hate (See what I did here? ) Twitter. If you stay many time on the internet you can forgot that the real world is very different. And warhammer40k is no different. If you go to actual stores, tournaments, etc... you'll see that the internet community is not the real world community. And lets me say that both FeministActivist/SJW (As much as I hate to use that label) and AntiFeminist/Bigots/ETC... spend A LOT of time on the internet arguing agaisnt each other. And I'm very thankfull for that.
Oh defintely, like, I wanted to leave my own gender out of this thread but hey ho that lasted a hot minute, very rarely have I gotten gak for being the only woman at a gaming event. The real world doesn't reflect the internet, and when it does, the response is usually laughter from others being "who is this douche?". But then again, people also don't start discussions on female representation and the male gaze at these events, cos it's not that relevent to our every day lives or how we can enjoy the hobby , as much as I do want these things changed. [Insert another useless degree joke].
Esasb wrote: None should take modern feminists seriously.
They are the ones that destroy franchises (see the SJW revolution in Marvel that saw multiple comics tank). They hammer and hammer on "problems" in say comics/card games/ tabletop games but they aren't the ones investing time and money in said hobbies. They're just a very vocal (and obnoxious) minority and they are the ones bringing toxicity.
The gaming clubs i have been to (i haven't been playing to long) were always very friendly (both had 1 female player and the rest male).
And who cares if there's only a couple of factions with wich females can "identify"... i don't think anyone can "identify" with space bugs/demonic monsters with tentacles all over the place.
False equivalency - the existence of factions which “no one can identify with” is false, as there are plenty of people who love Tyranids and daemons.
And I’m sure there are plenty of people who care about the fact that there are no factions that they as a person can identify with. You not caring about half the population being unable to identify with any faction in an incredibly rich (and supposedly diverse) universe is unsettling and betrays a lack of empathy.
Re: the “SJW revolution”, it’s time to repost something I have said before.
This the root of the problem, people so used to seeing an all-majority cast in a media form, that when they see gay characters, or black/asian/indian/whatever characters, they immediately decide that it’s “pandering”, instead of thinking critically and wondering what a woman sees when they look at that game. Imagine looking at a game and all of the characters are minorities, or gay, and you can’t identify with any of them. That’s what women and minorities see on a daily basis. You’re not being discriminated against, you’re just not getting 100% representation at the cost of all else anymore.
Crimson wrote: Having male-only Space Marines due tradition in one thing (which I don't necessarily agree with, but still) but having no female models in factions that supposedly are mixed-gender (such as guard) is just inexcusable. Let's start with getting actual equal representation on the factions that should have it, and not focusing on the bloody Space Marines all the time. One faction being male-only would not be such an issue, if 90% of the marketing and fluff would not centre on that faction, while supposed mixed-gender armies are still represented solely by male models, and the female-only faction languishes neglected.
One thing I also despise is that when writing new fluff GW has established more male-only factions. SM thing was written a long time ago, I think it was a mistake, but there is massive resistance for changing it now. However, when Imperial Knights got their first codex, it was stated that Knight pilots were exclusively male too! Thankfully that has been abandoned in later iterations. I was also annoyed to read in the new Custodes codex, that the Custodians are recruited from sons of noble families. That was unnecessary, they could have at least left it vague. (I will definitely be converting some female Custodians regardless.)
Problem being on the Intertubes there is precious little debate but a metric fup ton of "listen and belief " Jokaero poop flinging and "alternative facts" by all sides
So maybe Lady Astartes would be nice but is it financially worthwhile for GW (or any company) to invest in wooing a minority at the risk of loosing an equal or greater number of frothering 'fans'
I know exactly who you are and I've been paying attention to you for some time.
Let me say first and foremost that I'm 100% in favor of female guard models (ANY new guard infantry sculpts would be great), and more female miniatures across the board. I don't favor 'female Space Marines' as an idea, but I also don't care what heads you want to glue on your space marines- use monkey heads for all I care, they're your models and you own them.
kawaiipikachu wrote: A note before reading from your author: I did this as part of examining the sociology of media which is a huge field of interest for me as part of my degree [insert useless degree joke], and regardless of your views on feminism, racism, sexism, etc etc please keep it friendly and maybe not debate these concepts as a whole in terms of whether they should exist or any stuff like that as this essay uses Feminist Theory, which isn’t the same as Feminism and Feminist Theory, like all theories – Marxist, Queer, etc – merely is a frame to see a piece of media or the world in for analysis. Equally I would love to hear from other academics or even just people’s opinions or maybe if this has just helped clarify the whole mess, because I honestly avoided this topic for a long time wanting to keep my hobby away from depressing things like politics. But if all form of media must have politique, then here we go. Buckle in.
I've watched you for some time, outside this website. And I am pretty sure you don't want debate or contrary opinions. There's a reason that everyone in your Facebook page agrees with one another, and it's because I've seen you post-block individuals and remove their comments if they so much as dared to disagree with you in even the most polite and respectful manner. Also, I've seen your members actually boot women- the people you claim to represent- for disagreeing with you or being friends with 'the wrong people'.
Don't take that as a personal attack, but a point of criticism. If you want discussions, you need to be prepared for people to do something other than agree with you. And here, being as polite as I can, I will do exactly that in some cases.
Yes, let's talk female Space Marines. I can gather at least a dozen websites that offer third-party bits and some of those are female heads. Literally nothing is stopping you from taking models you own and creating female Space Marines. And it doesn't matter if I like or dislike them, they're your models and not mine. It shouldn't matter.
kawaiipikachu wrote: Why were women portrayed one way and men the other? Arguably some of this is history – but they looked at how media shapes our beliefs, we consume it, and reproduce it (oh hi Marx).
First, women were generally portrayed a certain way because contrary to what some folks may believe, the differences between men and women go beyond our reproductive equipment and things on their chests. We are very different in a myriad of ways, and it all ties in to how we evolved as a species.
kawaiipikachu wrote: In the era Warhammer came about, gender coding was strict. If you grew up in the 90s like I imagine many people here did you know that from adverts. Boys adverts were explosions! Gross stuff! Trucks! Hot wheels! As were their TV shows and girls got ponies, Barbie, hundreds of baby dolls that all did the same things but were totally different and you need to buy them all. (Note, by era, I mean the era of strict gender roles notably the 50s til about 2010 depending who you ask. Things aren’t as aggressively boy/girl as before and many children born past 2010 see huge media changes). But the times they are a changing and with it so is media.
It was almost as if certain things appealed to certain genders. But I've never seen anyone take a GI Joe away from a girl because 'she's a girl'. I also don't know if you realize this, but maybe it's entirely possible that those things that boys like just didn't appeal to girls.
kawaiipikachu wrote: Many feminist theories, queer theories, Marxist theories, etc, deconstruct the idea of gender as a whole and call it non-existent. It is a social construct, but this holds other layers of complexity.
Anyone who says that gender is a Social Construct doesn't know what a Gender is and how deeply tied to your physiology it is. Yes, you can identify as another gender. There's a lot of reasons for that, but gender isn't something a bunch of angry white men in the 1950's made up to oppress women before they went home to slap their wives.
Funny how you guys always cite Marx, and he was banging his unpaid house-maid while his wife was grieving a stillbirth. And he then proceeded to essentially make her keep his bastard get outside of the house and sell him into child labor. I know it seems appealing and all, but if you're going to be a feminist you might want to choose a better class of human being to base your theories on.
kawaiipikachu wrote: I can say it means that it says a lot about our culture that there is a huge pushback against more women in Warhammer.
No, there isn't a pushback against women. There's a pushback against idealogues that come in to cause drama and conflict. Well-adjusted adults, including women, are finding no difficulty coming into this hobby and enjoying themselves. And just so you know? Percentage-wise, my 40k gaming group has more women than your feminist group. And more people of color, members of the LGBT community, and overall diversity.
It's almost as if the only people saying that there is a pushback are people that come in to cause drama and problems for the community. It's almost like people can put aside their differences and enjoy a game, and would rather not have people around that are there to start labeling people bigots and telling them how to think. Even simpler- it's just like we want to enjoy our games and friendships without having someone shoving identity politics down our throat and trying to turn the one little bit of recreation and fun that bring us together into an ideological battleground or socio-political platform.
What I'm trying to say is, it seems to me like the only people getting 'push-back' are probably getting it because they're annoying. I have difficulty believing that it's 'because they are women', especially since most of your group isn't women, and I've seen you lament that not enough women are coming forward to support you.
kawaiipikachu wrote: instead we’ve so internalised the believe that cars = men we can’t do it.
And this is where you have the problem. You like telling people what they think. Maybe you should let people have their own agency and stop dictating how they feel.
kawaiipikachu wrote: But why are all the models portrayed in a way that perpetuates the male gaze? And I mean that in the academic sense coined in 1974, not the internet buzzword. The male gaze applies to male and female figures in Warhammer, as seeing men represented more than women especially in certain roles is part of it. Yes, skull breast plates are badass and play into the part of me that wants to see this kind of style. But the way they’re designed, and knowing the creative team behind them and the audience they are marketed to, is arguably made for men, not women. Breast plates for women being domes to cover tits don’t work, and wouldn’t be realistic armour. They’d have to be flat. They are shown to have waists and loincloths. Again, there could be a huge psychology tangent about the impact representing women like this has but despite my major being psychology I will refrain.
In a game where guys are running around with shoulder pads the size of a tractor tire, you're questioning breasts on females in form-fitting armor? If I wanted 'realistic' I'd be playing Bolt-Action. And I'm pretty sure that there's nothing wrong with things being appealing to the opposite sex. Liking a well-shaped female miniature for aesthetic reasons isn't going to turn you into a woman-hating rape-junkie bigot, but if it does you were what well-adjusted adults refer to as "a severely unhinged mental case" and the core of your problems are deeper than plastic tiddies.
I'm just going to ask you, if you think representation is important and that female Space Marines would change all that...
...I would assume women are just charging into your FLGS to grab Eldar off the shelves.
...Or they're really big into Infinity, Warmahordes, and Guild-Ball.
Nope? Those tables look exactly like the Warhammer tables in terms to Guy/Gal ratio?
Huh. It's a crazy thought... but hear me out. Maybe women just aren't as drawn to this as men are, and maybe 'add girl models' isn't going to change much. Maybe women and men are equally complex and different in many ways, and sometimes our interests cross paths- but for the most part, they tend to be a bit different. Maybe we're not just interchangeable people that just happen to have different reproductive equipment.
I mean, I was a GI Joe era kid. You ever see girls flocking to snag Scarlett, Lady Jaye, Baroness, Jinx, and Cover Girl off the shelves? Not so much. Some do, but not many. And 'making a girl figure' isn't the end-all and be-all.
Maybe 'representation' isn't as important as you say. After all, the overwhelming majority of SoB players were males. You're even a fan of an all-female Tyranid concept and you're a guy (trust me, I know- I saw when you bought the new Codex and commented on this). It seems to not be such a big deal to men, maybe we should stop and consider the fact that women aren't much different in that respect and treating them like stupid children and telling them "If one of these looks like you, then you'll like it!" It's crazy, but maybe to enjoy something we don't need to self-project onto little miniatures. I should know, I play Infinity and that game is almost half female models- and the groups of gamers are still about the same, no swarm of women rushing to it.
And the wildest idea I can come up with, is that honestly- I've never been in a gaming group that didn't have a good handful of women. Today, I'm going up against a Thousand Sons player, who is a woman and she loves Space Marine lore. My other female friend plays Necrons, and one particular lady I know is a huge World Eaters fan. I've never once been told, "I'd play that if it had women like me in it". So, perhaps, and hear me out...
...maybe if there's a lack of women in your gaming groups, it has less to do with the models...
Oh, and the bizarre anti-female attitude in the community is quite real. I'm sure it is really only small amount of people, but vocal enough that it is really off putting.
It surfaces every time when someone suggest creating female Space Marine chapter or posts pictures of models converted as such. There will always be a deluge of people telling them that this cannot be done, it does not match the fluff etc. Even though these comments may remain somewhat civil (which they always do not,) it is still telling. I mean I'm pretty sure most people creating female space marines know what the official fluff say, they just choose disregard it. The same thing doesn't happen with other fluff violations. People post 'loyalist World Eaters' and stuff like that all the time, without bunch of people jumping on them and telling how they're violating the canon.
Wait so the OP is male or female? Ohm the drama...
Crimson wrote: It surfaces every time when someone suggest creating female Space Marine chapter or posts pictures of models converted as such. There will always be a deluge of people telling them that this cannot be done, it does not match the fluff etc. Even though these comments may remain somewhat civil (which they always do not,) it is still telling. I mean I'm pretty sure most people creating female space marines know what the official fluff say, they just choose disregard it. The same thing doesn't happen with other fluff violations. People post 'loyalist World Eaters' and stuff like that all the time, without bunch of people jumping on them and telling how they're violating the canon.
I have seen people attack with the same entusiasm female space marine conversions as Dark Angel Deathwing painted in green For some people, the lore is the lore, and they can't withstand that the models of other people are their models. Obviously some will attack female space marines with the wrath of a thousand suns but... they are such a minority that giving them attention is only done for two things:
-To mock them
-To push an agenda.
When I asked about background for a female Custodes, to do as a special character, as a conversion, I had 0 rage coments here on dakkadakka. And the thread was 2-3 pages long.
Galas wrote: Wait so the OP is male or female? Ohm the drama...
Male, and I know their name and have seen quite a bit of the issues they've caused in other groups. Let's just say that this individual has been told by several pages and groups to 'can it' when trying to turn 40k pages into SocJus/Marxist Theory debate platforms.
Crimson wrote: That males and females like different things is almost completely due the upbring and the society.
Or perhaps it's because we're sexually dimorphic species and work according to our instincts that have been hardwired through millions of years of evolution to lean toward certain things.
So, yeah.
As I said, it's more than just biology. So, feel free to rage about how it's just some genitals that make the difference.
That males and females like different things is almost completely due the upbring and the society.
So men and women have the exact same hormones and we are exactly alike when it comes to bodies? Because all this is proving is that there's no difference to look when it comes to the brain, but medically we've learned that there's massive differences when it comes to the medical needs for a man or woman. You wouldn't treat one the exact same as the other when it comes to various medical reasons.
Galas wrote: Wait so the OP is male or female? Ohm the drama...
Male, and I know their name and have seen quite a bit of the issues they've caused in other groups. Let's just say that this individual has been told by several pages and groups to 'can it' when trying to turn 40k pages into SocJus/Marxist Theory debate platforms.
"Post Count: 6
Ranking: Fresh-Faced New User
Click here to edit your profile.
Joined Dakka on: 2018/02/03 13:39:44"
??????????????
K then. This is actually my first time on a Warhammer forum or group too. Just, uh, yeah. I hope this is a sincere you mistaking me for someone else and not some weird kind of attack.
That males and females like different things is almost completely due the upbring and the society.
So men and women have the exact same hormones and we are exactly alike when it comes to bodies? Because all this is proving is that there's no difference to look when it comes to the brain, but medically we've learned that there's massive differences when it comes to the medical needs for a man or woman. You wouldn't treat one the exact same as the other when it comes to various medical treatments.
Yeah, I'll disagree with that. Even if Brains are exactly the same, males and females aren't. You just need to look at the animal kingdom. Yeah we are past that, but in the "Nature vs Nurture" debate I'm positioned into the middle. I know in nordic countries the normal ideology is that nearly everything is just Nurture. But I disagree with that statement (Just like I disagree that everything is Nature)
That males and females like different things is almost completely due the upbring and the society.
So men and women have the exact same hormones and we are exactly alike when it comes to bodies? Because all this is proving is that there's no difference to look when it comes to the brain, but medically we've learned that there's massive differences when it comes to the medical needs for a man or woman. You wouldn't treat one the exact same as the other when it comes to various medical reasons.
Yooooo maybe the Gender as a social construct debate can be saved for an off topic forum or PMs. Not tryna jump in or tell anyone to stop talking about it like I'm not running your life, just, that's quite a can of worms.
kawaiipikachu wrote: K then. This is actually my first time on a Warhammer forum or group too. Just, uh, yeah. I hope this is a sincere you mistaking me for someone else and not some weird kind of attack.
Doubt. I've seen these exact tirades on your Facebook page.
And trust me, if I wanted to attack you- I wouldn't do it here. I've a smidgen of respect for this page, enough that I try to stay mostly polite, if firm.
And I don't need to attack Feminist 40k. You've got that well in hand.
Esasb wrote: None should take modern feminists seriously.
They are the ones that destroy franchises (see the SJW revolution in Marvel that saw multiple comics tank). They hammer and hammer on "problems" in say comics/card games/ tabletop games but they aren't the ones investing time and money in said hobbies. They're just a very vocal (and obnoxious) minority and they are the ones bringing toxicity.
The gaming clubs i have been to (i haven't been playing to long) were always very friendly (both had 1 female player and the rest male).
And who cares if there's only a couple of factions with wich females can "identify"... i don't think anyone can "identify" with space bugs/demonic monsters with tentacles all over the place.
And on top of that, the two females in my playgroup (out of 7 people total) play Nids and Necrons respectively they aren't concerned with playing females. They just think that space bugs are cute, and death robots are badass.
My wife begs to differ... space bugs are badass! But so are dead robots
And seriously, this whole "females need more factions to identify with" seems to be a missed reasoning. By that logic Death Guard players need to identify with ugly, smelly, obese and deformed individuals to enjoy WH? How many (as a percentage of all interested) women are actually complaining about all-male SM as thier reson not to play and how many are indifferent or have have other reasons to not want to play 40K?
kawaiipikachu wrote: K then. This is actually my first time on a Warhammer forum or group too. Just, uh, yeah. I hope this is a sincere you mistaking me for someone else and not some weird kind of attack.
Doubt. I've seen these exact tirades on your Facebook page.
And trust me, if I wanted to attack you- I wouldn't do it here. I've a smidgen of respect for this page, enough that I try to stay mostly polite, if firm.
And I don't need to attack Feminist 40k. You've got that well in hand.
Do you think you could PM me or something because I really don't know who you're mistaking me for but it does make me uncomfortable to be honest. I'm genuinely not part of or active in any other Warhammer forums or Facebook groups. I have a local gaming facebook group but that's about it. Also, ad hominem attacks are just kinda crap. Like, I honestly have no idea who you are or who you think I am but I hope it's a genuine misunderstanding rather than like I said some kind of attack. So if you wanna continue that feel free to message as I don't wanna derail the thread.
1) No, feminist 40k does not matter. And feminist theory does not have a scientific basis. It is a silly superstition.
2) Space marines are clad in armour with full coverage. There are literally no way of telling, if the person inside is a man, woman or fungus. In real life there are no difference between the shape of armour for men and for women. But then again, 40k is pretty far removed from real life. Orks has no gender for example, Necrons has no gender, tau has... I don't know what gender they are really.
3) There are no pushback against women in 40k. GW produces the models that the public wants to buy. And that's it.
4) How do you know, that girls are not inherently worse at math than boys? I am not saying that they are, but it is not something you can easily test, is it? Maybe our perceived gender differences would be smaller, if more girls studied useful subjects like math, and fewer studied pointless nonsense like feminist theory.
I'll say that most of the female players that I know play or Tyranids or Orks. Specially Tyranids.. I don't know exactly why but I think theres a relation that can be drawn from that. I don't know exactly what one.
kawaiipikachu wrote: Do you think you could PM me or something because I really don't know who you're mistaking me for but it does make me uncomfortable to be honest. I'm genuinely not part of or active in any other Warhammer forums or Facebook groups. I have a local gaming facebook group but that's about it. Also, ad hominem attacks are just kinda crap. Like, I honestly have no idea who you are or who you think I am but I hope it's a genuine misunderstanding rather than like I said some kind of attack. So if you wanna continue that feel free to message as I don't wanna derail the thread.
Cool, let me help you here.
Instead of making the most noise about me having a pretty good idea who you are, how about you engage my argument? It doesn't make me doubt my assessment at all when you're more concerned about me 'mistaking you for someone else' than you are engaging the discussion.
Or perhaps it's because we're sexually dimorphic species and work according to our instincts that have been hardwired through millions of years of evolution to lean toward certain things.
So, yeah.
As I said, it's more than just biology. So, feel free to rage about how it's just some genitals that make the difference.
Science disagrees with you. The brain is what you are. Did you read the article?
Computer games are a good example. Originally they were marketed gender neutrally, and both genders played them equally. But in the 80's the marketing switched to marketing to boys, and games and computer became mainly a boy thing. It was so influential that it created a gender gap in the tech field. Nowadays it finally starting to get more balanced again.
pismakron wrote: 1) No, feminist 40k does not matter. And feminist theory does not have a scientific basis. It is a silly superstition.
2) Space marines are clad in armour with full coverage. There are literally no way of telling, if the person inside is a man, woman or fungus. In real life there are no difference between the shape of armour for men and for women. But then again, 40k is pretty far removed from real life. Orks has no gender for example, Necrons has no gender, tau has... I don't know what gender they are really.
3) There are no pushback against women in 40k. GW produces the models that the public wants to buy. And that's it.
4) How do you know, that girls are not inherently worse at math than boys? I am not saying that they are, but it is not something you can easily test, is it? Maybe our perceived gender differences would be smaller, if more girls studied useful subjects like math, and fewer studied pointless nonsense like feminist theory.
Regards
This again feels like a more ad hominem argument and a feminism is bad arguement than one against anything that was brought up but I will say that social theory is based on science and since the late 1800s sociology has fought for its place as a science. Point 3 ignores the consume-reproduce hypothesis. As for point 4 yes lots of studies have been done, and that also ignores the lack of female representation in STEM and how stereotypes that women can't go into STEM cause a lack of motivation to study it. I would address this in more depth but I'm not here to have a debate about psychology.
Point 2 I agree with, although I would argue Orks are coded more male personally but that's subjective, one supposes.
I would love to see more female minis in game there are a few
Eldar, Dark Eldar and Harlequins have some female minis but could do with being more even sometimes (All the Harlequin character models are male, and 3/5ths of the troupe box are too for example)
I believe Dark Eldar have the most female minis in the game from multi gendered factions
Imperial Guard should have some female figures- Lieutenant Mira from the Space marine game for example-she was well done (but for some reason there's nothing?)
And as I don't want to reset the clock I'll not mention everybody's favorite metal only line....
But more is always better (Pretty much anything not Space Marines would be nice at this point- another reason to curse Primaris they could have done something other than the most represented faction for once)
A thing to remember though is It only really has an effect on the human and eldar factions because the rest are arguably ambiguous by our human standards.
Tau suits don't clearly show either gender- The pilots can be whatever you want
Kroot- they've never said what their females look like if there is any outward difference from the males
Vespid (See Kroot)
Necrons- They're robot bodies and have no gender distinctive forms (Though I will point out all their named characters are male)
Tyranids- don't typically have a gender as most are incapable of reproduction
Or perhaps it's because we're sexually dimorphic species and work according to our instincts that have been hardwired through millions of years of evolution to lean toward certain things.
So, yeah.
As I said, it's more than just biology. So, feel free to rage about how it's just some genitals that make the difference.
Science disagrees with you. [b]The brain is what you are. Did you read the article?[/b]
Computer games are a good example. Originally they were marketed gender neutrally, and both genders played them equally. But in the 80's the marketing switched to marketing to boys, and games and computer became mainly a boy thing. It was so influential that it created a gender gap in the tech field. Nowadays it finally starting to get more balanced again.
Crimson wrote: Science disagrees with you. The brain is what you are. Did you read the article?
Riiiiight. So there's no series of factors created by hormones, genes, etc.... right?
Crimson wrote: Computer games are a good example. Originally they were marketed gender neutrally, and both genders played them equally. But in the 80's the marketing switched to marketing to boys, and games and computer became mainly a boy thing. It was so influential that it created a gender gap in the tech field. Nowadays it finally starting to get more balanced again.
So a bunch of guys, on a hunch, said, "let's market to boys for no reason and see where this goes".
Just flying by the seat of their pants, and suddenly became financially successful.
This thread is only proving to me that even here on dakka there is some ridiculous toxicity against female players. In the past this has been one of the more friendly environments I have found for miniature wargaming which makes it even weirder to me.
I'm terrible at converting, even though I love to do it. At one point I was tinkering with converting my entire Sororitas army into Tzeentch disciples, and this got me into seeing "what can I convert into a chaos space marine." Of course, battle sisters made great rubric marines. The story and fluff behind the thought wasn't that they were Ahriman's tag-a-longs, but instead a separate force dedicated to Tzeentch piggy-backing on the rules.
Needless to say, I have some weird stuff. Raging Heroes (a company that is shameless when it comes to this male gaze thing you call out) actually makes some REALLY great models that eased in as Aspiring Sorcerers, and are still very tasteful: Arushka, Tarja, and Sashenka from the Kurganovas Army, specifically.
I took Space Marine Centurion models and popped Dark Eldar Wytch heads on them... and I had really spiffy Obliterators that just lack a few spikey bits for making all chaosy.
Now I've since scuttled the project, mainly because I am not a fan of the Tzaangor-heavy approach the codex is forcing people, but my converting to my army lore and intentions hasn't stopped. Now I have Astra Militarum forces (Catachan) models being represented by actual GW models: Escher Gangs from Necromunda. They are my army's version of Infantry Squads. Oddly, when I washed their faces and bodies... you cannot even tell what race they are. They look a bit of anything when the light is right. I just shrugged and laughed at the thought, because instead of having a specific cultural look... they have a very multi-cultural appeal... which makes sense in that in 40k human sub-culture isn't a big sticking point, they've all grown past that to deal with larger external threats from the galaxy. Trust me, eldar don't care what race of human you are, you're still occasionally useful meat used to divert a rampaging WAAAGH or take a hit from a hive fleet.
Speaking of external races... 40k is largely divided into 3 macro-groups that encompass the armies: xenos, chaos, and imperium. I went looking for rampant sexism in each of these forces because... well, there has to be something for everyone, right?
We start with the xenos, since I listed them first. Eldar have questionably female sculpts with their Guardians... I can't tell if those are supposed to be pectoral muscles or breasts... which is great because they left it up to my perception. They also have Howling Banshees and Jain'Zar. Farseers are a head away from being female and tastefully so, as I have recently converted one into Farseer Macha to lead my Biel'Tan army. Clearly no sexism there. Dark Eldar have Wytch cults, Succubi, and not to mention Yvraine came from there (and she is a central character in the ongoing plot). Tau are... Tau. Pretty sure garbage cans with missile packs strapped to the top are fairly genderless, which can be extended to their whole species. Tyrannids.. seriously? I cannot tell the gender of a squirrel at first glance, so who knows what a Tyrannid is, other than trying to eat my face. Best part is, setting them on fire renders them all asexual (sorry, channeling my inner zeal for purifying heretics there). Necrons... I could paint a bunch of boney bags and call them all female, who could tell? Orcs could have more representation, but I think this is more due to their primal culture and not games workshop intentionally injecting subversive male dominance into their game. Even then, there is enough female representation in this macro group to say: "no problems here".
Chaos? Well, there are problems here... and there are not. See, I believe Chaos is a faction that can use any model in GW's range to fill a force. There's always a great story, too. Want female berserkers? There's tons of options in Age of Sigmar (even the upcoming Daughters of Khaine). If Daemonettes are too sexualized for your tastes, then use models that fit your expectations. Speaking of daemonettes, pretty sure Slaanesh daemons are pretty uni-gender in representation... and while you're entitled to your opinion on the nature of that representation, the fact remains... they are there (though the latest codex makes me wonder if GW realizes they're still there). Again, the biggest draw to Chaos, for me, is that it is a converter's paradise. I walk into the shop and look at all walls and go: wow, that'd be nice in my old Tzeentch army. So chaos representation of females in battle? Check.
And now we're to the Imperium. Adepta Sororitas is the easiest to pick on, but let's make this a bit harder. Sisters of Silence probably should have been pulled into the Custodes Codex, I think all those super specialized, tiny forces of the Emperor's agents should be bundled together. Still, the Sisters of Silence are, again, a head away from being a model that doesn't look like a sister of silence (my Canoness population appreciates the SoS sculpts with the heads from statuesque miniatures). They'd probably work for normal Battle Sisters if the plastic sister drought continues. I've already demonstrated how I incorporated a female fighting force into the Astra Militarum. Space Marines are a bit harder, but I know there is a company that makes some Eisen<something> models that convert very easily into power armored females (Alexis Ego Queen runs them frequently in her Sororitas army if you take a moment to look her up on YouTube). I think it is safe to say that they are represented. I could go on, but the fact is... over or under representation is still representation.
All of that is raw modeling and desire. I had a desire, I made it happen, largely with GW stuff available to me. Is it easy and right there in front of me? Nope. Was it rewarding to make my army more MY ARMY by spending time to overcome those hurdles? Yup. Is Games Workshop pandering a sociological narrative to force their ideology of "females are breeders and support and don't belong on the battlefield!", I think I proved that it is certainly not the case. If anything, they've battled sociological norms by representing females across the spectrum. If we, as a race, were perpetually locked in an endless war where our race is being slaughtered whole sale... where do you think the women would really be? They become a VALUABLE asset to the war machine OFF of the battlefield. It takes almost 20 years to create a new soldier to fight for the Imperium. Most of the children won't even be able to carry that fight. So the real problem here is: women need to make children. Lots of them. Like so many, that they won't have time to be on the battle field... because if they were there... there's no one making baby space marines in those hive worlds... and the race loses the long game. That is literally how war was fought, and on the scale that the Imperium is represented to be engaged with their battle for survival, it is not too much of a logical leap to make that assumption. So the fact that there are races out there with current female representation defies the expected norms of warfare. Again, I find it difficult to see how GW is being sexist. Women are represented, women are more than eye-candy in model form (they have representation in literature). And anyone who says the hobby is closed off to women due to a lack of plastic-shaped boobs really doesn't understand the hobby. You are literally a knife and some green stuff away from doing anything you want.
Instead of bitching about the perceived problem (see, it isn't a problem in the game, it is a problem with the perception of the game), go out and set yourselves to resolving it. Represent female fighting forces. Yvraine, Jain'Zar, Banshees, Harlequins, Wytches, and Succubi all in a Ynnari united force. What is it people say? Be the change you want to see? You'd probably be getting props for your army and creativity instead of flamed on internet boards. I know people like my army. If you want, I'll post some of my conversions to prove I am not talking from my forth point of contact, but as for now, we'll work on the honor system because I'd have to get my phone... snap photos, upload to drive, import to here... zzz. I'm Italian, which means I am notoriously lazy.
TL/DR: Nothing to see here, move along. Truly. There is not a problem unless you chose to twist the reality to suit your narrative.
People why do you keep saying that Tau don't have a gender?! The Firewarrior Box has equal representation! Theres the same number of male heads than female heads.
That you don't know how to differentiate them is your problem. Tau are like chicken, you need to know what to look for.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Once again, the brain is not the only part of the body. As it seems you've ignored anyone who disagreed with this article a moment ago.
But certainly it is the thing where your personality and the 'essence' of you resides?
Zatsuku wrote: This thread is only proving to me that even here on dakka there is some ridiculous toxicity against female players. In the past this has been one of the more friendly environments I have found for miniature wargaming which makes it even weirder to me.
How are people being hostile toward female players?
By you making this statement, you're being hostile toward military veterans. Do you hate veterans?
Of course you don't, but you can disagree with my statement or dislike what I say as an individual.
Let's stop shielding arguments with "OMG you hate women!"
Formosa wrote: There needs to be a disconnect established here.
Fem40k
More female models
Asking for more female models is fine.
Fem40k have attacked the community with accusations of "toxic" "sexist" and "racist" behaviour, they refuse to have an open dialogue due to non existent "threats" as such anything they say has been tainted and is viewed as "SJW" noise to be ignored, if they want to be taken seriously they need to issue a public apology for the BOLS article, until then no matter what they say, they will be viewed with suspicion and distrust.
I suppose, but I think that opens the debate about how the internet has changed how views are expressed. Like my semi point about the Male Gaze because I had to condense everything, because the idea of the Male Gaze has basically, online, become any woman dressed sexually when actually it goes a lot deeper than that. Like, yes, there is an air of sexism and racism when nearly all models are male and have european features.
But I do fully see the point about how these points when said on an online medium without proper explanation of what these buzzwords mean causes people to switch off and view it as you say, noice to be ignored. I personally find the BOLS article fine, and find this admin response http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2017/10/feminist-40k-admins-respond.html to really explain how annoying it can be to have a select few in the community who get genuinely upset at the idea of female characters.
I don't mean to be so wish washy or sound centrist on the argument as that is far from where my allignment is, but I will say understanding why this blacklash exists, as I overviewed in the OP, is kinda key to understanding how to get a point across.
But internet culture as I will losely call it leads to people having the agency to say "screw you guys for being sexist" and "screw feminist 40k for attacking the hobby I love" and both sides aren't right or wrong. In my own opinion I'd say that yeah it is problematic to only want male figures for your army but you're still allowed to do it. SOB are problematic and I love them, and sadly, that's part of any movement like feminism - disagreement within it, as some people will yell misogyny at me and others will agree.
However it is good to not see too much backlash against female models themselves like there's a term for it I forget someone please find it for me when the argument over an issue becomes bigger than the issue itself. It feels all the emotions we have around feminism have charged the Feminist 40k movement to end up being a bigger deal than it was to want female models. Wording there isnt perfect, but I hope that makes sense.
yep thats the problem, the Fem40k people have turned the discussion from more female models, into "do as we say or you are X/Y/Z"
When you attack a community it no longer matters what your message is, good or bad, you are then seen as an outsider trying to cause trouble.
" it has its dark underbelly: a tribal and woefully toxic group of players who seek to isolate and protect “their” fandom at all costs, similar to a child screaming over “their” section of the playground when it is to be shared for everyone."
Unacceptable as it ignores context within the setting, directly attacks wargaming fanbase.
"This has plagued the fandom for generations, and while not exclusive to the game, has turned off many players who feel uncomfortable playing a hobby that requires interaction with such folk."
Generalist statement that has no proof and provides no proof, passed off as fact even though it is opinion.
"demeaning and crass treatment of women in game stores, condoning racist and abhorrent behavior towards minorities or disabled persons, online harassment, and shaming other people for daring to enjoy the same hobby."
Again making a statement with no proof, using buzzwords to try to bring people to their cause and attempting to gain credibility through outrage, engaging in the same behaviour that they claim to be fighting against in the very same sentence.
"It is one thing to deny the existence and experiences of the many, many players who have faced "
Again, no proof provided.
"such treatment by self-proclaimed “fans”"
Attempted undermining of any counter points.
"this has forced many of us in the community to shun open spaces for fear of inviting anything from rape threats to unsolicited advances from these shining examples of humanity. "
Attempting to gain emotional support and cause outrage to reinforce their political ideology, falling back on the usual "rape" threats SJW tactic, still no proof provided and again attempted undermining of any counter points.
"Feminist 40K is a closed community, and that is not because we want to be, but because we have to be."
refusal to have open dialogue, closed group that only allows like minded people, victim mentality again, another attempt at closing off counter points.
"Warhammer 40,000 is built upon decades of continuously rewritten and fluid fiction, with changes made to reflect the times and Games Workshops’ player base."
Wrong, 40k is one of the most consistent universes around, small changes are made here and there but on the whole it has been consistent throughout, expanding upon an idea is no re writing it, they should know this.
"such as the unnecessary sexualization of female-oriented miniatures to the lack of representation in model choice"
Personal opinion passed off as fact, 40k has massive representation of "minorities", grey model, paint how you like.
"and request Games Workshop"
Nothing has come across as a request yet.
"The vitriolic reaction to this"
prove it.
"Aside from the individual harassment of our players, there have been attempts at banning our page, concerted efforts to shut us down"
no evidence provided again, consistent with clear victim mentality displayed so far, another weak attempt to gain sympathy for non existent issue.
"nd continuous defamation and bullying online for the audacity of challenging established canon"
The very things they are in fact doing in this very article, they fired the first shot and are now crying because they have apparently been "bullied", provide proof.
"Take Adepta Sororitas armour. It emphasises the female figure to a sexualised level "
Ignoring context again to push political ideology, there is a reason they look this way.
"but alongside nearly-naked repentant fanatics, a long-running mistreatment in both in-game lore and GW codexes, and lack of relatively cheap and updated armies, it’s hard for women"
Based on assumption that woman want female models, based on assumption that woman are so shallow that they can ONLY play the game if there are more woman models, ignoring context of models yet again.
"to not take that as a statement that GW just doesn’t care much for its female player base"
Yet another false equivalence, yet another attempt to gain favour through "outrage"
"The matter of variety in ethnicity of models also turns away minorities who prefer to be represented by more than cultural stereotypes born of the comic books and action movies of the 80’s."
This is an outright lie, the models are grey, paint them how you like, also no proof provided yet again and passing off opinion as fact.
"Ask the frothing, furious fans who spend the better half of their day finding ways to harass other fans who also want to make small plastic soldiers kill each other. "
aaaaaand another attempt to discredit any disenting views, another attack on the 40k community..... sigh
"We love its over-the-top design, its shameless lifting of tropes from pop culture, its satire of fascistic theocracy, its sheer scale and flexibility that allows one to make an army that is very much our own"
And yet you are unable to "make your own" female army using 3rd party parts.... hmmm, amazed they didnt spot this obvious counter point and try to shut it down.
"Everyone wins: minorities gain better representation"
Again, grey models, based on assumption that a black person will only play the game if it has black people in it, inherently bigoted point of view that
" more options for writing and models are sold"
assumption, provide proof
" It’s much deeper than simply changing a coat of paint or adding a pair of accentuated breasts on a chestplate"
Is it? then why havent you actually shown this, again making a general statement with no backing, if its "deeper" than this, show us.
"but the reactionary views of loud, stubborn dinosaurs are truly ruining the experience, as much as they claim to be the victim."
Another attack on counter points, another attack on the 40k community "you agree with us or you are a dinosaur" and attempted displacement, this whole article show that they infact have the "victim" mentality and have tried several times to reinforce it.
"Representation matters. It shows people that they are recognised"
Yep it does, well done....
" it allows women to safely play the hobby without spending the whole time staring at sexualised representations of the female form"
Another assumption, woman like those models, woman dislike those models, like men they have differing opinions, also, the males are just as sexualised, but no one cares about that right??
"and then deal with men who seem to think they have a right to allow what women can or can’t feel demeaned by"
Actually this is exactly what you are doing right now, how ironic!
"it allows gaming to be a fun hobby without fear of being harassed online, threatened, insulted or publicly shamed for one’s preference of miniature post-humans."
Yay! more victim mentality and apparent threats from the community,, yay more lack of proof... yaaaaay!
TL/DR
So they have basically tried to use a reasonable demand to push their political views, they have used tried and tested SJW behaviour and the usual "rape, sexist, racist" tropes to disuade counter points, and finally the usual "you are with us or you are X/Y/Z"
That males and females like different things is almost completely due the upbring and the society.
I think you have misinterpreted this paper as evidence of social and cultural influences solely contributing to a persons gender. This is simply untrue. It is not one factor but several that contribute to this identity. The paper, or article commentary on it, you have linked argues not for gender being a social construct, but rather there being no respective female/male brain. There are still big differences between the brains of men and women, just the scale of the overlap is much larger than thought. Thus it is incorrect to deny the impact, the role biology has not only in our physical development, but also in the determination of the rules and constructs that govern our society. To quote a subsequent study to the one the article you linked was commentating on: "Whereas a strict dichotomy between male/female brains does not exist, this does not diminish or negate the importance of considering statistical differences between the sexes".
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Once again, the brain is not the only part of the body. As it seems you've ignored anyone who disagreed with this article a moment ago.
But certainly it is the thing where your personality and the 'essence' of you resides?
Given that the essence of me changed wildly when chemicals produced by my body was interrupted by various things.. I'm going to say yes to the idea that is where your personalty resides. But the mind is a plaything of the body when hormones and issues come to light or issues resides.
Having seen many people change drastically in the medical field due to issues bodily issues, chemical imbalances, and all sorts of things.. The idea that everything about oneself is just a concept created by one's mind rather then the full self is easily proven wrong.
kawaiipikachu wrote: Do you think you could PM me or something because I really don't know who you're mistaking me for but it does make me uncomfortable to be honest. I'm genuinely not part of or active in any other Warhammer forums or Facebook groups. I have a local gaming facebook group but that's about it. Also, ad hominem attacks are just kinda crap. Like, I honestly have no idea who you are or who you think I am but I hope it's a genuine misunderstanding rather than like I said some kind of attack. So if you wanna continue that feel free to message as I don't wanna derail the thread.
Cool, let me help you here.
Instead of making the most noise about me having a pretty good idea who you are, how about you engage my argument? It doesn't make me doubt my assessment at all when you're more concerned about me 'mistaking you for someone else' than you are engaging the discussion.
Because your original long post where you quoted me a lot was very charged and I don't personally have interest or time to respond to it all given how the tone made it come across. Frankly just the way i can't make you PM me you can't make me comb through your response, especially given all the assumptions and statements you made, I could say a lot to it. It was, however, pretty condesending rather than open and that's not discussion. But prehaps your general hostility towards me has something to do with who you think I am - I'm not you, I can't tell our motivation so I can't sit here and judge you for it or make assumptions. Heck, for all I know the person you think I am could have treated you like crap so you feel hostility to me. I can't judge. But I can choose not to engage in a fruitless discussion that wouldn't lead anywhere. I am glad to hear all this feedback from others as I am interested in what the community has to say now I've gathered my own thoughts, and they may change if this thread continues and new arguments are made, because our opinions are never solid. But I'm not here to be talked down to.
So by all means PM me or don't, in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter, stay in this thread or don't, it's your choice and I have to respect that. I only ask you show the same respect, and if you can't I don't engage. Regardless, you have your POV and are free to debate it here. I just won't be a part of that.
kawaiipikachu wrote: So by all means PM me or don't, in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter, stay in this thread or don't, it's your choice and I have to respect that. I only ask you show the same respect, and if you can't I don't engage. Regardless, you have your POV and are free to debate it here. I just won't be a part of that.
"You didn't agree with me and I don't have an argument for your statement, even though I expect you to read my wall of text. Therefore, I can't discuss with you."
Feminist 40k admin confirmed.
You honestly expect to hurl mud at the community, dictate how we should think (and how we are thinking), and expect people to come to you with open arms and embrace you?
Zatsuku wrote: This thread is only proving to me that even here on dakka there is some ridiculous toxicity against female players. In the past this has been one of the more friendly environments I have found for miniature wargaming which makes it even weirder to me.
Yeah, some people here are kinda hostile but I wouldn't hold it against them. They have their own backgrounds which shaped their views and opinions, and creating a dialogue just aims to bridge that gap really. Not always successfuly and it'd be nice if people were more respectful, but this is the internet.
kawaiipikachu wrote: So by all means PM me or don't, in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter, stay in this thread or don't, it's your choice and I have to respect that. I only ask you show the same respect, and if you can't I don't engage. Regardless, you have your POV and are free to debate it here. I just won't be a part of that.
"You didn't agree with me and I don't have an argument for your statement, even though I expect you to read my wall of text. Therefore, I can't discuss with you."
Feminist 40k admin confirmed.
You honestly expect to hurl mud at the community, dictate how we should think (and how we are thinking), and expect people to come to you with open arms and embrace you?
Um, I think you didn't read anything I said, but okay. It's not a case of "I don't have a response," it's a case of I choose what I respond to and what I have time to respond to. I'm sorry you're so upset that I can't respond to it, but as I said 1) Lack of time to pick it apart, 2) the tone is very off putting and rude, so I just won't.
Im not attacking anyone in the community, and no, I'm not a Feminist 40k admin.
I'm just gonna stop responding after this because honestly this is a new level of rudeness and hosility on what is otherwise a nice Forum.
Crimson wrote: Science disagrees with you. The brain is what you are. Did you read the article?
Riiiiight. So there's no series of factors created by hormones, genes, etc.... right?
There are. And those factors have affected the development of the brains studied. Turns out the effect is insignificant.
Just flying by the seat of their pants, and suddenly became financially successful.
What a lucky guess those fellows made.
Using the prevailing societal attitudes in the marketing is often successful. It also reinforces these attitudes.
It always puzzles me how people who are so adamant that gender is essentialist and is not affected by the society also oppose making upbringing and marketing more gender neutral. If you're right, doing so should not matter...
Crimson wrote: Science disagrees with you. The brain is what you are. Did you read the article?
Riiiiight. So there's no series of factors created by hormones, genes, etc.... right?
Crimson wrote: Computer games are a good example. Originally they were marketed gender neutrally, and both genders played them equally. But in the 80's the marketing switched to marketing to boys, and games and computer became mainly a boy thing. It was so influential that it created a gender gap in the tech field. Nowadays it finally starting to get more balanced again.
So a bunch of guys, on a hunch, said, "let's market to boys for no reason and see where this goes".
Just flying by the seat of their pants, and suddenly became financially successful.
What a lucky guess those fellows made.
Funny.. b.c science shows Males without any influence will go after stuff like cars and trucks where females will go after things like dolls. This is also shown in Primates.
Its like we knew this all along
Link (need to copy paste i think, dakka is weird about some links)
I'm just gonna stop responding after this because honestly this is a new level of rudeness and hosility on what is otherwise a nice Forum.
How long have you been here? Oh right, just today
Seriously, you cannot come into someone else's playground, tell them you're changing the rules because YOU think the current rules are unfair, and expect them to all be like "oh, yes, yes, yes, we were so unenlightened!"
That's actually bullying, regardless of if you have a point or not. That's why people receive your "enlightenment" as hostile, bullyish, and quite thuggish.
Joking aside, I'd like to see female Guard, Custodes too would be fine. Are all the males who have the Pariah gene made into Assassins whilst all the females go to the Sisters Of Silence?
Is the 41st millennium still tied to a binary gender system? I'd gotten the impression from some of the novels I'd read that people's race in the future was wildly divergent from what we have now (what with millennia of interbreeding and then the question of different planets and the likes of different abhuman species developing over the years of isolation) are the gender lines really so strict?
If I remember correctly the last space marine Sternguard box has a face that has african features. Yeah we all know grey men are grey men but facial features aren't the same. And it also has the face of Captain Tiatus. Man, that box surely was epic. Not the price, of course.
I'm just gonna stop responding after this because honestly this is a new level of rudeness and hosility on what is otherwise a nice Forum.
I'll be perfectly honest with you, literally everything you've posted matches up exactly with the style of posts on Feminist 40k's facebook page.
But let's just say I'm wrong, and you happen to write exactly like the guy running that show. If it were just a simple case of mistaken identity, it wouldn't have you reeling this hard.
Just exactly the same way 'that admin' would react when people countered his arguments on other 40k pages. I implore people who doubt me to cross-reference the writing style.
But this is a nice forum. However, you strike me as a troublemaker.
I dislike people telling me I 'hate women' because I disagree with a mob of guys claiming to represent women. Or because I don't want female space marines. Or because I'm not big on 'feminist theory' being crammed into every aspect of life. Or because I generally want to be left alone and not lectured on how I'm oppressing people by existing.
I dislike this, and if my attitude runs people like you off?
Good. Your sort are the exact people my attitude is intended to run off. You won't game with me? PERFECT!
I'm just gonna stop responding after this because honestly this is a new level of rudeness and hosility on what is otherwise a nice Forum.
How long have you been here? Oh right, just today
Seriously, you cannot come into someone else's playground, tell them you're changing the rules because YOU think the current rules are unfair, and expect them to all be like "oh, yes, yes, yes, we were so unenlightened!"
That's actually bullying, regardless of if you have a point or not. That's why people receive your "enlightenment" as hostile, bullyish, and quite thuggish.
I sincerely apologize to anyone who has felt bullied by me I promise I'm not that scary. I don't see at all where I've been hostile and certainly choosing not to engage isn't thuggish. Not sure what "rules" I've tried to change.
pismakron wrote: 1) No, feminist 40k does not matter. And feminist theory does not have a scientific basis. It is a silly superstition.
2) Space marines are clad in armour with full coverage. There are literally no way of telling, if the person inside is a man, woman or fungus. In real life there are no difference between the shape of armour for men and for women. But then again, 40k is pretty far removed from real life. Orks has no gender for example, Necrons has no gender, tau has... I don't know what gender they are really.
3) There are no pushback against women in 40k. GW produces the models that the public wants to buy. And that's it.
4) How do you know, that girls are not inherently worse at math than boys? I am not saying that they are, but it is not something you can easily test, is it? Maybe our perceived gender differences would be smaller, if more girls studied useful subjects like math, and fewer studied pointless nonsense like feminist theory.
Regards
This again feels like a more ad hominem argument and a feminism is bad arguement than one against anything that was brought up but I will say that social theory is based on science and since the late 1800s sociology has fought for its place as a science. Point 3 ignores the consume-reproduce hypothesis. As for point 4 yes lots of studies have been done, and that also ignores the lack of female representation in STEM and how stereotypes that women can't go into STEM cause a lack of motivation to study it. I would address this in more depth but I'm not here to have a debate about psychology.
Point 2 I agree with, although I would argue Orks are coded more male personally but that's subjective, one supposes.
1) It is not an ad hominem argument. But it is indeed a "Feminist theory has no scientific basis" argument. As in, "Feminist theory makes claims that are not subject to falsification."
2) Yes point 3 ignores the consume-reproduce hypothesis and other untestable theories.
3) No studies has been done that clearly proves or disproves a biological cause for women's under-representation in STEM fields. How would you conduct such a study? I don't see how it can be done. Twin studies do not isolate gender, nor do adoption studies.
Crimson wrote: Science disagrees with you. The brain is what you are. Did you read the article?
Riiiiight. So there's no series of factors created by hormones, genes, etc.... right?
There are. And those factors have affected the development of the brains studied. Turns out the effect is insignificant.
Just flying by the seat of their pants, and suddenly became financially successful.
What a lucky guess those fellows made.
Using the prevailing societal attitudes in the marketing is often successful. It also reinforces these attitudes.
It always puzzles me how people who are so adamant that gender is essentialist and is not affected by the society also oppose making upbringing and marketing more gender neutral. If you're right, doing so should not matter...
You quote an article that commentated on the findings of a study, exaggerating them to support your point, and ignoring the grounded view of that paper and its subsequent commentators and corresponding research. The effect is not insignificant as you claim. No one factor has supremacy in this debate, as they all form a complex interaction.
That males and females like different things is almost completely due the upbring and the society.
I think you have misinterpreted this paper as evidence of social and cultural influences solely contributing to a persons gender. This is simply untrue. It is not one factor but several that contribute to this identity. The paper, or article commentary on it, you have linked argues not for gender being a social construct, but rather there being no respective female/male brain. There are still big differences between the brains of men and women, just the scale of the overlap is much larger than thought. Thus it is incorrect to deny the impact, the role biology has not only in our physical development, but also in the determination of the rules and constructs that govern our society. To quote a subsequent study to the one the article you linked was commentating on: "Whereas a strict dichotomy between male/female brains does not exist, this does not diminish or negate the importance of considering statistical differences between the sexes".
That there are statistical differences is certainly true, but my point is, and it is supported by the article, that essentialist binary grouping is highly misleading. Even though some traits were statistically somewhat more common in one group, the individual variation is so large that whole grouping is pretty damn questionable. I mean you cannot take single brain and conclusively class it as either male or female.
I think the core of the issue here is the idea that "to deconstruct the concept of gender, things must be gender coded female which were gender coded male AND they must not be gender coded female in any way it could be conceivable that men enjoy."
Two examples: 1, Tau. Tau are now 50/50 gender split. Did anyone notice? Did anyone complain about the sjdubyas? Did anyone hail it as a feminist victory? No, because the only visible difference between a male and female Tau by what we can see through their combat armor is some very subtle facial features. Similarly, Skitarii. Half the models wear a codpiece, half the models wear a segmented skirt-piece. In my own head, primary sex characteristics are preserved by the techpriests in their cannon fodder because making a baby naturally is definitely cheaper than cloning, and leads to a more stable population. Hence, everyone gets reasonably radiation-proof undies according to their function.
None of these are considered a victory or an insidious plot because they're so subtle nobody will ever notice them on a 25mm figure.
2) Eschers. Hardcore anti-feminists hate them because "oh, they're realistically proportioned which means they're FAT, they have muscle tone, they're SJW Female Ghostbusters garbage and I hate them" and hardcore feminists hate them because "they're all wearing belly shirts and you can see their breasts and they've got big high heels and they're coded for the male gaze!"
Feminists present an impossible moving target whereby change must be explicit and obvious enough to notice but presented in such a way that there is no possible way to interpret sexualization. Anti feminists shriek about anything that involves women, no matter how established it is within the setting (see constant arguments about how SoB don't deserve plastics, eschers being shoved down your throat, plastic Cadians being unrealistic, etc).
That males and females like different things is almost completely due the upbring and the society.
I think you have misinterpreted this paper as evidence of social and cultural influences solely contributing to a persons gender. This is simply untrue. It is not one factor but several that contribute to this identity. The paper, or article commentary on it, you have linked argues not for gender being a social construct, but rather there being no respective female/male brain. There are still big differences between the brains of men and women, just the scale of the overlap is much larger than thought. Thus it is incorrect to deny the impact, the role biology has not only in our physical development, but also in the determination of the rules and constructs that govern our society. To quote a subsequent study to the one the article you linked was commentating on: "Whereas a strict dichotomy between male/female brains does not exist, this does not diminish or negate the importance of considering statistical differences between the sexes".
That there are statistical differences is certainly true, but my point is, and it is supported by the article, that essentialist binary grouping is highly misleading. Even though some traits were statistically somewhat more common in one group, the individual variation is so large that whole grouping is pretty damn questionable. I mean you cannot take single brain and conclusively class it as either male or female.
^^Of course i agree entirely. I took issue with your assertion that gender is entirely a social construct. It is more complex than that, and research for the past 20 years has attempted to discover the exact weighting. The article i posted was an example of this.
Here's a crazy idea...somebody who produces an IP and product can produce it any way they wish? The beauty of the world is that no one is beholden to your "feelings". Honestly, how dare anyone demand anything from someone else's property.
Regardless of this debate on Gender, 40k lore and modelling are two different things lol. Humans in the setting are the main area of poor reperesentation for women. I feel that Guard should have had female models for years. and as others have said, Custodes were a missed opportunity. Space marines i feel would be the only misgiving i would have as they are a male only faction, much like sisters of battle. As mentioned the main problem is not the lore, but the models genders are reperesented with. When gw picks itself up and gives plastic sisters, guardsmen an update, then we may see a change.
I'm just gonna stop responding after this because honestly this is a new level of rudeness and hosility on what is otherwise a nice Forum.
How long have you been here? Oh right, just today
Seriously, you cannot come into someone else's playground, tell them you're changing the rules because YOU think the current rules are unfair, and expect them to all be like "oh, yes, yes, yes, we were so unenlightened!"
That's actually bullying, regardless of if you have a point or not. That's why people receive your "enlightenment" as hostile, bullyish, and quite thuggish.
I sincerely apologize to anyone who has felt bullied by me I promise I'm not that scary. I don't see at all where I've been hostile and certainly choosing not to engage isn't thuggish. Not sure what "rules" I've tried to change.
Also, browsing as a guest exists.
now run along back to your echo chamber safe space and share your tales of the vile bullys on the dakka's, (remember to mis-use toxic for maxing out your peesee cred) if you fancy some more attention GW prices, China-Recasts or defending The Last Jedi also all score very high on triggering the mob here.
Skalathrax8 wrote: Regardless of this debate on Gender, 40k lore and modelling are two different things lol. Humans in the setting are the main area of poor reperesentation for women. I feel that Guard should have had female models for years. and as others have said, Custodes were a missed opportunity. Space marines i feel would be the only misgiving i would have as they are a male only faction, much like sisters of battle. As mentioned the main problem is not the lore, but the models genders are reperesented with. When gw picks itself up and gives plastic sisters, guardsmen an update, then we may see a change.
How do you know that helmeted Custodes are not all girls?
I like having a gender. I like the other gender, too.
Gender needs to be deconstructed because 1) It is a source of much debate, 2) Many people identify as other genders to their sex 3) If gender is an identity comprised from social and biological influences, this means that it is variable
Skalathrax8 wrote: Regardless of this debate on Gender, 40k lore and modelling are two different things lol. Humans in the setting are the main area of poor reperesentation for women. I feel that Guard should have had female models for years. and as others have said, Custodes were a missed opportunity. Space marines i feel would be the only misgiving i would have as they are a male only faction, much like sisters of battle. As mentioned the main problem is not the lore, but the models genders are reperesented with. When gw picks itself up and gives plastic sisters, guardsmen an update, then we may see a change.
How do you know that helmeted Custodes are not all girls?
Skalathrax8 wrote: Gender needs to be constructed because 1) It is a source of much debate, 2) Many people identify as other genders to their sex 3) If gender is an identity comprised from social and biological influences, this means that it is variable
I would rather someone else's personal identity issues with gender have no impact on my gender identity.
I'd rather it not be 'deconstructed' and thrown out as an archaic concept.
the_scotsman wrote: I think the core of the issue here is the idea that "to deconstruct the concept of gender, things must be gender coded female which were gender coded male AND they must not be gender coded female in any way it could be conceivable that men enjoy."
Two examples: 1, Tau. Tau are now 50/50 gender split. Did anyone notice? Did anyone complain about the sjdubyas? Did anyone hail it as a feminist victory? No, because the only visible difference between a male and female Tau by what we can see through their combat armor is some very subtle facial features. Similarly, Skitarii. Half the models wear a codpiece, half the models wear a segmented skirt-piece. In my own head, primary sex characteristics are preserved by the techpriests in their cannon fodder because making a baby naturally is definitely cheaper than cloning, and leads to a more stable population. Hence, everyone gets reasonably radiation-proof undies according to their function.
None of these are considered a victory or an insidious plot because they're so subtle nobody will ever notice them on a 25mm figure.
2) Eschers. Hardcore anti-feminists hate them because "oh, they're realistically proportioned which means they're FAT, they have muscle tone, they're SJW Female Ghostbusters garbage and I hate them" and hardcore feminists hate them because "they're all wearing belly shirts and you can see their breasts and they've got big high heels and they're coded for the male gaze!"
Feminists present an impossible moving target whereby change must be explicit and obvious enough to notice but presented in such a way that there is no possible way to interpret sexualization. Anti feminists shriek about anything that involves women, no matter how established it is within the setting (see constant arguments about how SoB don't deserve plastics, eschers being shoved down your throat, plastic Cadians being unrealistic, etc).
After a certain point is just becomes noise.
If I am reading this correctly I think this relates to what I said earlier in that it's hard to please everyone. Some feminists hate trans people. Some feminists believe gender is real, others don't. I think Linsey Ellis is the person I've seen put it best in that female characters are inherently political because the fact they are female makes everything about them under a microscope for critisism because there is no perfect female character in any form of literature. Oh she was too passive, oh she was too sexualised, because the fact she's female comes before who she is so people care more about what she's saying about females by existing. Same with gay characters suddenly they have to speak for the entire gay community. In my opinion the only way around this is diversity. Keep SoB, have non sexualised female characters, just make them more diverse. But of course it will always be up for analysis and that's both a good and a bad thing in my mind. Yes, we should be critical of media, but part of me wonders if analysising everything female defeats the idea that gender shouldn't matter. it's a fine line, and there are no answers. And it becomes easy to tune out.
To quote a wise Lorax from 1972, "I wouldn't know the answer".
Skalathrax8 wrote: Gender needs to be constructed because 1) It is a source of much debate, 2) Many people identify as other genders to their sex 3) If gender is an identity comprised from social and biological influences, this means that it is variable
I would rather someone else's personal identity issues with gender have no impact on my gender identity.
I'd rather it not be 'deconstructed' and thrown out as an archaic concept.
Well unless you are insecure or uncertain about your own gender identity then it will in no way affect you! . I don't see your reasoning for how it possibly could. Progression and understanding are achieved through deconstruction of known concepts and construction of new ones. This case is no different with gender.
Galas wrote: I think that the fact that the Emperor only wanted to surround himself of perfectly sculpted, intelligent and totally submisive males speaks volumes.
Hey, its the Emperor. He can do what and who he wants I mean, are you going to say "no" to the Holy God-Emperor of Mankind?
Skalathrax8 wrote: Well unless you are insecure or uncertain about your own gender identity then it will in no way affect you! . I don't see your reasoning for how it possibly could. Progression and understanding are achieved through deconstruction of known concepts and construction of new ones. This case is no different with gender.
I'm not sure we need understanding beyond 'male' and 'female'.
But by all means, knock yourself out. The only progress I've seen out of this is Tumblr lunacy where gender is determined by your favorite cartoons and what kind of sex you like.
I'm just gonna stop responding after this because honestly this is a new level of rudeness and hosility on what is otherwise a nice Forum.
How long have you been here? Oh right, just today
Seriously, you cannot come into someone else's playground, tell them you're changing the rules because YOU think the current rules are unfair, and expect them to all be like "oh, yes, yes, yes, we were so unenlightened!"
That's actually bullying, regardless of if you have a point or not. That's why people receive your "enlightenment" as hostile, bullyish, and quite thuggish.
I sincerely apologize to anyone who has felt bullied by me I promise I'm not that scary. I don't see at all where I've been hostile and certainly choosing not to engage isn't thuggish. Not sure what "rules" I've tried to change.
Also, browsing as a guest exists.
now run along back to your echo chamber safe space and share your tales of the vile bullys on the dakka's, (remember to mis-use toxic for maxing out your peesee cred) if you fancy some more attention GW prices, China-Recasts or defending The Last Jedi also all score very high on triggering the mob here.
Esasb wrote: None should take modern feminists seriously.
They are the ones that destroy franchises (see the SJW revolution in Marvel that saw multiple comics tank). They hammer and hammer on "problems" in say comics/card games/ tabletop games but they aren't the ones investing time and money in said hobbies. They're just a very vocal (and obnoxious) minority and they are the ones bringing toxicity.
The gaming clubs i have been to (i haven't been playing to long) were always very friendly (both had 1 female player and the rest male).
And who cares if there's only a couple of factions with wich females can "identify"... i don't think anyone can "identify" with space bugs/demonic monsters with tentacles all over the place.
Do you mean Alias, spiderwoman, spider gwen, gwen-pool, Mrs Marvel (Khamala Khan), Captain Marvel (Carol Danvers) and all the other very successful pro feminist comics marvel produces where their female characters are no longer wearing insane onesies with individual boobs cups apparently sewn into their costumes?
Yeah THOSE comics tanked.
Not at all like the success of New 52 Catwoman where the first issue spent 3 pages showing ass and tit shots of catwoman in various states of undress before the final full page splash of her getting penetrated by Batman. THAT series was super successful and didn't tank at all.
People, the mantra that SJW killed Marvel has been proved wrong many times, please stop using it.
Comic books sales haven't changed drastically in the past decade, some books sell more, others sell less. In general Marvel sales have been reduced in 2016 but have improved in 2015 and 2017. Is very easy to point some single issue as the responsible of a big problem but thats not normally how it works. Comic Books have been in decline the past 30 years.
Skalathrax8 wrote: Well unless you are insecure or uncertain about your own gender identity then it will in no way affect you! . I don't see your reasoning for how it possibly could. Progression and understanding are achieved through deconstruction of known concepts and construction of new ones. This case is no different with gender.
I'm not sure we need understanding beyond 'male' and 'female'.
But by all means, knock yourself out. The only progress I've seen out of this is Tumblr lunacy where gender is determined by your favorite cartoons and what kind of sex you like.
I'm a Garnet. Who you are to deny my feelings? You bigot.
Lance845 wrote: Do you mean Alias, spiderwoman, spider gwen, gwen-pool, Mrs Marvel (Khamala Khan), Captain Marvel (Carol Danvers) and all the other very successful pro feminist comics marvel produces where their female characters are no longer wearing insane onesies with individual boobs cups apparently sewn into their costumes?
Yeah THOSE comics tanked.
Not at all like the success of New 52 Catwoman where the first issue spent 3 pages showing ass and tit shots of catwoman in various states of undress before the final full page splash of her getting penetrated by Batman. THAT series was super successful and didn't tank at all.
Cool, now let's talk about all the failed titles that sank. The ones you named were actually pretty well written and not overtly feminist. The others were a dumpster fire and got canned, fortunately.
Skalathrax8 wrote: Well unless you are insecure or uncertain about your own gender identity then it will in no way affect you! . I don't see your reasoning for how it possibly could. Progression and understanding are achieved through deconstruction of known concepts and construction of new ones. This case is no different with gender.
I'm not sure we need understanding beyond 'male' and 'female'.
But by all means, knock yourself out. The only progress I've seen out of this is Tumblr lunacy where gender is determined by your favorite cartoons and what kind of sex you like.
Why do we need understanding about anything? I get the feeling a number of people on this thread are highly interested in these topics. If that wasnt a reason in itself, surely youd consider that disorders such as Gender dysphoria benefit from research into gender.
Galas wrote: People, the mantra that SJW killed Marvel has been proved wrong many times, please stop using it.
Comic books sales haven't changed drastically in the past decade, some books sell more, others sell less. In general Marvel sales have been reduced in 2016 but have improved in 2015 and 2017. Is very easy to point some single issue as the responsible of a big problem but thats not normally how it works. Comic Books have been in decline the past 30 years.
You're not going to reason people out of a position they weren't reasoned into. They think the latest star wars film was unsuccessful. However you feel about its quality, it's hard to argue success against a film that gets into the top ten highest grossing movies of all time...
Esasb wrote: None should take modern feminists seriously.
They are the ones that destroy franchises (see the SJW revolution in Marvel that saw multiple comics tank). They hammer and hammer on "problems" in say comics/card games/ tabletop games but they aren't the ones investing time and money in said hobbies. They're just a very vocal (and obnoxious) minority and they are the ones bringing toxicity.
The gaming clubs i have been to (i haven't been playing to long) were always very friendly (both had 1 female player and the rest male).
And who cares if there's only a couple of factions with wich females can "identify"... i don't think anyone can "identify" with space bugs/demonic monsters with tentacles all over the place.
Do you mean Alias, spiderwoman, spider gwen, gwen-pool, Mrs Marvel (Khamala Khan), Captain Marvel (Carol Danvers) and all the other very successful pro feminist comics marvel produces where their female characters are no longer wearing insane onesies with individual boobs cups apparently sewn into their costumes?
Yeah THOSE comics tanked.
Not at all like the success of New 52 Catwoman where the first issue spent 3 pages showing ass and tit shots of catwoman in various states of undress before the final full page splash f her getting penetrated by Batman. THAT series was super successful and didn't tank at all.
Alias pre dates the SJW movement.
Spiderwoman does too
Spider-Gwen sucks according to my niece, but I havent read it.
Gwen-pool is awesome, again according to my niece, I will take her word for it.
Mrs Marvel is dull, didnt like it
Captain Marvel pre dates the SJW movement and is bloody good.
A lot of those had pre existing fan bases to be fair and the others I am going off what my Niece has told me (she is a much bigger comic fan than any of you I would bet), the best one (my opinion) are the ones that dont shove the feminism down my throat, the worst ones are the ones that make it super obvious.
All just my opinion of course, but I find it interesting that the Nieces favourite characters are Beast and Deadpool, the older one got ME into deadpool, the younger one loves Beast because of me I think, as he is also my favourite.
Galas wrote: People, the mantra that SJW killed Marvel has been proved wrong many times, please stop using it.
Comic books sales haven't changed drastically in the past decade, some books sell more, others sell less. In general Marvel sales have been reduced in 2016 but have improved in 2015 and 2017. Is very easy to point some single issue as the responsible of a big problem but thats not normally how it works. Comic Books have been in decline the past 30 years.
Skalathrax8 wrote: Well unless you are insecure or uncertain about your own gender identity then it will in no way affect you! . I don't see your reasoning for how it possibly could. Progression and understanding are achieved through deconstruction of known concepts and construction of new ones. This case is no different with gender.
I'm not sure we need understanding beyond 'male' and 'female'.
But by all means, knock yourself out. The only progress I've seen out of this is Tumblr lunacy where gender is determined by your favorite cartoons and what kind of sex you like.
I'm a Garnet. Who you are to deny my feelings? You bigot.
Lance845 wrote: Do you mean Alias, spiderwoman, spider gwen, gwen-pool, Mrs Marvel (Khamala Khan), Captain Marvel (Carol Danvers) and all the other very successful pro feminist comics marvel produces where their female characters are no longer wearing insane onesies with individual boobs cups apparently sewn into their costumes?
Yeah THOSE comics tanked.
Not at all like the success of New 52 Catwoman where the first issue spent 3 pages showing ass and tit shots of catwoman in various states of undress before the final full page splash of her getting penetrated by Batman. THAT series was super successful and didn't tank at all.
Cool, now let's talk about all the failed titles that sank. The ones you named were actually pretty well written and not overtly feminist. The others were a dumpster fire and got canned, fortunately.
And what about all the non feminist, male leading titles that sank? Thats the problem with the "SJW killed marvel" narrative. Is based around confirmation bias. I think you are a very reasonable person Adeptus Doritos, don't fail in that trap please.
Galas wrote: People, the mantra that SJW killed Marvel has been proved wrong many times, please stop using it.
Comic books sales haven't changed drastically in the past decade, some books sell more, others sell less. In general Marvel sales have been reduced in 2016 but have improved in 2015 and 2017. Is very easy to point some single issue as the responsible of a big problem but thats not normally how it works. Comic Books have been in decline the past 30 years.
Skalathrax8 wrote: Well unless you are insecure or uncertain about your own gender identity then it will in no way affect you! . I don't see your reasoning for how it possibly could. Progression and understanding are achieved through deconstruction of known concepts and construction of new ones. This case is no different with gender.
I'm not sure we need understanding beyond 'male' and 'female'.
But by all means, knock yourself out. The only progress I've seen out of this is Tumblr lunacy where gender is determined by your favorite cartoons and what kind of sex you like.
I'm a Garnet. Who you are to deny my feelings? You bigot.
Galas wrote: People, the mantra that SJW killed Marvel has been proved wrong many times, please stop using it.
Comic books sales haven't changed drastically in the past decade, some books sell more, others sell less. In general Marvel sales have been reduced in 2016 but have improved in 2015 and 2017. Is very easy to point some single issue as the responsible of a big problem but thats not normally how it works. Comic Books have been in decline the past 30 years.
Skalathrax8 wrote: Well unless you are insecure or uncertain about your own gender identity then it will in no way affect you! . I don't see your reasoning for how it possibly could. Progression and understanding are achieved through deconstruction of known concepts and construction of new ones. This case is no different with gender.
I'm not sure we need understanding beyond 'male' and 'female'.
But by all means, knock yourself out. The only progress I've seen out of this is Tumblr lunacy where gender is determined by your favorite cartoons and what kind of sex you like.
I'm a Garnet. Who you are to deny my feelings? You bigot.
What is a garnet????
I think its a Steven Universe reference. That show is popular on Tumblr, apparently. Idk why, not my subculture.
Galas wrote: And what about all the non feminist, male leading titles that sank? Thats the problem with the "SJW killed marvel" narrative. Is based around confirmation bias. I think you are a very reasonable person Adeptus Doritos, don't fail in that trap please.
Ah, of course. It's a lot more to do with several factors. Event fatigue, too many changes and retcons...
And the way some writers have behaved on Social Media doesn't make people want to buy them, either.
Steven Universe is a great show. Great plot, great characters, great music, lighthearted.
Some of his fans are a little meh. But I had never a problem with the fanbases of something that I enjoy sucking like Rick & Morty or Undertale, etc... I just enjoy the thing.
I gotta be honest, I think the title of this thread is somewhat misleading.
What the OP is discussing, relatively well in my opinion, is a number of things related to gender identity within 40k and how that impacts on the player base.
I'm not convinced that it's as simple as "make female space marines" or "give us female guardsmen" will encourage more women to the hobby, if that's the intent. I think there is a cultural shift generally around "nerdcore" stuff (that has historically been male dominated) where it is becoming more accepted by everyone. There are more DnD players now than ever before and a larger proportion of those are women. Things like the Big Bang Theory, Stranger Things, IT Crowd and others have removed the stigma that used to be attached to being a geek. A stigma that existed when I was young and effectively made me hide my hobby interests from people until I felt extremely comfortable with them. With the stigma all but removed we find more and more players of both sex, regardless of anything GW do.
Do I think we should have female space marines? No, it has been written into the lore that they don't exist.
Would I be happy to see [female marine equivalents but under a different and appropriate guise to satisfy the lore]? Not really, it wouldn't bother me one way or another.
Do I think we could do with more female representation within the miniatures generally? Yes, undoubtedly.
Do I think more female models would encourage more female players? No, not noticeably.
Do I think we need binary, non-binary and a ton of other genders represented in 40k? Well I'd say we have a pretty good spread already. Fungus-things? Check. Insectoid aliens? Check. Fish people? Check. Terminator-like skeletal robots (for the record, boobs on a Necron would be bizarre, skeletons don't have boobs guys)? Check.
Should the human(ish) factions have more genders other than male and female represented? No. The game is not about gender expression, it's about war. War doesn't care if you believe your gender to be male, female, fluid or rainbow unicorn - it kills your ass dead all the same.
Elbows wrote:Here's a crazy idea...somebody who produces an IP and product can produce it any way they wish? The beauty of the world is that no one is beholden to your "feelings". Honestly, how dare anyone demand anything from someone else's property.
They can piss off.
This point resonates with my feelings more than any other. “Vote” with your time and dollars, so to speak. If a particular thing/hobby/whatever doesn’t jive with my interests or values, I move on to one that does. By the same token, if it does change, I don’t get bent out of shape. If the change doesn’t preclude me from continuing to enjoy it, cool. If it doesn’t, I move on having still enjoyed the thing up to that point. There are many great things to enjoy in life, and far more meaningful problems to worry about.
As for the issue of representation, it would be inaccurate to say I don’t care at all, so I’ll say I barely care at all. The idea that everything (or even this one thing) must/should display some sort of representative diversity is silly to me. That being said, I have no desire to restrict the choices or preferences of other players, and it’s no skin off my nose when interests and priorities don’t align with my own.
If we’re extrapolating to the issue of gender representation and “rights” to beyond 40k, I hesitate to conflate things like cultures that legitimately oppress and repress women to a game of toy soldiers.
Galas wrote:I think that the fact that the Emperor only wanted to surround himself of perfectly sculpted, intelligent and totally submisive males speaks volumes.
Lance845 wrote: Do you mean Alias, spiderwoman, spider gwen, gwen-pool, Mrs Marvel (Khamala Khan), Captain Marvel (Carol Danvers) and all the other very successful pro feminist comics marvel produces where their female characters are no longer wearing insane onesies with individual boobs cups apparently sewn into their costumes?
Yeah THOSE comics tanked.
Not at all like the success of New 52 Catwoman where the first issue spent 3 pages showing ass and tit shots of catwoman in various states of undress before the final full page splash of her getting penetrated by Batman. THAT series was super successful and didn't tank at all.
Cool, now let's talk about all the failed titles that sank. The ones you named were actually pretty well written and not overtly feminist. The others were a dumpster fire and got canned, fortunately.
Gee, No gak? So good writing is a major factor in sales? No gak? You know what generally helps make for good writing? Fair representation of the characters.
You can depict a character like this
Spoiler:
or like this
Spoiler:
Spider woman went trough an entire story arc where she was pregnant.
Heres the thing you don't seem to understand. Modern Feminism isn't about anti-male pro-female, it's about fair representation. Thats it. FAIR representation. You don't see spider man swinging around with 3 pouches sewn into his pants for each of his balls and his dick. Batman and Captain America wear armor. Male characters are there to be more than subservient eye candy. Where Marvel has really stepped up their game is they are telling stories about actual people that don't exist primarily to appeal as visual sex objects.
Now GW and WH are free and welcome to do whatever they want. But everyone else is also free to criticize them by whatever metric they feel like reasonable or unreasonable. It is REASONABLE to criticize them for not having or even making strides towards fair representation. Especially this late in the game.
Batgirl is such a lame character. Batwoman is where the moneys at.
The only Bat-Something that its his own character and not a support element for Batman (I know she was created to stop the rumours of Batman being homosexual but those where the 50's.)
Galas wrote: Batgirl is such a lame character. Batwoman is where the moneys at.
The only Bat-Something that its his own character and not a support element for Batman (I know she was created to stop the rumours of Batman being homosexual but those where the 50's.)
I always liked the Stephanie Brown Batgirl best. She's the only one who really earned it. But then hey, new 52 and she doesn't exist anymore so whatever.
Well, first of all, we need to understand that the lack of females in 40k is not nearly as big as some people think it is.
Going on by factions, we'll start with xenos
Orks and necrons do not have the concept of gender apply to them. one is a mushroom, and the other a robot.
Tau has equal representation-a human eye can't tell them apart when they got a helmet on, and without helmet we got both head types so we can pick whatever we want.
Eldar (and variants) has around equal female representation in their model lines.
Tyranids, like orks and necrons, don't have gender really apply to them, but they got "female flavor" in some areas.
So at least when it comes to xenos-there is actually equal representaion for females.
Next is chaos.
When it comes to daemons, gender is not quite a relevant thing. khorne and nurgle don't bother with it, tzeentch is too wierd to understand if it even does, and slannesh are any and all, at once, including contradictions, because feth everything (literally)
The marines and renegades are a mirror of the imperium, so their own flaws are directly taken from imperium.
So the Imperium. where the issue begins.
First, lets get the nuns of of the way-the sisters are a thing. they need models, but they are a thing. they got overly sexual themes, but that's intentional. we'll get to it later.
Then you got guard, who has a fluff/model discrepency issue. fluffwise-you got female guard in equal number. GW just didn't bother with models because its honestly not worth the bother to make an entire female counterpart line, it won't generate nearly enough sells to justify it and most will directly cannibalize from "male IG" lines.
And then there are marines.
Male only, by design, and it should stay that way.
Not because of modeling issues (as in such heavy armor, you practically just need decent female heads)
Not because "its how its always been", and "customary"
Not because there is no market, or because its a man-club.
Because it is flawed. because it is stupid. because it reeks of bigotry and backwardness.
Because that what the Imperium IS, that what the emperor was when he got started an all that-a racist, misogynistic bigot who thinks too highly of himself and too lowly on everyone else.
The Imperium is not star-trak ideal society, its a backwards feudal-like society where civil rights are non-existence and nobody cares about you. its an empire where bigory, racism and sexism reign supreme by an elite caste of rules who think very little of anyone else and live only to serve themselves.
It is MEANT to be bad. it is MEANT to be disgusting in the eyes of a liberal mind.
Its a place where you can make the overly-sexualized sisters of battle because its "technically not an army by the definition of "men at arms", as it is not men, and as such gets around the limit that I'm not allowed to have one"
The IoM model line is a good representation of what it is.
Trying to make the model line more "liberal" is ignoring the fact the IoM itself, is very much not so.
Females would be the exception to the rule, thus they likely would not have individualized armor schematics. Get a male's armor that is close, put it on, here's a gun... die for the Emprah. Seriously, it takes a bigger logical leap to justify female-tailored armor. Jean d'Arc wore male armor. Why? There were no female versions available for whatever reason. Guess they sold out or something (sarcasm).
If we're truly going to put effort into dissecting the 40k universe, let's at least make logical conclusions based on the evidence presented. Injecting bias into observations makes a mess quite akin to what happened in climate change science: the conclusion was determined before the experiments were conducted, thus they only observed data that proved their conclusion.
I've already shown how females are represented by GW in sculpt and lore, and how a player can take that and go so much further. It totally disproves the entire argument that the hobby is woefully biased against females. To continue to suppose that there is some big conspiracy based on... whatever soft-science "statistical" approach is simply denying the overwhelming evidence in your face. Enjoy your heat death and swelling oceans in 2 years.
Lance845 wrote: Do you mean Alias, spiderwoman, spider gwen, gwen-pool, Mrs Marvel (Khamala Khan), Captain Marvel (Carol Danvers) and all the other very successful pro feminist comics marvel produces where their female characters are no longer wearing insane onesies with individual boobs cups apparently sewn into their costumes?
Yeah THOSE comics tanked.
Not at all like the success of New 52 Catwoman where the first issue spent 3 pages showing ass and tit shots of catwoman in various states of undress before the final full page splash of her getting penetrated by Batman. THAT series was super successful and didn't tank at all.
Cool, now let's talk about all the failed titles that sank. The ones you named were actually pretty well written and not overtly feminist. The others were a dumpster fire and got canned, fortunately.
Gee, No gak? So good writing is a major factor in sales? No gak? You know what generally helps make for good writing? Fair representation of the characters.
You can depict a character like this
Spoiler:
or like this
Spoiler:
Spider woman went trough an entire story arc where she was pregnant.
Heres the thing you don't seem to understand. Modern Feminism isn't about anti-male pro-female, it's about fair representation. Thats it. FAIR representation. You don't see spider man swinging around with 3 pouches sewn into his pants for each of his balls and his dick. Batman and Captain America wear armor. Male characters are there to be more than subservient eye candy. Where Marvel has really stepped up their game is they are telling stories about actual people that don't exist primarily to appeal as visual sex objects.
Now GW and WH are free and welcome to do whatever they want. But everyone else is also free to criticize them by whatever metric they feel like reasonable or unreasonable. It is REASONABLE to criticize them for not having or even making strides towards fair representation. Especially this late in the game.
Whats the difference here? they are all ripped, and clearly have the male version of boobs out... pecs, I mean you are making some good points so there is no reason to lie about how the male ones are not just as stupid as the female ones.
Guys, I gotta be honest- I'm pretty sure I see this for what it is.
Feminist 40k has done a pretty thorough job of embarrassing themselves. They take a perfectly good idea like 'get more female models in the game and try to get more women interested in playing' and wrecked it. Like, really bad.
If you go to their Facebook group, it's a lot of hyperbolic statements, straw-man arguments, mental gymnastics with leaps of logic that will just blow your mind.
Then there's the Maxist/Maoist and far-left political radical stuff that's stuffed in there with all the SocJus theories (seems awfully similar to this thread's first post, doesn't it?)
Feminist 40k also ran off the overwhelming majority of their actual female members. One in particular was a GW employee that cosplayed and also competed in the Golden Daemon painting contest. She had a large following and many of their membership left after this. Previously, they did a lot of 'control' in their group by booting female members for disagreeing.
Hell, good luck finding disagreements. They tend to remove that a lot. And boot women from the group quite often, too- you can find several of these commenting on various Social Media groups and even Youtube.
Combine all of this with the fact that Feminist 40k tends to label entire groups as some variation of 'bigot' and make other blatantly false blanket statements to shield their arguments- it gets tiresome to even the most tolerant people. Don't want female Space Marines? You're why women get raped in the FLGS. You hate women. Riiight.
Anyway, you can easily go look and see how Feminist 40k has fallen out of favor in the last few months. They've literally made a joke of themselves, and the creator of that page- once people found out who he was and did a little digging- was probably a factor in the Feminist 40k's declining popularity.
They used these same 'for the male gaze' arguments about the Escher gang and the Chaos War Queen. These buzzword phrases are strewn throughout not only Feminist 40k's facebook page, but its creator's facebook posts. I won't drop names here, but by all means- do a little digging.
So, what's going on here is the founder of Feminist 40k (or at least an admin) is here, trying to drum up the 'importance' of his own group that's become a joke. He's under the guise of a 'concerned female' that is just here to remind us how 'important' the group is and how we should all care.
Six posts in, and this is the first thread started.
I'm okay with being wrong, but usually when it's things like this- I'm not.
I'd be more relieved to know that the OP was actually just a genuine person with a terrible choice of causes to get behind.
So, yeah- I'm pretty sure the OP feels unwelcome right now. And you guys can reach out and mend that or try to make some compromise, but as we've all seen- Feminist 40k doesn't want to listen to anyone, unless they're agreeing.
If it's not the same person, it's a damned insane coincidence.
Anyway, as I was saying- you folks can do what you like, and I'm a jerk but I know a toxic troublemaker when I see one, and Feminist 40k is, and has always been, exactly that.
And real women in a leotard/spandex look like this.
You see how they don't have 2 giant bowls hanging off her chest?
THATS the difference. Those guys are ripped dudes in tight clothes in the way that ripped dudes in tight clothes look while not going out of their way to show off their organs.
The artists depicting those women went out of their way to be like... LOOK TITS!
Gender is less an issue than race in 40K. The Imperium represents culturally insulated racism paralleling the current middle America "backwards bubble" that is resisting the evolutionary cultural path of all other first world nations and regions. The Imperium is built on the same nationalism mingled with religious fanaticism. Simply put: the imperialistic humans call everything not them the "X" word and stand behind nationalist paradigms to justify imposing their fascist will over any that oppose them. I mean, the same root word that is in Xenophobe is also in the bigoted word the Imperium uses for alien races, so how could it be more obvious short of unbridled hate speech?
The other is a cartoon drawing. Even the men are sexualized to being nearly perfectly anatomically. They are supposed to be exemplars of our species, not bound by the rules of reality.
Tokhuah wrote: Gender is less an issue than race in 40K. The Imperium represents culturally insulated racism paralleling the current middle America "backwards bubble" that is resisting the evolutionary cultural path of all other first world nations and regions. The Imperium is built on the same nationalism mingled with religious fanaticism. Simply put: the imperialistic humans call everything not them the "X" word and stand behind nationalist paradigms to justify imposing their fascist will over any that oppose them. I mean, the same root word that is in Xenophobe is also in the bigoted word the Imperium uses for alien races, so how could it be more obvious short of unbridled hate speech?
Yes...that's the point? If you came to 40k expecting it to be star trek where its an idealised utopia wherein everyone gets along, you came to the wrong game. The IoM is a dark parody of everything wrong with human history, taking inspiration from the USSR, the worse parts of the Catholic Church, The Roman Empire, the Third Reich, with a big dose of Judge Dredd and Dune mixed in.
The other is a cartoon drawing. Even the men are sexualized to being nearly perfectly anatomically. They are supposed to be exemplars of our species, not bound by the rules of reality.
Lance845 wrote: Heres the thing you don't seem to understand. Modern Feminism isn't about anti-male pro-female, it's about fair representation. Thats it. FAIR representation.
Spoiler:
Tokhuah wrote: Gender is less an issue than race in 40K. The Imperium represents culturally insulated racism paralleling the current middle America "backwards bubble" that is resisting the evolutionary cultural path of all other first world nations and regions. The Imperium is built on the same nationalism mingled with religious fanaticism. Simply put: the imperialistic humans call everything not them the "X" word and stand behind nationalist paradigms to justify imposing their fascist will over any that oppose them. I mean, the same root word that is in Xenophobe is also in the bigoted word the Imperium uses for alien races, so how could it be more obvious short of unbridled hate speech?
The other is a cartoon drawing. Even the men are sexualized to being nearly perfectly anatomically. They are supposed to be exemplars of our species, not bound by the rules of reality.
That's the difference.
Being near perfect anatomically and wearing an outfit with 50% of your body as exposed skin are 2 very different things. You have never once read a dc comic where a male Lanterns costume... which is a construct of their mind by the way, looked like this
50% skin coverage in many places today is pushing it. They're overclad. I propose that we draw LESS clothes on cartoon models to be more reflective of society.
The other is a cartoon drawing. Even the men are sexualized to being nearly perfectly anatomically. They are supposed to be exemplars of our species, not bound by the rules of reality.
Lance845 wrote: Being near perfect anatomically and wearing an outfit with 50% of your body as exposed skin are 2 very different things. You have never once read a marvel or dc comic where a male Lanterns costume... which is a construct of their mind by the way, looked like this.
Oh no, it's almost as if there's a considerably larger male demographic buying comics (or rather, was at one time).
Man, you know what cracks me up?
The amount of dudes that are complaining for women. "They should be offended by this!"
Yeah, most of them aren't because they're adults that know the difference between a cartoon drawing and actually objectifying a real human being.
That's why people have so much difficulty taking feminists seriously these days. You're unable to distinguish between fantasy and reality, and you spend way too much time trying to crusade for people that never asked for your help. And then you write them off as 'stupid' or 'defeated' when they don't care about your first world grievances.
@Adeptus Doritos you need to chill. Regardless of is OP has a good point or not you've let this one go to your head. Re-read your own posts and check If they're really as calm as you think. I honestly think an apology is in order here.
@OP I'm going to assume you're not a troll because of the extensive text and various references to political movments. You've obviously put alot of thought and effort into your post and allow me to commend you for it. That being said you are not making as good a point as you seem to think. Allow me to elaborate.
But before that, shortly about me. I used to be a law student and then swapped to society studies. I've spent several years living abroad. Through this time I've kept up with the hobby (since 3ed). I'm quite well versed in the game lore and spend most of my Dakkadakka time in the background section. I'm quite well versed in the concepts of social constructs as well as intersectionality. Now that my background has been established I will retort, and though I will heavily critizise your original post, please take it constructively. I have no wish to leave ill meaning or leave the OP with a bad taste in your mouth.
While the post goes through the subject on many levels and is understanding that many factors are in play that has lead to the current situation, it also seems to fail to make a point at all. As far as I can tell it mostly boil down to the following sentence: "A hobby about building miniatures for a perpetual space war with crazy religious fanatics is almost completly foccused on boys, and this kind of matters". I must apologies if there was a deeper point to it, but that's honestly what I got out of it after reading it twice. While you explain it in much more detail I don't see how that is relevant. Basket is a sport aimed at men but has a big female following. Horseback riding is a hobby largely dominated by women but has a big male following. Tabletop gaming is a product of its time and has evolved for men, but it does have a big female following as well. I can point to several women I've played against or known through my years in this hobby. It is a bit lacking, sure, but it's not non-exsistance.
Now for the models themselves. A cookie to @JBZ for your in universe list. It stresses the point that while 40k (Oh and OP, please refrain from using the term Warhammer and use the term 40k instead. It can be easy to mistake it for thoughts of the old warhammer fantasy pre aos otherwise. If you want to discuss the hobby as a whole then kindly refer to it as GW games) is largely men and violence foccused it is in fact not sexually foccused (more on this below). True, we should have more female models and it has been asked by the community for years. The issue is that gw only started listening to its players quite recently. For several years the company ignored the playerbase requests and had a quick money policy that made it decline for years. Movments such as fem 40k only really sprang up after the company started growing again and has been pointing at flaws the community as a whole has been pointing at for years to no avail. The best selling female models incidentily only came about recently when gw started growing again. It currently has increased it's economic growth to about twice of what it had during the many years when the players where ignored.
One thing bears mentioning. The sexual appeal of 40k is mostly non exsistent. Given how easy it would have been to over sexually certain armies, namely chaos and the Eldar, I think GW deserve some cookies for not doing so. An overwhelming ammount of the factions are in fact sterile or genderless (as pointed at by JBZ).
Finally, concerning female Space marines I personally don't see the point. We really don't need more Space marine models. An overwhelming ammount of the worlds military, both history wise and current, are male. Why would you not have your elite Space soldiers be male? Calling for a faction to forcibly include female model when the entire culture (in lore, established in over hundreds of books spread over some 35 years) is a brotherhood is the opposite of femenistic goals. If all of them are sterile then what is the point?
Once again I apologies if this critic seems harsh. It is not my intention to be mean. More female models would be usefull and a great addition to the hobby. Not in the Space Marine lineup though. I am assuming we will see more female guardsmen models as soon as they update that 15 or so years old box...
Purifying Tempest wrote: 50% skin coverage in many places today is pushing it. They're overclad. I propose that we draw LESS clothes on cartoon models to be more reflective of society.
I can work that argument, too.
No, you really can't. I mean, it's FINE that you want to ignore the difference in representation. Big part of that good ol freedom is your freedom to stay ignorant in the face of evidence. It just invalidates any possible contribution you might have to the adult conversation.
Lance845 wrote: Heres the thing you don't seem to understand. Modern Feminism isn't about anti-male pro-female, it's about fair representation. Thats it. FAIR representation.
Spoiler:
Tokhuah wrote: Gender is less an issue than race in 40K. The Imperium represents culturally insulated racism paralleling the current middle America "backwards bubble" that is resisting the evolutionary cultural path of all other first world nations and regions. The Imperium is built on the same nationalism mingled with religious fanaticism. Simply put: the imperialistic humans call everything not them the "X" word and stand behind nationalist paradigms to justify imposing their fascist will over any that oppose them. I mean, the same root word that is in Xenophobe is also in the bigoted word the Imperium uses for alien races, so how could it be more obvious short of unbridled hate speech?
Spoiler:
Congratulations, brave and noble dakka poster, through your intelligent and clever use of intellect and raw, unadulterated cunning you have successfully left me completely dumfounded and at an utter loss for words. Seriously though, I don't think you understand. This. Is. Officially. The Most. Intelligent. Thing. I. Have. Ever. Seen. Men could live for centuries, for millennia, gathering the knowledge and wisdom of their lands and many others, and still not reach the level of ability that is presented here. The magnificence of the thing, the sheer wonder that such a majestic creation can bestow upon us lowly and unworthy mortals, is far beyond the grasp of a mere man such as myself. I would thank you, but I believe to even involve myself with thee within society would be to ask too much, for I feel that one of such ability as yours is not fit for communication with mere men. Please, fine sir, do not attempt to contact me again. I feel that the magnificence of your presence would be too much for myself to bare.
Nerak wrote: @Adeptus Doritos you need to chill. Regardless of is OP has a good point or not you've let this one go to your head. Re-read your own posts and check If they're really as calm as you think. I honestly think an apology is in order here...
Lance845 wrote: Being near perfect anatomically and wearing an outfit with 50% of your body as exposed skin are 2 very different things. You have never once read a marvel or dc comic where a male Lanterns costume... which is a construct of their mind by the way, looked like this.
Oh no, it's almost as if there's a considerably larger male demographic buying comics (or rather, was at one time).
Man, you know what cracks me up?
The amount of dudes that are complaining for women. "They should be offended by this!"
Yeah, most of them aren't because they're adults that know the difference between a cartoon drawing and actually objectifying a real human being.
That's why people have so much difficulty taking feminists seriously these days. You're unable to distinguish between fantasy and reality, and you spend way too much time trying to crusade for people that never asked for your help. And then you write them off as 'stupid' or 'defeated' when they don't care about your first world grievances.
Let's clarify.
I am a dude. I am offended by this. I like the stories and depictions better when they have good representation. I support the products that make strides towards them more than the ones that don't. I buy trades of a few marvel ongoings, fables, everafter, the unwritten, hellboy and related titles and the like. I haven't purchased a dc main trade since before new 52.
I want fair representation.
This isn't some dude telling women what they should be offended by. This is me being offended.
Congratulations, brave and noble dakka poster, through your intelligent and clever use of intellect and raw, unadulterated cunning you have successfully left me completely dumfounded and at an utter loss for words. Seriously though, I don't think you understand. This. Is. Officially. The Most. Intelligent. Thing. I. Have. Ever. Seen. Men could live for centuries, for millennia, gathering the knowledge and wisdom of their lands and many others, and still not reach the level of ability that is presented here. The magnificence of the thing, the sheer wonder that such a majestic creation can bestow upon us lowly and unworthy mortals, is far beyond the grasp of a mere man such as myself. I would thank you, but I believe to even involve myself with thee within society would be to ask too much, for I feel that one of such ability as yours is not fit for communication with mere men. Please, fine sir, do not attempt to contact me again. I feel that the magnificence of your presence would be too much for myself to bare.
Oh, please. Stop. You know as well as I do that this sort of drivel deserves nothing short of laughter. It's literally the only response I could muster. What, a rational argument? It'd go right over their heads and get ignored, and I'd just be labeled a 'bigot'.
I am a dude. I am offended by this. I like the stories and depictions better. I support the products that make strides towards them more than the ones that don't. I buy trades of a few marvel ongoings, fables, everafter, the unwritten, hellboy and related titles and the like. I haven't purchased a dc trade since before new 52.
I want fair representation.
This isn't some dude telling women what they should be offended by. This is me being offended.
And what, pray tell, happens to you when you're offended?
Lance845 wrote: Being near perfect anatomically and wearing an outfit with 50% of your body as exposed skin are 2 very different things. You have never once read a marvel or dc comic where a male Lanterns costume... which is a construct of their mind by the way, looked like this.
Oh no, it's almost as if there's a considerably larger male demographic buying comics (or rather, was at one time).
Man, you know what cracks me up?
The amount of dudes that are complaining for women. "They should be offended by this!"
Yeah, most of them aren't because they're adults that know the difference between a cartoon drawing and actually objectifying a real human being.
That's why people have so much difficulty taking feminists seriously these days. You're unable to distinguish between fantasy and reality, and you spend way too much time trying to crusade for people that never asked for your help. And then you write them off as 'stupid' or 'defeated' when they don't care about your first world grievances.
At least for me is not about women being offended about that.
Is that, personally, for me, it looks like gak. I want to read comics not erotic-fan fiction For porn I go to a porn webpage, not to a comic store. I can't take female characters seriously when they are wearing costumes like those. The same reason I hate romantic subplots. They are here just for pandering to the low common denominator most of the time.
But I don't make about it a personal crusade. Is just a minor grievance of many others I have about many other things in life. I just don't read comics like those, and I read the ones that I like.
EDIT: At the same time this wasn't directed at me, and I don't even consider myself a feminist, but as I have said similar things I wanted to clear my point of view in this.
Lance845 wrote: The difference is I can't see any of their dicks.
And real women in a leotard/spandex look like this.
You see how they don't have 2 giant bowls hanging off her chest?
THATS the difference. Those guys are ripped dudes in tight clothes in the way that ripped dudes in tight clothes look while not going out of their way to show off their organs.
The artists depicting those women went out of their way to be like... LOOK TITS!
How about these comparisons?
vs
Can YOU see the difference?
Yep, I see two vastly exagerated forms of the human body, but one is female, so its wrrrrooooooonnngggg ooooooooooo sexist, but no one gives a crap about the men, so its ok right?
Purifying Tempest wrote: 50% skin coverage in many places today is pushing it. They're overclad. I propose that we draw LESS clothes on cartoon models to be more reflective of society.
I can work that argument, too.
No, you really can't. I mean, it's FINE that you want to ignore the difference in representation. Big part of that good ol freedom is your freedom to stay ignorant in the face of evidence. It just invalidates any possible contribution you might have to the adult conversation.
If you want to misrepresent a real social problem (perceived inadequacy between genders) by quoting fictional works specifically designed to be what they are to make money, then you're kind of turning your eyes away from reality, not me.
The artists drew those panels because 1) they enjoy it, and god forbid they enjoy their livelihood, and 2) because it put bread on their table.
You may be able to dredge up one who is intentionally trying to degrade women in his medium, but they're likely to be butchered corpses and excessive gore during a battle, not scantily clad and heroic figures. You're really conflating with visually enjoying the medium and what it represents with some lurking evil to totally disparage a gender through art and hobby.
Those are not political statements, those are the product of labor, labor done to two ends: bring satisfaction to someone's life, and to make ends meet. To inject some insidious plot to put women back in the kitchen is just... well, ignorant.
Galas wrote: At least for me is not about women being offended about that.
Is that, personally, for me, it looks like gak. I want to read comics not erotic-fan fiction For porn I go to a porn webpage, not to a comic store. I can't take female characters seriously when they are wearing costumes like those. The same reason I hate romantic subplots. They are here just for pandering to the low common demoninator most of the time.
But I don't make about it a personal crusade. Is just a minor grievance of many others I have about many other things in life. I just don't read comics like those, and I read the ones that I like.
EDIT: At the same time this wasn't directed at me, and I don't even consider myself a feminist, but as I have said similar things I wanted to clear my point of view in this.
A very reasonable argument and I understand completely. Wanting a better quality female design and character is a perfectly reasonable thing to ask.
You want quality. That's cool, you SHOULD. I haven't touched comics since 2009 because of quality (thought I did enjoy Red Hood & The Outlaws where Starfire was eye-candy AND an actual badass that could run a ship).
Congratulations, brave and noble dakka poster, through your intelligent and clever use of intellect and raw, unadulterated cunning you have successfully left me completely dumfounded and at an utter loss for words. Seriously though, I don't think you understand. This. Is. Officially. The Most. Intelligent. Thing. I. Have. Ever. Seen. Men could live for centuries, for millennia, gathering the knowledge and wisdom of their lands and many others, and still not reach the level of ability that is presented here. The magnificence of the thing, the sheer wonder that such a majestic creation can bestow upon us lowly and unworthy mortals, is far beyond the grasp of a mere man such as myself. I would thank you, but I believe to even involve myself with thee within society would be to ask too much, for I feel that one of such ability as yours is not fit for communication with mere men. Please, fine sir, do not attempt to contact me again. I feel that the magnificence of your presence would be too much for myself to bare.
Oh, please. Stop mewling. You know as well as I do that this sort of drivel deserves nothing short of laughter. It's literally the only response I could muster. What, a rational argument? It'd go right over their heads and get ignored, and I'd just be labeled a 'bigot'.
Guys- 40k is all about mistreating minorities.
And women.
Stop enjoying things that are problematic, guys.
We. Need. Female. Marines.
There are no explicit references to discrimination against minorities in the Imperium. The Imperium, for its faults, has unified all of humanity against aliens and chaos. Humanity in 40k are hateful donkey-caves, certainly, but they hate aliens, not other humans. The Imperium, from the literature and lore I’ve read, is fairly egalitarian. Any racial divides would be stamped out by military force, because they weaken humanity against the TRUE “other”. 40k is a world where the “other” is not other humans (which it is now, and therefore racism/sexism exists), but instead it is aliens and daemons.
And one more thing: Marvel has not been ruined by anything. They have a gigantic revenue, because they are selling what people want, whether it is political correctness or big-breasted girls wearing spandex.
Verviedi wrote: There are no explicit references to discrimination against minorities in the Imperium. The Imperium, for its faults, has unified all of humanity against aliens and chaos. Humanity in 40k are hateful donkey-caves, certainly, but they hate aliens, not other humans. The Imperium, from the literature and lore I’ve read, is fairly egalitarian. Any racial divides would be stamped out by military force, because they weian humanity against the TRUE “other”. 40k is a world where the “other” is not other humans (which it is now, and therefore racism/sexism exists), but instead it is aliens and daemons.
Yes, I agree. The post I was laughing at was insinuating that this was some sort of 'facsimile' of some massive racist problem of the Middle Class of the United States of America.
I couldn't help it, I found that leap of logic to be honestly the most hilarious thing I've seen since Meagan the Screaming Pug.
How could the Imperium be a reflection of the Middle Class of the United States of America when it was created as a parody based in the social problems, popular tropes, etc.. of UK in the 80's and 90's.
Where did the OP go? I am still waiting for a reply to the fem40k article being "ok"
When you attack a community it no longer matters what your message is, good or bad, you are then seen as an outsider trying to cause trouble.
" it has its dark underbelly: a tribal and woefully toxic group of players who seek to isolate and protect “their” fandom at all costs, similar to a child screaming over “their” section of the playground when it is to be shared for everyone."
Unacceptable as it ignores context within the setting, directly attacks wargaming fanbase.
"This has plagued the fandom for generations, and while not exclusive to the game, has turned off many players who feel uncomfortable playing a hobby that requires interaction with such folk."
Generalist statement that has no proof and provides no proof, passed off as fact even though it is opinion.
"demeaning and crass treatment of women in game stores, condoning racist and abhorrent behavior towards minorities or disabled persons, online harassment, and shaming other people for daring to enjoy the same hobby."
Again making a statement with no proof, using buzzwords to try to bring people to their cause and attempting to gain credibility through outrage, engaging in the same behaviour that they claim to be fighting against in the very same sentence.
"It is one thing to deny the existence and experiences of the many, many players who have faced "
Again, no proof provided.
"such treatment by self-proclaimed “fans”"
Attempted undermining of any counter points.
"this has forced many of us in the community to shun open spaces for fear of inviting anything from rape threats to unsolicited advances from these shining examples of humanity. "
Attempting to gain emotional support and cause outrage to reinforce their political ideology, falling back on the usual "rape" threats SJW tactic, still no proof provided and again attempted undermining of any counter points.
"Feminist 40K is a closed community, and that is not because we want to be, but because we have to be."
refusal to have open dialogue, closed group that only allows like minded people, victim mentality again, another attempt at closing off counter points.
"Warhammer 40,000 is built upon decades of continuously rewritten and fluid fiction, with changes made to reflect the times and Games Workshops’ player base."
Wrong, 40k is one of the most consistent universes around, small changes are made here and there but on the whole it has been consistent throughout, expanding upon an idea is no re writing it, they should know this.
"such as the unnecessary sexualization of female-oriented miniatures to the lack of representation in model choice"
Personal opinion passed off as fact, 40k has massive representation of "minorities", grey model, paint how you like.
"and request Games Workshop"
Nothing has come across as a request yet.
"The vitriolic reaction to this"
prove it.
"Aside from the individual harassment of our players, there have been attempts at banning our page, concerted efforts to shut us down"
no evidence provided again, consistent with clear victim mentality displayed so far, another weak attempt to gain sympathy for non existent issue.
"nd continuous defamation and bullying online for the audacity of challenging established canon"
The very things they are in fact doing in this very article, they fired the first shot and are now crying because they have apparently been "bullied", provide proof.
"Take Adepta Sororitas armour. It emphasises the female figure to a sexualised level "
Ignoring context again to push political ideology, there is a reason they look this way.
"but alongside nearly-naked repentant fanatics, a long-running mistreatment in both in-game lore and GW codexes, and lack of relatively cheap and updated armies, it’s hard for women"
Based on assumption that woman want female models, based on assumption that woman are so shallow that they can ONLY play the game if there are more woman models, ignoring context of models yet again.
"to not take that as a statement that GW just doesn’t care much for its female player base"
Yet another false equivalence, yet another attempt to gain favour through "outrage"
"The matter of variety in ethnicity of models also turns away minorities who prefer to be represented by more than cultural stereotypes born of the comic books and action movies of the 80’s."
This is an outright lie, the models are grey, paint them how you like, also no proof provided yet again and passing off opinion as fact.
"Ask the frothing, furious fans who spend the better half of their day finding ways to harass other fans who also want to make small plastic soldiers kill each other. "
aaaaaand another attempt to discredit any disenting views, another attack on the 40k community..... sigh
"We love its over-the-top design, its shameless lifting of tropes from pop culture, its satire of fascistic theocracy, its sheer scale and flexibility that allows one to make an army that is very much our own"
And yet you are unable to "make your own" female army using 3rd party parts.... hmmm, amazed they didnt spot this obvious counter point and try to shut it down.
"Everyone wins: minorities gain better representation"
Again, grey models, based on assumption that a black person will only play the game if it has black people in it, inherently bigoted point of view that
" more options for writing and models are sold"
assumption, provide proof
" It’s much deeper than simply changing a coat of paint or adding a pair of accentuated breasts on a chestplate"
Is it? then why havent you actually shown this, again making a general statement with no backing, if its "deeper" than this, show us.
"but the reactionary views of loud, stubborn dinosaurs are truly ruining the experience, as much as they claim to be the victim."
Another attack on counter points, another attack on the 40k community "you agree with us or you are a dinosaur" and attempted displacement, this whole article show that they infact have the "victim" mentality and have tried several times to reinforce it.
"Representation matters. It shows people that they are recognised"
Yep it does, well done....
" it allows women to safely play the hobby without spending the whole time staring at sexualised representations of the female form"
Another assumption, woman like those models, woman dislike those models, like men they have differing opinions, also, the males are just as sexualised, but no one cares about that right??
"and then deal with men who seem to think they have a right to allow what women can or can’t feel demeaned by"
Actually this is exactly what you are doing right now, how ironic!
"it allows gaming to be a fun hobby without fear of being harassed online, threatened, insulted or publicly shamed for one’s preference of miniature post-humans."
Yay! more victim mentality and apparent threats from the community,, yay more lack of proof... yaaaaay!
Tokhuah wrote: Gender is less an issue than race in 40K. The Imperium represents culturally insulated racism paralleling the current middle America "backwards bubble" that is resisting the evolutionary cultural path of all other first world nations and regions. The Imperium is built on the same nationalism mingled with religious fanaticism. Simply put: the imperialistic humans call everything not them the "X" word and stand behind nationalist paradigms to justify imposing their fascist will over any that oppose them. I mean, the same root word that is in Xenophobe is also in the bigoted word the Imperium uses for alien races, so how could it be more obvious short of unbridled hate speech?
So? The Imperium is clearly depicted as a fascist state driven by fanaticism, militancy and complete disregard for the value of individual lives. And I really don't see the issue. It is fiction afterall.
Purifying Tempest wrote: 50% skin coverage in many places today is pushing it. They're overclad. I propose that we draw LESS clothes on cartoon models to be more reflective of society.
I can work that argument, too.
No, you really can't. I mean, it's FINE that you want to ignore the difference in representation. Big part of that good ol freedom is your freedom to stay ignorant in the face of evidence. It just invalidates any possible contribution you might have to the adult conversation.
If you want to misrepresent a real social problem (perceived inadequacy between genders) by quoting fictional works specifically designed to be what they are to make money, then you're kind of turning your eyes away from reality, not me.
The artists drew those panels because 1) they enjoy it, and god forbid they enjoy their livelihood, and 2) because it put bread on their table.
You may be able to dredge up one who is intentionally trying to degrade women in his medium, but they're likely to be butchered corpses and excessive gore during a battle, not scantily clad and heroic figures. You're really conflating with visually enjoying the medium and what it represents with some lurking evil to totally disparage a gender through art and hobby.
Those are not political statements, those are the product of labor, labor done to two ends: bring satisfaction to someone's life, and to make ends meet. To inject some insidious plot to put women back in the kitchen is just... well, ignorant.
Wrong. It's not some lurking evil thats out to get people. It's not some intentional war on women.
Those panels are drawn that way because the truth is society finds those kind of depictions acceptable and they DON"T find the reverse (men depicted that way) acceptable. Those pictures I post are examples of a symptom of the actual issue that the vast majority of the time is not malicious, it's thoughtless. But thoughtless behavior still causes damage. We can either recognize the thoughtless behaviour for what it is and be better or you can keep letting it cause damage. Many companies and products are doing that. And when they do people shout "Oh man... someone else caving to the SJW. What a bunch of whiney bs!". At which point, it is malicious. As massive as the idiocy of the extremists on all sides is (Yes, the extremists SJW and feminist are massive idiots just like those fighting them), trying to bully companies or complain because they decided they were going to grow up, put on their big person pants, and try to treat people fairly is actively fighting against equality and makes you the problem.
Congratulations, brave and noble dakka poster, through your intelligent and clever use of intellect and raw, unadulterated cunning you have successfully left me completely dumfounded and at an utter loss for words. Seriously though, I don't think you understand. This. Is. Officially. The Most. Intelligent. Thing. I. Have. Ever. Seen. Men could live for centuries, for millennia, gathering the knowledge and wisdom of their lands and many others, and still not reach the level of ability that is presented here. The magnificence of the thing, the sheer wonder that such a majestic creation can bestow upon us lowly and unworthy mortals, is far beyond the grasp of a mere man such as myself. I would thank you, but I believe to even involve myself with thee within society would be to ask too much, for I feel that one of such ability as yours is not fit for communication with mere men. Please, fine sir, do not attempt to contact me again. I feel that the magnificence of your presence would be too much for myself to bare.
Oh, please. Stop mewling. You know as well as I do that this sort of drivel deserves nothing short of laughter. It's literally the only response I could muster. What, a rational argument? It'd go right over their heads and get ignored, and I'd just be labeled a 'bigot'.
Guys- 40k is all about mistreating minorities.
And women.
Stop enjoying things that are problematic, guys.
We. Need. Female. Marines.
There are no explicit references to discrimination against minorities in the Imperium. The Imperium, for its faults, has unified all of humanity against aliens and chaos. Humanity in 40k are hateful donkey-caves, certainly, but they hate aliens, not other humans. The Imperium, from the literature and lore I’ve read, is fairly egalitarian. Any racial divides would be stamped out by military force, because they weaken humanity against the TRUE “other”. 40k is a world where the “other” is not other humans (which it is now, and therefore racism/sexism exists), but instead it is aliens and daemons.
There's actually a quote from Discworld that best sums that up -
Racism was not a problem on the Discworld, because—what with trolls and dwarfs and so on—speciesism was more interesting. Black and white lived in perfect harmony and ganged up on green.
Galas wrote: How could the Imperium be a reflection of the Middle Class of the United States of America when it was created as a parody based in the social problems, popular tropes, etc.. of UK in the 80's and 90's.
Galas wrote: How could the Imperium be a reflection of the Middle Class of the United States of America when it was created as a parody based in the social problems, popular tropes, etc.. of UK in the 80's and 90's.
Don't you know? The new president has just decreed that anyone opposing him is a heretic, and just commissioned the construction of a 1000 foot tall techno-cathedral, adorned with statues in his likeness.
Those panels are drawn that way because the truth is society finds those kind of depictions acceptable and they DON"T find the reverse (men depicted that way) acceptable. Those pictures I post are examples of a symptom of the actual issue that the vast majority of the time is not malicious, it's thoughtless. But thoughtless behavior still causes damage. We can either recognize the thoughtless behaviour for what it is and be better or you can keep letting it cause damage.
Look, I'm going to be perfectly honest with you. And I'm going to be very calm, and very polite.
*deep breath*
If seeing a cartoon drawing of something causes you 'damage', then you need to stop. Something is fundamentally wrong with you. This is not a normal reaction from a healthy, well-adjusted, and functional adult. This is a serious issue and you need to seek a professional immediately.
It's a cartoon drawing.
Allow me to elaborate- you're saying that a cartoon drawing is causing damage to women. Not to men, but women.
Maybe you shouldn't be treating women like unhinged children that need to be shielded from tiddy drawings. It's kind of demeaning.
Those panels are drawn that way because the truth is society finds those kind of depictions acceptable and they DON"T find the reverse (men depicted that way) acceptable. Those pictures I post are examples of a symptom of the actual issue that the vast majority of the time is not malicious, it's thoughtless. But thoughtless behavior still causes damage. We can either recognize the thoughtless behaviour for what it is and be better or you can keep letting it cause damage.
Look, I'm going to be perfectly honest with you. And I'm going to be very calm, and very polite.
*deep breath*
If seeing a cartoon drawing of something causes you 'damage', then you need to stop. Something is fundamentally wrong with you. This is not a normal reaction from a healthy, well-adjusted, and functional adult. This is a serious issue and you need to seek a professional immediately.
It's a cartoon drawing.
He also finds it ok for men to be oversexualised in comics but finds it wrong for woman to be, double standards right there.
Those panels are drawn that way because the truth is society finds those kind of depictions acceptable and they DON"T find the reverse (men depicted that way) acceptable. Those pictures I post are examples of a symptom of the actual issue that the vast majority of the time is not malicious, it's thoughtless. But thoughtless behavior still causes damage. We can either recognize the thoughtless behaviour for what it is and be better or you can keep letting it cause damage.
Look, I'm going to be perfectly honest with you. And I'm going to be very calm, and very polite.
*deep breath*
If seeing a cartoon drawing of something causes you 'damage', then you need to stop. Something is fundamentally wrong with you. This is not a normal reaction from a healthy, well-adjusted, and functional adult. This is a serious issue and you need to seek a professional immediately.
It's a cartoon drawing.
Do you understand the word symptom? Or how about how societies function? Psychology on any level?
Lance845 wrote: Being near perfect anatomically and wearing an outfit with 50% of your body as exposed skin are 2 very different things. You have never once read a marvel or dc comic where a male Lanterns costume... which is a construct of their mind by the way, looked like this.
Oh no, it's almost as if there's a considerably larger male demographic buying comics (or rather, was at one time).
Man, you know what cracks me up?
The amount of dudes that are complaining for women. "They should be offended by this!"
Yeah, most of them aren't because they're adults that know the difference between a cartoon drawing and actually objectifying a real human being.
That's why people have so much difficulty taking feminists seriously these days. You're unable to distinguish between fantasy and reality, and you spend way too much time trying to crusade for people that never asked for your help. And then you write them off as 'stupid' or 'defeated' when they don't care about your first world grievances.
Let's clarify.
I am a dude. I am offended by this..
This isn't some dude telling women what they should be offended by. This is me being offended.
So?
Also in my own opinion, the free market will decide what happens with 40k and how diverse it is. If they make female models and they sell moderatly well then we'll get a few more female models. If they don't sell we won't and whining at GW about it won't change a thing.
Lance845 wrote: Being near perfect anatomically and wearing an outfit with 50% of your body as exposed skin are 2 very different things. You have never once read a marvel or dc comic where a male Lanterns costume... which is a construct of their mind by the way, looked like this.
Oh no, it's almost as if there's a considerably larger male demographic buying comics (or rather, was at one time).
Man, you know what cracks me up?
The amount of dudes that are complaining for women. "They should be offended by this!"
Yeah, most of them aren't because they're adults that know the difference between a cartoon drawing and actually objectifying a real human being.
That's why people have so much difficulty taking feminists seriously these days. You're unable to distinguish between fantasy and reality, and you spend way too much time trying to crusade for people that never asked for your help. And then you write them off as 'stupid' or 'defeated' when they don't care about your first world grievances.
Let's clarify.
I am a dude. I am offended by this..
This isn't some dude telling women what they should be offended by. This is me being offended.
So?
Also in my own opinion, the free market will decide what happens with 40k and how diverse it is. If they make female models and they sell moderatly well then we'll get a few more female models. If they don't sell we won't and whining at GW about it won't change a thing.
Didnt you know that its a god given right not to be offended these days!!!
Nope, I am unwilling to do the work needed to answer those questions for you. By all means, go educate yourself... or don't! It doesn't actually matter to me and I am okay with you being wrong.
Those panels are drawn that way because the truth is society finds those kind of depictions acceptable and they DON"T find the reverse (men depicted that way) acceptable. Those pictures I post are examples of a symptom of the actual issue that the vast majority of the time is not malicious, it's thoughtless. But thoughtless behavior still causes damage. We can either recognize the thoughtless behaviour for what it is and be better or you can keep letting it cause damage.
Look, I'm going to be perfectly honest with you. And I'm going to be very calm, and very polite.
*deep breath*
If seeing a cartoon drawing of something causes you 'damage', then you need to stop. Something is fundamentally wrong with you. This is not a normal reaction from a healthy, well-adjusted, and functional adult. This is a serious issue and you need to seek a professional immediately.
It's a cartoon drawing.
Do you understand the word symptom? Or how about how societies function? Psychology on any level?
Uh do YOU? I've taken classes on this crap and work in the medical field (granted on the business/administrative side of things).
Reading a few articles online is a bit different than actual application of these things. That's why none of the psychologists or psychiatrists I have to interact with really do anything about this stuff being spewed.
I don't understand why people are getting so heated here. It's toy soldiers and comics people, not life or death and certainly not reality.
Both male and female superheroes are incredibly exaggerated versions of a real person. If one is offensive, so is the other. I have never seen a dude as built as some of the male superheroes and I have never seen a woman with the figure of some of the female superheroes. They are both the "perfect" version of people. It is their entire role. They are heroes after all.
Not sure how this relates to the toy soldiers we play with?
Those panels are drawn that way because the truth is society finds those kind of depictions acceptable and they DON"T find the reverse (men depicted that way) acceptable. Those pictures I post are examples of a symptom of the actual issue that the vast majority of the time is not malicious, it's thoughtless. But thoughtless behavior still causes damage. We can either recognize the thoughtless behaviour for what it is and be better or you can keep letting it cause damage.
Look, I'm going to be perfectly honest with you. And I'm going to be very calm, and very polite.
*deep breath*
If seeing a cartoon drawing of something causes you 'damage', then you need to stop. Something is fundamentally wrong with you. This is not a normal reaction from a healthy, well-adjusted, and functional adult. This is a serious issue and you need to seek a professional immediately.
It's a cartoon drawing.
Allow me to elaborate- you're saying that a cartoon drawing is causing damage to women. Not to men, but women.
Maybe you shouldn't be treating women like unhinged children that need to be shielded from tiddy drawings. It's kind of demeaning.
Lance845 wrote: Nope, I am unwilling to do the work needed to answer those questions for you. By all means, go educate yourself... or don't! It doesn't actually matter to me and I am okay with you being wrong.
You know, the funny thing is... you can just say, "I dislike these depictions, and I think I would enjoy it better if it changed". That's a PERFECTLY reasonable statement. Doesn't mean people are going to agree with it, but it's a fair statement. You don't have to dress it up as some big societal cancer that's harming women. If you think these things are 'harming' women, you're not spending much time talking to women (or at least, sane ones).
And it figures, you can provide nothing to substantiate your claim. You made the claim, the burden of proof is on you. I will assume that your statement means you have no foundation for your beliefs, and it's fine.
I'm very much okay with you being intellectually dishonest. From the moment our discussion began, I sort of expected it. No surprises.
The disease is, in my opinion, culturally ingrained racism and sexism. Thankfully, it’s been getting better, but because it is institutionalised instead of explicit, people are now able to say “WE SOLVED THE PROBLEM THERE’S NO MORE RACISM STOP SCREAMING SJeWS”. This effect has caused a stall in resolving the issue, and needs to be resolved.
The true disease, as always, is sociopathy/antisocial personality disorder. I can’t believe early humanity let that particular disease spread, as it’s causing pretty much every social and economic issue right now, and curing it is medicinally impossible.
I’d say the true disease is the dehumanising capitalist system, but honestly that’s only being kept alive by sociopathic CEOs and politicians. As long as they keep throwing up social issues to keep the lower class divided, they have nothing to fear from an organized resistance.
Tokhuah wrote: Gender is less an issue than race in 40K. The Imperium represents culturally insulated racism paralleling the current middle America "backwards bubble" that is resisting the evolutionary cultural path of all other first world nations and regions. The Imperium is built on the same nationalism mingled with religious fanaticism. Simply put: the imperialistic humans call everything not them the "X" word and stand behind nationalist paradigms to justify imposing their fascist will over any that oppose them. I mean, the same root word that is in Xenophobe is also in the bigoted word the Imperium uses for alien races, so how could it be more obvious short of unbridled hate speech?
So? The Imperium is clearly depicted as a fascist state driven by fanaticism, militancy and complete disregard for the value of individual lives. And I really don't see the issue. It is fiction afterall.
Exactly. All my Imperium models are helmeted for a reason, with only commanders getting a slightly special amount of treatment (they get a different helmet!).
Really nobody would care if Sisters got plastic models. That's the only reason anybody wants female Marines. They think they'll get the same treatment and keep getting releases.
Those panels are drawn that way because the truth is society finds those kind of depictions acceptable and they DON"T find the reverse (men depicted that way) acceptable. Those pictures I post are examples of a symptom of the actual issue that the vast majority of the time is not malicious, it's thoughtless. But thoughtless behavior still causes damage. We can either recognize the thoughtless behaviour for what it is and be better or you can keep letting it cause damage.
Look, I'm going to be perfectly honest with you. And I'm going to be very calm, and very polite.
*deep breath*
If seeing a cartoon drawing of something causes you 'damage', then you need to stop. Something is fundamentally wrong with you. This is not a normal reaction from a healthy, well-adjusted, and functional adult. This is a serious issue and you need to seek a professional immediately.
It's a cartoon drawing.
He also finds it ok for men to be oversexualised in comics but finds it wrong for woman to be, double standards right there.
Having just about maxed gender studies in college this is a very frequent bit of hypocrisy that appears. He's not alone, but that doesn't make it right either.
The most important thing is to let authors be true to their story and setting. If that offends you, don't read it. I'm sure lots of people would be offended by vivid Holocaust stories or smut, doesn't mean there's a problem with them or a disease.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Verviedi wrote: The disease is, in my opinion, culturally ingrained racism and sexism. Thankfully, it’s been getting better, but because it is institutionalised instead of explicit, people are now able to say “WE SOLVED THE PROBLEM THERE’S NO MORE RACISM STOP SCREAMING SJeWS”. This effect has caused a stall in resolving the issue, and needs to be resolved.
The true disease, as always, is sociopathy/antisocial personality disorder. I can’t believe early humanity let that particular disease spread, as it’s causing pretty much every social and economic issue right now, and curing it is medicinally impossible.
I’d say the true disease is the dehumanising capitalist system, but honestly that’s only being kept alive by sociopathic CEOs and politicians. As long as they keep throwing up social issues to keep the lower class divided, they have nothing to fear from an organized resistance.
Boy, I think we'd need our own forum to go round and round on this one.
Verviedi wrote: I’d say the true disease is the dehumanising capitalist system, but honestly that’s only being kept alive by sociopathic CEOs and politicians. As long as they keep throwing up social issues to keep the lower class divided, they have nothing to fear from an organized resistance.
You're on a forum dedicated to literally one of the most overpriced miniatures game on the market. Prices we pay willingly, mind you, and these prices are only at their current rate because of Capitalism.
You. On a forum. Dedicated to a game that sells one little 2 inch plastic miniature for $40.00, and Capitalism has failed.
I'm going to walk around for a moment and laugh about that one.
Nah on the whole the thread has been pretty polite all things considered, sure there are a couple of bad posts but this discussion does need to happen if for no other reason than people need to purge.
Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:@Verviedi: Is that a trolling response, or serious?
If I wanted to troll, I’d be talking about FEMA camps and chemtrails. Although I admit I went off on a tangent and addressed societal issues in general instead of anything that actually pertained to 40k whatsoever.
Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Verviedi wrote: I’d say the true disease is the dehumanising capitalist system, but honestly that’s only being kept alive by sociopathic CEOs and politicians. As long as they keep throwing up social issues to keep the lower class divided, they have nothing to fear from an organized resistance.
You're on a forum dedicated to literally one of the most overpriced miniatures game on the market. Prices we pay willingly, mind you, and these prices are only at their current rate because of Capitalism.
You. On a forum. Dedicated to a game that sells one little 2 inch plastic miniature for $40.00, and Capitalism has failed.
I'm going to walk around for a moment and laugh about that one.
That has absolutely nothing to do what I said, but OK, go do that.
(I am guilty of going off topic in that post, the reason you’re laughing is probably because I failed to tie that post to the hobby at all (which to be fair, it is irrelevant to the hobby)).
i wouldnt even give a fuc#k about this topic cuz giving is free and my fu#ks cost.
If you want to discuss this you need to at least understand the point of view for the opposing argument.
If your argument (in general, not just this topic) cannot withstand public discourse without degenerating into labeling/name calling/ignoring, then your argument is baseless in it's foundation.
I could care less if you want your plastic toy soldiers to be female. I have no problem with any faction being changed by the player to include females/males. they're yours to do with as you wish. it would be nice if GW made female parts for guard etc.
I just wish the inclusion at all costs vs don't change my game people need to get off their high horse and understand that it's ok to have differing opinions. While at the same time there needs to be differentiation otherwise everybody's the same and we should all just play with chunks of plastic with no difference in appearance and the same rules.
As a wise(sic) pig named Napoleon said "everybody's equal, just some more than others."
Those arguing that men are oversexualized in comic are obviously not women as these masculine representations are almost all the time power fantasies for men. Unless you want to argue that heterosexual men know what women want - insert Mel Gibson movie joke -.
Women in comics have historically been drawn for heterosexual men which is why they are oversexualized and put into impossible poses.
If you want to see how something is oversexualized for certain groups of gay men I suggest checking out the works of Tom of Finland. If you really want to draw parallels between Tom's work and hypermuscular men in comics then there is really nothing to discuss. Discussion without nuance is no discussion at all.
I am seriously shaking my head at the idea that some guys are arguing that I should find Jim Lee's Batman sexualized and attractive. There is literally nothing attractive about that Batman or Batman in general.
Galas wrote: They probably are, they have better things to do in weekends. It happens we don't
Hey, I got laundry to do. So there's that.
Look, fellas- I'll be honest with you. I'm kinda hostile toward this Feminist 40k thing, mainly because everywhere it rears its head- it causes problems. I want women gaming, men gaming, and it's just easier to say "I want people gaming that care about the game".
I don't want to turn gaming into a segue into identity politics or sociology. I come from a background where your skin color and gender were meaningless- we could be polar opposites, but we put things aside to enjoy life and have fun together.
Feminist 40k, I believe, does not want that. They want to push an ideology onto persons they believe are susceptible, and use the stereotypical 'weakness' of gamers to bully their way around in the community.
Maybe it's just me, but the overwhelming majority of stuff I see from these folks isn't about gaming, it's about their ideology and how it relates to the game. It's kind of a sneaky thing I dislike from evangelists that try to segue their faith into your interests to con you into joining them. Youth minister Bill doesn't really care about Metal, he's only relating Christian Metal to you to get you to come to church.
It makes me very, very uneasy. It's cult-like, in so many ways. That's something I take real issues with.
If these people are here to enjoy the game, IDGAF what they believe. If we got differences, we can sort them out on the table. Or not play together. Either works for me.
But as a member of communities (yes, more than one), I really don't like people dragging this SocJus/Marxist/RadiFem theory stuff into it to rile people up, especially when it's difficult for me to see where these people are truly invested in the hobby.
Eldarsif wrote: Those arguing that men are oversexualized in comic are obviously not women as these masculine representations are almost all the time power fantasies for men. Unless you want to argue that heterosexual men know what women want - insert Mel Gibson movie joke -.
Women in comics have historically been drawn for heterosexual men which is why they are oversexualized and put into impossible poses.
If you want to see how something is oversexualized for certain groups of gay men I suggest checking out the works of Tom of Finland. If you really want to draw parallels between Tom's work and hypermuscular men in comics then there is really nothing to discuss. Discussion without nuance is no discussion at all.
I am seriously shaking my head at the idea that some guys are arguing that I should find Jim Lee's Batman sexualized and attractive. There is literally nothing attractive about that Batman or Batman in general.
And yet this seems to be what's selling for women when it comes to their fantasies.
Who doesn't want to be embraced by a stallion like those and feel protected and loved and have crazy sex and live crazy adventures of exploration and forbidden desire, instead of my boring middle-class wife/mother life?
Eldarsif wrote: Those arguing that men are oversexualized in comic are obviously not women as these masculine representations are almost all the time power fantasies for men. Unless you want to argue that heterosexual men know what women want - insert Mel Gibson movie joke -.
Women in comics have historically been drawn for heterosexual men which is why they are oversexualized and put into impossible poses.
If you want to see how something is oversexualized for certain groups of gay men I suggest checking out the works of Tom of Finland. If you really want to draw parallels between Tom's work and hypermuscular men in comics then there is really nothing to discuss. Discussion without nuance is no discussion at all.
I am seriously shaking my head at the idea that some guys are arguing that I should find Jim Lee's Batman sexualized and attractive. There is literally nothing attractive about that Batman or Batman in general.
And now you are guilty of the same old thing as others, assuming who finds what sexy, YOU dont find batman sexy, woman do, not all woman, but some do.
And yes the same old tired "power fantasy" trope comes out to play, but again, double standards are kicking in, how is wonder woman not a power fantasy but superman is?
My sister loves how "sexy and strong" wonder woman is, her words, My older Niece loves catwoman and thinks someone that "badass" wouldnt give a crap and would use how she looks as a weapon (again, her take on it).
So shake your head all you like, because you are making the generalisations here AND assuming you know what woman want and how they think, let alone what anyone finds "sexy"
If I have misunderstood what you are saying, I apologise in advance.
Galas wrote: Who doesn't want to be embraced by a stallion like those and feel protected and loved and have crazy sex and live crazy adventures of exploration and forbidden desire, instead of my boring middle-class wife/mother life?
Those books have often used the words 'turgid pillar', I want you to know this.
Galas wrote: Who doesn't want to be embraced by a stallion like those and feel protected and loved and have crazy sex and live crazy adventures of exploration and forbidden desire, instead of my boring middle-class wife/mother life?
Those books have often used the words 'turgid pillar', I want you to know this.
TURGID
PILLAR
The most important point here is... how do you know that?
Galas wrote: Who doesn't want to be embraced by a stallion like those and feel protected and loved and have crazy sex and live crazy adventures of exploration and forbidden desire, instead of my boring middle-class wife/mother life?
Those books have often used the words 'turgid pillar', I want you to know this.
TURGID
PILLAR
That is hilarious.
Also, I really want those two words to be in the Emperor's Children codex.
Turgid Pillar of Slaanesh sounds like a wonderful name for a codex specific terrain piece.
Eldarsif wrote: I am seriously shaking my head at the idea that some guys are arguing that I should find Jim Lee's Batman sexualized and attractive. There is literally nothing attractive about that Batman or Batman in general.
About two dozen women I knew in college would disagree.
Heroic superheroes, women and men, are depicted in heroic proportions.
Such heroic proportions and impossible standards of beauty is what is expected from a superior being.
Not that this cannot lead to interesting subversions, or even deconstructions; after all, one of the best superhero comics ever made is Watchmen.
Compare the pose of males and females is a false equivalence in most cases, because both ere eroticized. But generally speaking, an eroticized female will not have the same pose of a male because the target and the expectations are different.
Also the body parts. Since we are apes, we all like asses, but say shoulders are more important on a man so the pose will be different.
Now people could raise these points:
(I) People could have different tastes like very muscular and assertive women or skinny and delicate males - that's true but I guess the authors go for the expected majority
(II) I am ignoring self insertion - males want powerful males to self-insert and beautiful women to dominate - for what I have seen personally and in geek culture in general, women prefer attractive and powerful heroines as well. I remember very well the descriptions of the female characters of my female DnD players back then. Beautiful, generally quite skinny, amazonian beauties the melee characters.
The only complain I ever heard is the disparity in treatment, like in MMORPG armor that covers the full male body but is skimpy on females. Which is a very reasonable complain IMHO.
Nonetheless what I see generally reported (this is anecdoctal so I don't want to make a point out of it) is the context. Is ok being in trouble, but not being always the damsel in distress. Is ok being in skimpy clothing, if makes sense in the setting (like, say, in Conan's world).
Galas wrote: They probably are, they have better things to do in weekends. It happens we don't
Hey, I got laundry to do. So there's that.
Look, fellas- I'll be honest with you. I'm kinda hostile toward this Feminist 40k thing, mainly because everywhere it rears its head- it causes problems. I want women gaming, men gaming, and it's just easier to say "I want people gaming that care about the game".
I don't want to turn gaming into a segue into identity politics or sociology. I come from a background where your skin color and gender were meaningless- we could be polar opposites, but we put things aside to enjoy life and have fun together.
Feminist 40k, I believe, does not want that. They want to push an ideology onto persons they believe are susceptible, and use the stereotypical 'weakness' of gamers to bully their way around in the community.
Maybe it's just me, but the overwhelming majority of stuff I see from these folks isn't about gaming, it's about their ideology and how it relates to the game. It's kind of a sneaky thing I dislike from evangelists that try to segue their faith into your interests to con you into joining them. Youth minister Bill doesn't really care about Metal, he's only relating Christian Metal to you to get you to come to church.
It makes me very, very uneasy. It's cult-like, in so many ways. That's something I take real issues with.
If these people are here to enjoy the game, IDGAF what they believe. If we got differences, we can sort them out on the table. Or not play together. Either works for me.
But as a member of communities (yes, more than one), I really don't like people dragging this SocJus/Marxist/RadiFem theory stuff into it to rile people up, especially when it's difficult for me to see where these people are truly invested in the hobby.
You are, in general, correct. But you have to consider the precise nature of why people get so angry. They are, perhaps rightfully, angry because they feel discriminated against. You have to remember that not everybody grew up in an environment like you did. I’d say such environments are very rare. Institutionalised racism means that in many places, while things may seem that way, they truly aren’t, because of different social norms and effects.
There is also the “equality to the privileged feels like oppression” effect. As I’m going to say for the third time in this thread, The root of the problem is that people are so used to seeing an all-majority cast in a media form, that when they see gay characters, or black/asian/indian/whatever characters, they immediately decide that it’s “pandering”, instead of thinking critically and wondering what a woman sees when they look at that game. Imagine looking at a game and all of the characters are minorities, or gay, and you can’t identify with any of them. That’s what women and minorities see on a daily basis. You’re not being discriminated against, you’re just not getting 100% representation at the cost of all else anymore.
People do not need “punishment” for discrimination or dominance in the past. They simply need to learn that they are not the only people on earth.
Re: Social Justice/RadFem - those things are unfortunately necessary to get rid of the past traces of societal/institutional discrimination. No change has ever been made through moderate means - there has always been a radical pushing a more extreme version of the change. Any change requires two elements in order to be effective - an extreme element, and a moderate element. The extreme element exists to threaten the status quo so much that the moderate change has to occur, to avoid revolution/societal collapse/extreme annoyance.
Re: Marxist Theory - I know nothing about Marxist social theory, because I mostly almost only care about economic issues. I’m familiar with Marxist economic theory, never bothered even reading the TL;DR version of social theory.
Evangelicists can GTFO in general. I don’t use the game to recruit people into my ideology, neither should anyone else.
I don't want to turn gaming into a segue into identity politics or sociology.
Yeah, why can't people shut up and let me enjoy this game about a fascist society who enforces their xenophobic law through state-sponsored violence without bringing politics into it?
I don't want to turn gaming into a segue into identity politics or sociology.
Yeah, why can't people shut up and let me enjoy this game about a fascist society who enforces their xenophobic law through state-sponsored violence without bringing politics into it?
Opinions are like penises. They are very nice and different in shapes and colours. You have your right to have yours, but please don't force it into my mouth if I don't ask for it.
I don't want to turn gaming into a segue into identity politics or sociology.
Yeah, why can't people shut up and let me enjoy this game about a fascist society who enforces their xenophobic law through state-sponsored violence without bringing politics into it?
So I'm not allowed to play Chess without thinking about race? Or Othello?
If I play poker, because of the card being made of trees, and trees are being cut down, I should be thinking about the environment?
If I play Risk, I shouldn't be thinking about how to win/enjoy a BOARD GAME, but should instead by thinking about global politics and warfare?
Yeah, I believe there's a thing called "escapism". For some, 40k IS escapism, and I see no reason why that should be wrong. If someone doesn't want to bring politics into a board game for plastic toy soldiers, I think that's a reasonable request.
I'm really not trying to force anything anywhere? Politics is a key part of 40k already.
People like to have representation in their media and to feel welcome participating in their hobby, whether that is in the various online spaces, the officially produced #content or in the physical gaming areas.
Yeah, I believe there's a thing called "escapism". For some, 40k IS escapism, and I see no reason why that should be wrong. If someone doesn't want to bring politics into a board game for plastic toy soldiers, I think that's a reasonable request.
And surely everyone has the same right to that escapism? I've seen people get abuse for, as an example, converting their Grey Knights to be women. Where does their right to escapism come into it?
Verviedi wrote: You are, in general, correct. But you have to consider the precise nature of why people get so angry. They are, perhaps rightfully, angry because they feel discriminated against. You have to remember that not everybody grew up in an environment like you did. I’d say such environments are very rare. Institutionalised racism means that in many places, while things may seem that way, they truly aren’t, because of different social norms and effects.
Not trying to be a jerk here, but when you say these environments are 'rare'- I have to ask if you've just lived in one place your whole life, or if you assume it. Contrary to what most people want to believe, our society is pretty good about putting aside our differences and getting along. Yes, I am sure discrimination exists- I've seen it and been victim to it. But actual 'institutionalized racism', or as I would prefer to see it- a culture more predominant in an area- is far more rare or concerning than you would believe.
And anecdotal? Most people I've seen complaining about institutionalized racism were responsible for their own piss-poor decisions.
Verviedi wrote: There is also the “equality to the privileged feels like oppression” effect. As I’m going to say for the third time in this thread, The root of the problem is that people are so used to seeing an all-majority cast in a media form, that when they see gay characters, or black/asian/indian/whatever characters, they immediately decide that it’s “pandering”, instead of thinking critically and wondering what a woman sees when they look at that game. Imagine looking at a game and all of the characters are minorities, or gay, and you can’t identify with any of them. That’s what women and minorities see on a daily basis. You’re not being discriminated against, you’re just not getting 100% representation at the cost of all else anymore.
Actually, where some people see the problem is not these characters- but seeing their favorite characters removed, and replaced with a character whose entire identity is little more than 'gay/black/muslim' or whatever, and then it's like they just have to accept that someone has been replaced by this Mary Sue. Most people don't take issue with diversity. They take issue with what they like being removed and replaced with 2-dimensional caricatures and told that it's 'diversity' and if they hate it, they're a bigot.
Verviedi wrote: People do not need “punishment” for discrimination or dominance in the past. They simply need to learn that they are not the only people on earth.
You say this like they're not aware. I think you might need to socialize with people beyond your area (and not rely on the internet for that).
Verviedi wrote: Re: Social Justice/RadFem - those things are unfortunately necessary to get rid of the past traces of societal/institutional discrimination. No change has ever been made through moderate means - there has always been a radical pushing a more extreme version of the change. Any change requires two elements in order to be effective - an extreme element, and a moderate element. The extreme element exists to threaten the status quo so much that the moderate change has to occur, to avoid revolution/societal collapse/extreme annoyance.
Yes, but- let me use a metaphor.
Dynamite is good at putting out oil fires in the oilfield. But that doesn't mean I'm gonna throw it on my stove when I have a small blaze. If I do, I'm gonna wreck my house and go to prison.
SocJus and RadFem might be useful in the areas that actually NEED these things (because we don't, we just have a few guys that make noise and say mean stuff from time to time). But anywhere RadFem and SocJus WOULD come in handy would have them getting a facefull of rocks or 7.62 and beheaded. A distatesful drawing that someone dislikes is not justification for Radical Feminists.
Egalitarianism is ideal. It's what I pursue. If equality- actual, equal opportunities for all- is not enough for you? IMHO you are an extremist, a supremacist... a few ideological wiggles from being a Nazi.
Verviedi wrote: Re: Marxist Theory - I know nothing about Marxist social theory, because I mostly almost only care about economic issues. I’m familiar with Marxist economic theory, never bothered even reading the TL;DR version of social theory.
Let me summarize for you: Academics that never worked somehow think that sharing everything will just work, people will just have to stop acting like people.
Verviedi wrote: Evangelicists can GTFO in general. I don’t use the game to recruit people into my ideology, neither should anyone else.
That behavior is what I see in the SocJus/RadFems that come at gaming. They don't care about gaming- but they see us as weak. Remember all those old stereotypes? That's what they think we are. They think we can be manipulated, and that's because literally no one else wants anything to do with these drama queens. And anyone who's not a fan is the 'heretic' (racist, bigot, etc.) They're here to get recruits, not recreation. Sounds tinfoil-hat, yeah- but how many of these idealogues were dedicated to gaming? It's funny how these 'issues' that they see... they're... the only ones seeing them.
Think about that last sentence.
Literally everyone else is just doing fine, and then someone shows up and claims all these problems are tearing up our communities... and they know how to fix them.
Yeah, I believe there's a thing called "escapism". For some, 40k IS escapism, and I see no reason why that should be wrong. If someone doesn't want to bring politics into a board game for plastic toy soldiers, I think that's a reasonable request.
And surely everyone has the same right to that escapism? I've seen people get abuse for, as an example, converting their Grey Knights to be women. Where does their right to escapism come into it?
I have seen people abused for trying to bring Forgeworld models to a tournament. Dicks are dicks, it doesn't matter if the reason they are dicks is political or some sort of personal crusade. When something like that happens, call the bully out for his behaviour.
I don't want to turn gaming into a segue into identity politics or sociology.
Yeah, why can't people shut up and let me enjoy this game about a fascist society who enforces their xenophobic law through state-sponsored violence without bringing politics into it?
So.. you are suggesting that the satyrical aspect of 40k should be ignored, and the whole 40k should be changed in accordion to modern sensibilities?
Is not like female grey knights and female inquisitors in terminator armour would be distinguishable. (And before anyone ask, no, she is inside the torso with his arms crossed over his chest)
I have seen people abused for trying to bring Forgeworld models to a tournament. Dicks are dicks, it doesn't matter if the reason they are dicks is political or some sort of personal crusade.
I'd be 100% supportive of you starting a 'don't be a dick' group, even a specific 'don't be a dick to anyone who wants to use forgeworld models at an official event' group.
Honest question though: do you think anyone would target your group with abuse? Make videos on youtube about how your group is ruining the hobby? Start up groups focused on upsetting your members? Create pictures accusing you of being fat and ugly? Tell you you weren't a real fan of the game because you like forgeworld models? Have any thread discussing the group tell you it wasn't really needed, and everyone (the people giving you abuse for your opinion on forgeworld, and you for having an opinion) should just stop bothering them when they're trying to game?
Because literally every single one of these things has happened in feminist40k. It's an old cliche that any thread on feminism justifies the need for itself because of the responses to it.
I'm still looking for proof that the institution, which I can only imagine is the government, is systematically enforcing racist and sexist rules. I need some evidence that DHS deems me more or less of a human because of my race or gender. Where's the policy? Just about every statute is public. Citation needed.
Edit: there is evidence that the system is rigged against a race and gender, just not that way that is being suggested. Women and minorities are actively protected by the government. Which I guess is a form of systemic, institutionalized racism and sexist. It just means you're lobbying for the empowered group, not the disadvantaged.
I have seen people abused for trying to bring Forgeworld models to a tournament. Dicks are dicks, it doesn't matter if the reason they are dicks is political or some sort of personal crusade.
I'd be 100% supportive of you starting a 'don't be a dick' group, even a specific 'don't be a dick to anyone who wants to use forgeworld models at an official event' group.
Honest question though: do you think anyone would target your group with abuse? Make videos on youtube about how your group is ruining the hobby? Start up groups focused on upsetting your members? Create pictures accusing you of being fat and ugly? Tell you you weren't a real fan of the game because you like forgeworld models? Have any thread discussing the group tell you it wasn't really needed, and everyone (the people giving you abuse for your opinion on forgeworld, and you for having an opinion) should just stop bothering them when they're trying to game?
Hmmm, I don't know in UK but in Spain, in the 2004-2008 period we had the Great Hobby War as I like to call it, where "Casuals" vs "Tournament/Competitive gamers" fight to see who where the TRUE WARHAMMER FANS. Tournament/Competitive ones won, and the Casuals retreated to their houses and local clubs to heal their wounds. Now we have reached a balance, but Competitive gaming is still the king here.
During that period I have seen everything you have just described here, from people searching for personal information of people of the other "side" to send them threats to their houses, paint penises with spray in their houses,etc...
And lets no start with the Warhammer Fantasy death and the AOS hecatomb, please.
What I want to say with this is... people can be extremely toxic to one another, but the reason why they are toxic is irrelevant. If theres no reason to fight, something will be created, divisions will be made, to allow for that fight to happen. Such is the nature of heresy, and this is why it is so hard to destroy
unitled wrote: Because literally every single one of these things has happened in feminist40k. It's an old cliche that any thread on feminism justifies the need for itself because of the responses to it.
Circular Logic is a fallacy.
Let me elaborate.
Feminist 40k actually attacked the community. Anyone who disagreed with them, even politely, had their comments removed and were shamed. They actually told a woman that she should be grateful for them, otherwise gamers would be yanking her tits out at the table. They made false accusations of rape and death threats (to a bunch of dudes).
You think you can just do this and NOT piss people off?
Of course you're going to get ridiculed. And rightfully so.
They are not victims. Half of the things they claimed to have happened have ZERO evidence.
They embodied an idea, and that idea is not infallible. Ideas can be dissected, questioned, refuted, and ridiculed.
And if I'm not mistaken, they grabbed a picture of one individual and shamed HIM for being fat and ugly.
unitled wrote: I'm really not trying to force anything anywhere? Fictional Politics is a key part of 40k already.
People like to have representation in their media and to feel welcome participating in their hobby, whether that is in the various online spaces, the officially produced #content or in the physical gaming areas.
Fixed that for you.
40k is set incomprehensibly far away from our own time. Any politics they have are VERY far removed from us. We don't have daemons trying to murderfeth us everywhere we turn. We don't have actual aliens hell bent on crushing us from the stars. Their politics are just a backdrop, an excuse for having plastic soldiers fighting. It's not real.
Representation, I agree on. To a degree. I'm not suggesting that "WHOEVER YOU ARE AND WHATEVER YOU LOOK LIKE MUST BE REPRESENTED". I mean, if that were the case, and you can ONLY play as what represents you, none of us would play anything except Imperial Guard, MAYBE at a pinch an Inquisitor or Sister of Battle.
As far as I see it, the setting is largely fine. There's a few things I'd change for gender's sake (confirm Knights as being polygender, allow the more personalised and bespoke Custodes as being poly too), but that's the setting sorted. Don't forget, setting wise, everything except Sisters of Battle, Sisters of Silence, Space Marines, Chaos Space Marine and Custodes are the only confirmed MONO ONLY factions. And if we're thinking about how many make up each faction in universe, there are probably more Sisters in one Order than every Loyalist Chapter combined. 1,000,000 Sisters per Major Order? It's not implausible, I think (correct me if wrong!)
Chaos are a little strange too - due to the whole warpyness of them all and "unorthodox" methods of creation/augmentation, I'd far more readily accept female CSM than female SM. And, as I said, I would rather Custodes be poly, rather than mono.
So, when all's said and done, we have lots of polygender factions (stuff like Harlequins, AdMech, Guardsmen, Militarum, Inquisition, Eldar, Tau, etc etc), lots of agender factions (Orks, Daemons, Tyranids, Necrons to some extent - their higher ranking officers identify by male and female genders, but no physiological difference), and four/five monogender factions, with a 3:2 Male:Female ratio. Not that bad, on paper!
The issue is in the representation IRL - not in the setting. IRL, we have so many SM factions, splinters of a rare and elite group hardly any in-universe ever see. We don't have a great access to discernible female parts for Guardsmen or Harlequins (I think?), and both kinds of Sisters are so obscure and limited in opportunity for collection that it's shameful.
So, no, I still disagree with you. The setting being xenophobic, being totalitarian, being regressive, DOESN'T MATTER. What matters is that it's not being represented accurately in the real world, because somehow, it's MORE regressive IRL than in the lore.
Institutional racism is evident in the actions of police (the amount of minorities killed/detained versus white people), the poverty rate (minorities have higher poverty rates than whites), the prison system (far more incarcerated minorities), attitude towards white Christian immigrants versus nonwhite immigrants, etc.
It is also evident in the subconcious of many people - people tend to associate minorities more with crime and poverty, and things like that.
It isn’t segregation or slavery, but it’s still pretty terrible.
Eldarsif wrote: Those arguing that men are oversexualized in comic are obviously not women as these masculine representations are almost all the time power fantasies for men. Unless you want to argue that heterosexual men know what women want - insert Mel Gibson movie joke -.
Women in comics have historically been drawn for heterosexual men which is why they are oversexualized and put into impossible poses.
If you want to see how something is oversexualized for certain groups of gay men I suggest checking out the works of Tom of Finland. If you really want to draw parallels between Tom's work and hypermuscular men in comics then there is really nothing to discuss. Discussion without nuance is no discussion at all.
I am seriously shaking my head at the idea that some guys are arguing that I should find Jim Lee's Batman sexualized and attractive. There is literally nothing attractive about that Batman or Batman in general.
And now you are guilty of the same old thing as others, assuming who finds what sexy, YOU dont find batman sexy, woman do, not all woman, but some do.
And yes the same old tired "power fantasy" trope comes out to play, but again, double standards are kicking in, how is wonder woman not a power fantasy but superman is?
My sister loves how "sexy and strong" wonder woman is, her words, My older Niece loves catwoman and thinks someone that "badass" wouldnt give a crap and would use how she looks as a weapon (again, her take on it).
So shake your head all you like, because you are making the generalisations here AND assuming you know what woman want and how they think, let alone what anyone finds "sexy"
If I have misunderstood what you are saying, I apologise in advance.
You are assuming that there haven't been changes in the comic industry to address these issues we are talking about(changes that some here have voiced complaints about as some SJW conspiracy because there is apparently always some conspiracy agenda). Also, the original argument was that Batman is sexy and I was refuting that. Now, if we want to talk about whether Christian Bale is sexy I am all for it, no argument from me there. You are however going into a completely different direction with the argument. However, I am a kind mistress so I'll address some of your points.
Wonder Woman has taken huge changes in the past 10 years and with the new Wonder Woman film I could argue that we have a new feminist icon. Is it flawed? Sure, but I know victories and changes are done in steps at a time. Catwoman has also taken some strides, but Wonder Woman is still far ahead(but I did like Nolan's Catwoman), but Catwoman will most likely continue to evolve like all other characters with the changing of times. This does not change the fact that artists tend to draw a lot of female superheroes in suggestive and seductive poses that are very obviously objectifying and oversexualized(again, this is slowly changing, but it is changing because fans are voicing their concerns). This is in stark comparison to the male superhero who stands stoically watching his city for crime. I mean, I would love to see how many men could tantalize their partners standing stoic with one foot on a small stool, just standing there staring into oblivion and not acknowledging your existence. I mean, it could work in some BDSM roleplays for sure. You could maybe argue Batman is sexy in a rubber fetish way, but even then it's a bit of a stretch(latex pun intended), but who knows there might be a rubber fetishist out there that finds it sexy. I can't really argue against that.
Unrelated to all this I just want more women in wargaming and plastic sisters. Sadly I know way too many women that have avoided and/or left wargaming due to attitudes in the community. Now, before someone starts to accuse me of arguing about toxicity in the community I would like to point out that it only requires a few to make the community unwelcome. When somebody finds the community unwelcome it may very well be a minority that is causing it, but the problem is still there. Which gives us two options: A ) Somebody opens discussion about it and we help each other to change it or B ) We silence those voices. When women and other minority groups are opening a dialogue it is because they want to expand the community. However, if they just get called SJW or whatever buzzword is popular at the time it is the community saying that they are not welcome, even though it is just a few individuals.
Ultimately I tend to avoid these discussions as I know they will get nowhere. Most of the changes are done on the macro level which is why I am personally glad to see underrepresented and new groups taking their thoughts and ideas straight to GW. Also, with the new way GW is run I can imagine there might be changes coming over the years. It will be baby steps, but they will be changes. Who knows, maybe in 10 years we'll be in an ever better state. I can only hope to be there to see it.
Institutionalized cannot be individual. There must be overwhelming evidence in both action and policy to demonstrate it. To simply point at the system and claim it is a problem discounts every other contributing factor.
Saying the system is racist or sexist simply insulates individuals away from the consequence of their decisions. Because the action does not matter, the system got you and the outcome was already determined.
So again, show me overwhelming action and policy demonstrating that the system is rigged against these people. I can point at policy showing it is rigged in their favor.
unitled wrote: Because literally every single one of these things has happened in feminist40k. It's an old cliche that any thread on feminism justifies the need for itself because of the responses to it.
Circular Logic is a fallacy.
Let me elaborate.
Feminist 40k actually attacked the community. Anyone who disagreed with them, even politely, had their comments removed and were shamed. They actually told a woman that she should be grateful for them, otherwise gamers would be yanking her tits out at the table. They made false accusations of rape and death threats (to a bunch of dudes).
You think you can just do this and NOT piss people off?
Of course you're going to get ridiculed. And rightfully so.
They are not victims. Half of the things they claimed to have happened have ZERO evidence.
They embodied an idea, and that idea is not infallible. Ideas can be dissected, questioned, refuted, and ridiculed.
And if I'm not mistaken, they grabbed a picture of one individual and shamed HIM for being fat and ugly.
I must admit Ive only been in the feminist40k fb group for maybe 6 months but Ive seen literlly none of the things you have mentioned. If this is what the group has done historically Im very happy to condemn it. Consider my comments rather supportive more broadly of feminism in 40k than a particular group who may or may not be feminists.
My comments on politics out of games were intended to be more lighthearted due to the irony of wanting such a politicised fictional world to be render immune from politics outside it, but remember the nugget of it was always a satire of real world politics,especially in the 80s. Along very similar lines to 2000ad!
That all said,Ive seen a depressing number of people posting pictures of T**** as the god emperor recentlt too... Somehow missing the point entirely.
I am seriously shaking my head at the idea that some guys are arguing that I should find Jim Lee's Batman sexualized and attractive. There is literally nothing attractive about that Batman or Batman in general.
Purifying Tempest wrote: Institutionalized cannot be individual. There must be overwhelming evidence in both action and policy to demonstrate it. To simply point at the system and claim it is a problem discounts every other contributing factor.
Saying the system is racist or sexist simply insulates individuals away from the consequence of their decisions. Because the action does not matter, the system got you and the outcome was already determined.
So again, show me overwhelming action and policy demonstrating that the system is rigged against these people. I can point at policy showing it is rigged in their favor.
If the system is “rigged in their favor”, why is there increased police brutality, poverty rates, and incarceration rates amongst minorities? Why do judges give minorities harsher sentences than whites?
Institutional racism is also racism by individuals or informal social groups,[1] governed by behavioral norms that support racist thinking and foment active racism. It is reflected in disparities regarding wealth, income, criminal justice, employment, housing, health care, political power and education, among other things. Source, the definition of instutuionalized racism.
Okay? And if it said something else, it would make a difference somehow?
Well, it would prevent similar deluge of 'lore concerned' whiners that appear every time when someone wants to convert a female space marine plaguing future attempt to create female Custodes.
And overall, this was a good opportunity to give players a lore friendly way to have female superhuman soldiers.
Okay? And if it said something else, it would make a difference somehow?
Well, it would prevent similar deluge of 'lore concerned' whiners that appear every time when someone wants to convert a female space marine plaguing future attempt to create female Custodes.
And overall, this was a good opportunity to give players a lore friendly way to have female superhuman soldiers.
I think it's also a good idea purely due to the level of care that goes into each Custodian. More personalisation, more power to the player.
That's not evidence of institutionalized racism. For perspective, it's not like the prisons are just full of people the cops nabbed up on the streets at random. I'm pretty sure we have a trial system where you must be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt based on evidence.
Seeing a problem and labeling the cause of it 'racism' without actual evidence that it's racism is just grasping at straws and not dealing with the core of the actual issues.
Eldarsif wrote: You are assuming that there haven't been changes in the comic industry to address these issues we are talking about(changes that some here have voiced complaints about as some SJW conspiracy because there is apparently always some conspiracy agenda). Also, the original argument was that Batman is sexy and I was refuting that. Now, if we want to talk about whether Christian Bale is sexy I am all for it, no argument from me there. You are however going into a completely different direction with the argument. However, I am a kind mistress so I'll address some of your points.
YOU don't find Batman sexy. That's still not making it a universal truth. It still doesn't address the issue- why aren't male superheroes drawn balding? With potbellies? Skinny arms? Oh, wait, it's because we're idealizing the human form. It's okay for guys to like big, unrealistic breasts. It's okay for people to draw them. It's okay if you dislike them. If you don't like them, feel free to express that but please don't dress it up like it's 'damaging' women. If anyone gets damaged by cartoon drawings, they need to get professional help or life's going to suck when they encounter REAL people that look sexy.
Eldarsif wrote: Unrelated to all this I just want more women in wargaming and plastic sisters. Sadly I know way too many women that have avoided and/or left wargaming due to attitudes in the community. Now, before someone starts to accuse me of arguing about toxicity in the community I would like to point out that it only requires a few to make the community unwelcome. When somebody finds the community unwelcome it may very well be a minority that is causing it, but the problem is still there. Which gives us two options: A ) Somebody opens discussion about it and we help each other to change it or B ) We silence those voices. When women and other minority groups are opening a dialogue it is because they want to expand the community. However, if they just get called SJW or whatever buzzword is popular at the time it is the community saying that they are not welcome, even though it is just a few individuals.
All right, let me help you out here. Perspective- I'm not saying YOU do this. But hear me out:
Is there a problem in your community? If so, deal with it. Like you said, it's a very small number. Should be easy enough to handle, right? Going online and asking for sympathies is not asking for results. Results only happen when you take action. If someone is being a pig or a perv, deal with it. Most times I've seen this, the person is mentally ill or has some severe social problem. Deal with it, and if it persists? Start naming the places.
Call me a jerk, but all these horrid stories about places where women have been made to feel unwelcome- and not a single one of them has the courage to name the place. In the era of Social Media, where something like that can QUICKLY have a store owner dealing with the problem, it's like this never happens.
But a word of advice: Shotgun-blasting an entire community and telling them how they're full of racists and sexists? Yeah, good luck getting your voice heard. You wanna roll up into a hobby I enjoy, without knowing me or my thoughts, and label me some sort of bigot? Or even better- a 'Basement dwelling neckbeard virgin'- you know, like the sort of thing an outsider would say that doesn't know anything about the hobby or the actual people in it? Yeah, you're gonna get hostility.
More perspective: I go into a pub for the first time. "Wow, all this baseball stuff is so awesome. But you know, it'd be better if this were also a basketball theme!" People are going to look at me like "Who the hell are you?" And if all I do is complain about the people there- you're damned right I'm gonna feel unwelcome after a bit. I SHOULD.
I don't want 'more women' in gaming- I want more gamers in gaming. I don't care if they're women, men, black, or white. I want them to be here because what we have is awesome to them, and they want to have fun. I'm not in the business of specifically recruiting demographics. Literally no one is unwelcome at any of my tables, unless you're a troublemaker or drama-queen (or you put ranch on pizza).
Again, I say- if you are having difficulty with women being a part of your community- I don't know what to tell you. I'm an a-hole and I've never had a group that didn't have women in it. Maybe the more 'feminist' communities are just full of a certain type of guy, and as I understand those types aren't very... appealing to the opposite sex.
But yeah, I also want plastic sisters. If for no other reason than I'm sick of hearing people bring it up all the time.
But kudos, at least you're not calling people sexists because we don't want female space marines.
Crimson wrote: Well, it would prevent similar deluge of 'lore concerned' whiners that appear every time when someone wants to convert a female space marine plaguing future attempt to create female Custodes.
If people not liking what you create concerns you that much, to a point where you won't do it- then perhaps you are in the hobby for the wrong reasons.
I use Heresy-Era armor on my CSM. A lot of people dislike it.
I don't care, because I am in this for myself and not to provide others with a service.
unitled wrote: I must admit Ive only been in the feminist40k fb group for maybe 6 months but Ive seen literlly none of the things you have mentioned. If this is what the group has done historically Im very happy to condemn it. Consider my comments rather supportive more broadly of feminism in 40k than a particular group who may or may not be feminists.
Then I challenge you to disagree with them. Firm, but polite.
Watch your comments get zapped.
unitled wrote: That all said,Ive seen a depressing number of people posting pictures of T**** as the god emperor recentlt too... Somehow missing the point entirely.
It's also a satire joke, man. Most of the Trump memes are just out there to be absurd. Triggering people on the fringe left is just a bonus.
Again, demonstrated which institution is racist, point a finger at it... demonstrate HOW they qualify as justly deserving the title, and I will gladly grab some prometheum and we can all happily purge some rather unsavory aspects of society.
Is it so odd to look at what the police does as a consequence to the actions of people? Is it odd to consider that a judge looks beyond the simple act and looks into the motives and intents of the accused when deciding on a sentence? Are poverty rates tied to the policy of an organization or the actions of a people, or even individuals? Plenty of people fail in life. People from all races and cultures find themselves 1-upped by the machine. Is that machine discriminatory towards them as a race, or them as individuals? Is it because of their race, or because of their choices? Are Ben Carson, Colon Powell, Tiger Woods, Barack Obama, all these examples of powerful men from a "systemically disadvantaged" group the results of their race... did they sell out to the system to make their way, or did they simply make good decisions that made them competitive in life?
Just like in 40k, I was not offered a range of models that I was 100% content with. I wanted some female representation in my forces, because I like the notion and the story of powerful people doing powerful things, regardless of race or gender. Everyone loves an underdog story. In the grim darkness of the 41st Millennium there are still INDIVIDUALS succeeding regardless of the galaxy burning around them. The gender simply allows one to stamp a narrative to their own army, to personalize and customize it.
GW gave us a medium to express that, and the not-so-subtle nudge to take it beyond gray plastic pieces of a spru. That's why they make green stuff and sell it to you. If you want to play Farseer Macha and are upset because HER MODEL is not represented, then make it. Make a good decision instead of sitting on your butts and bitching that the model doesn't exist.
See? Decision-based outcome. The "system" was rigged against me, because I have no Farseer Macha. I could complain until GW made the model, but I'd probably be dead or long moved on from the hobby. Instead, I could just... create my own. Much like a business in the real world. And if I do a great job, maybe others will want me to make them one, or make their own. The idea spreads enough that maybe, just maybe, one day GW says: wow, Macha is super popular. We always see kitbashed Macha's on the table. We are losing revenue over a very easy, simple sculpt. Then guess what? YOU HAVE AN OFFICIAL MACHA KIT! I affected the system by showing them a demand for something they didn't know they needed. And I never once had to shout foul or cry over it. I simply did what GW told me to do: make my army MY ARMY.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Evidence of what you can do with ALL GW supplied pieces:
unitled wrote: I must admit Ive only been in the feminist40k fb group for maybe 6 months but Ive seen literlly none of the things you have mentioned. If this is what the group has done historically Im very happy to condemn it. Consider my comments rather supportive more broadly of feminism in 40k than a particular group who may or may not be feminists.
Then I challenge you to disagree with them. Firm, but polite.
Watch your comments get zapped.
unitled wrote: That all said,Ive seen a depressing number of people posting pictures of T**** as the god emperor recentlt too... Somehow missing the point entirely.
It's also a satire joke, man. Most of the Trump memes are just out there to be absurd. Triggering people on the fringe left is just a bonus.
What am I disagreeing with them on? Like I say, I've only been in the group 6 months or so and I haven't seen anything other feminists largely enjoying their hobby? People sharing their models and paintjobs.
Purifying Tempest wrote: GW gave us a medium to express that, and the not-so-subtle nudge to take it beyond gray plastic pieces of a spru. That's why they make green stuff and sell it to you. If you want to play Farseer Macha and are upset because HER MODEL is not represented, then make it. Make a good decision instead of sitting on your butts and bitching that the model doesn't exist.
I disliked that Black Templars didn't have decent 'Crusader' helmets. I fixed that. I didn't demand GW make it.
It's that, "I'd like that better if it had a little improvement here" thing that keeps all those third-party guys in Poland in business, and I like it that way.
Purifying Tempest wrote: Institutionalized cannot be individual. There must be overwhelming evidence in both action and policy to demonstrate it. To simply point at the system and claim it is a problem discounts every other contributing factor.
Saying the system is racist or sexist simply insulates individuals away from the consequence of their decisions. Because the action does not matter, the system got you and the outcome was already determined.
So again, show me overwhelming action and policy demonstrating that the system is rigged against these people. I can point at policy showing it is rigged in their favor.
If the system is “rigged in their favor”, why is there increased police brutality, poverty rates, and incarceration rates amongst minorities? Why do judges give minorities harsher sentences than whites?
Institutional racism is also racism by individuals or informal social groups,[1] governed by behavioral norms that support racist thinking and foment active racism. It is reflected in disparities regarding wealth, income, criminal justice, employment, housing, health care, political power and education, among other things. Source, the definition of instutuionalized racism.
This is just blatantly wrong.
Police are more likely to use minor force, such as their hands, handcuffs and pointing of weapons against blacks, but it's not by a lot. (Point weapon is 54 incidences to 43, pepper spray or baton is 5 to 4, handcuffs is 310 to 266, e.t.c.). Regarding what most people would call police brutality, actual violence and shooting, data says there is the OPPOSITE: police are more likely to shoot whites than anyone else. Specifically, that officers are more likely to shoot whites WITHOUT being attacked first than other racial groups. This is from a study conducted by Roland G. Fryer, Jr. of Harvard, who called it "the most surprising result of my career". Even the New York Times wrote that the "result contradicts the image of police shootings that many Americans hold...".
Poverty rates are fluid but they don't apply to all minorities equally, same for incarceration rates. Regarding poverty, Non-Hispanic Whites and Asians are fairly close (8.8% and 10.1%). Non-White Hispanics and Blacks are the outliers: 22% for Blacks and 19.4% for Non-White Hispanics. Source:
There are non-racial explanations for this, however. In the case of Non-White Hispanics, many of them are non-citizen residents. This class of individual is MUCH more likely to live in poverty (12.3% of native born citizens in poverty vs. 19.5% foreign born non-citizens and 10% for naturalized citizens). By contrast, Black poverty can be explained by high incarceration and prevalence of criminal records, which I'll get to next.
Non-Hispanic Whites are 39% of our incarcerated population. Non-White Hispanics are 19%. Blacks are 40%.
The reason for this goes directly to your question about judges: Judges are not racist and don't just punish Blacks more because we're all closet racists. They do it because of mandatory minimums.
The most famous example of which are crack vs. cocaine. Blacks and urban people are more likely to use crack than cocaine. Crack has a higher mandatory minimum. The law is dumb and it's having a racial consequence simply due to favored use trends in different regions of the United States, but that doesn't mean it was motivated by race or that things are rigged against minorities.
Institutionalized racism is a myth born from surface level analysis. There's always gonna be some people who are actually racists (or jerks/morons, take your pick), but the idea that there is some huge institutional, ingrained racism is nothing but a fictional talking point and shouldn't be governing a miniature war game.
unitled wrote: What am I disagreeing with them on? Like I say, I've only been in the group 6 months or so and I haven't seen anything other feminists largely enjoying their hobby? People sharing their models and paintjobs.
1- Say you think Space Marines should all be men, and that Sisters should all be women. Just do that and watch what happens. If not this, find any point they make and dispute it POLITELY. Watch.
2- Ask what happened to their feminist cosplayer that left and took people with her.
after completely abandoning 40k due to 8th as a tabletop, I like more female models so my RPG players have more representation. With the AoSrpg coming out soon I was glad to see female stormcast as I have a player "chomping at the bit" to play one of those golden turds.
unitled wrote: What am I disagreeing with them on? Like I say, I've only been in the group 6 months or so and I haven't seen anything other feminists largely enjoying their hobby? People sharing their models and paintjobs.
1- Say you think Space Marines should all be men, and that Sisters should all be women. Just do that and watch what happens. If not this, find any point they make and dispute it POLITELY. Watch.
2- Ask what happened to their feminist cosplayer that left and took people with her.
Easier than saying "Sending them into hysterics for the lulz"
Right... but what if I don't? I think Primaris was actually a really good opportunity to introduce some women into the marines, and I understand why people are upset they didn't. It isn't going to stop me playing or collecting though (I don't collect Imperials anyway). If people want to communicate with GW what they feel about this, it doesn't bother me at all. I have no idea what the cosplayer drama is about, and frankly I don't care. A google search doesn't show up anything. Fundamentally, though: what's wrong with people policing their own facebook group? If people don't gel with the values of a group, showing them the door is the right thing to do. Not every space is a space for debate, some places are for people to relax and talk about what they have in common.
Also: I didn't see a single 'fringe leftist' sent into HYSTERICS by those memes. People just saw them as eye-rollingly pathetic. Everyone knows the right can't meme anyway
Crimson wrote: I'd like to politely point out that only person who has been somewhat hysterically in this thread is you...
And I'm not particularly concerned if I hurt your feelings with my comment. I think I've been pretty straightforward and I haven't attacked anyone directly. If you can't refute an argument, and want to go that route then go right ahead. Be. My. Guest.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
unitled wrote: Right... but what if I don't? I think Primaris was actually a really good opportunity to introduce some women into the marines, and I understand why people are upset they didn't. It isn't going to stop me playing or collecting though (I don't collect Imperials anyway). If people want to communicate with GW what they feel about this, it doesn't bother me at all. I have no idea what the cosplayer drama is about, and frankly I don't care. A google search doesn't show up anything. Fundamentally, though: what's wrong with people policing their own facebook group? If people don't gel with the values of a group, showing them the door is the right thing to do. Not every space is a space for debate, some places are for people to relax and talk about what they have in common.
Then I disagree.
You don't care that men ran women out of a feminist community? Cool, I look forward to seeing more posts in that group where the members can't figure out why there aren't more female voices in the group.
I have a screenshot of this, too.
unitled wrote: Also: I didn't see a single 'fringe leftist' sent into HYSTERICS by those memes. People just saw them as eye-rollingly pathetic. Everyone knows the right can't meme anyway
"The right can't meme!" - the people who declared war on a cartoon frog
Crimson wrote: I'd like to politely point out that only person who has been somewhat hysterically in this thread is you...
And I'm not particularly concerned if I hurt your feelings with my comment. I think I've been pretty straightforward and I haven't attacked anyone directly. If you can't refute an argument, and want to go that route then go right ahead. Be. My. Guest.
Sorry to disappoint you, but you did not hurt my feelings. It is just that you have been raving about the facebook group, listing bunch of things that may or may not have happened, and accused the OP of being administrator of said group without any solid evidence. It might be more constructive to engage with things that have actually been said here.
I don't want to turn gaming into a segue into identity politics or sociology.
Yeah, why can't people shut up and let me enjoy this game about a fascist society who enforces their xenophobic law through state-sponsored violence without bringing politics into it?
So I'm not allowed to play Chess without thinking about race? Or Othello?
If I play poker, because of the card being made of trees, and trees are being cut down, I should be thinking about the environment?
If I play Risk, I shouldn't be thinking about how to win/enjoy a BOARD GAME, but should instead by thinking about global politics and warfare?
Yeah, I believe there's a thing called "escapism". For some, 40k IS escapism, and I see no reason why that should be wrong. If someone doesn't want to bring politics into a board game for plastic toy soldiers, I think that's a reasonable request.
There's a solid difference between escapism and refusing to think about anything ever. 40K has far more modern-world political origins than chess does. You're bristling at the suggestion that perhaps people should analyse the intellectual content of the things they interact with and offer up "thinking about global politics" as a ridiculous hypothetical conclusion to such behaviour.
The 40K setting is definitely fascist. It's a setting where eternal suspicion, genetic cleansing, war against an incomprehensible alien Other and hatred of compassion is perhaps grim but the only way that things could be. There has to be mass violence based upon the intrinsic qualities of the non-human. It's not just that the Imperium is written as fascists as part of justifying any faction fighting against any other faction in a tabletop game originally based on a mix of Judge Dredd and Dune
Purifying Tempest wrote: Is it odd to consider that a judge looks beyond the simple act and looks into the motives and intents of the accused when deciding on a sentence?
Judges are harsher when they're hungry so you're better off having your case tried just after breakfast or just after lunch. They are human like anyone else so it'd be odder to just assume that they wouldn't have the prejudices of most other people of their social groups.
In all seriousness, this is like the 3rd "feminist" related thread I have seen in our forum in a week. I've seen this before in other hobbies. It starts small then its a full blown genestealer infestation. Those pushing this discussion have an agenda & it has nothing to do with improving the hobby. I will repeat what I have said in the past:
You need only look at Marvel, Magic the Gathering, Hollywood, the new Star Wars movie to see where this road leads. Devastation, ruin, decay & billions in lost revenue everything feminism touches. If anyone thinks 40k lacks diversity, obviously they are ignoring the Sisters of Battle, Sisters of Silence, IG women, Eldar/Dark Eldar women, female Tau..etc
Like I say: I have been in the group for 6 months and I have seen literally none of that behaviour. If it has happened I condemn it, and I would do in person in the group if I saw it. And, as I also mentioned earlier, consider my comments as being on the broader topic of feminist communities, not the feminist40k group in particular.
unitled wrote: Also: I didn't see a single 'fringe leftist' sent into HYSTERICS by those memes. People just saw them as eye-rollingly pathetic. Everyone knows the right can't meme anyway
"The right can't meme!" - the people who declared war on a cartoon frog
Sorry fren: pepe is dead. Remember when /r/the_donald melted down when /r/Sweden demolished them? They were, if you'll excuse the phrase, sent into hysterics.
Crimson wrote: Sorry to disappoint you, bou did not hurt my feelings. It is just that you have been raving about the facebook group, listing bunch of things that may or may not have happened, and accused the OP of being administrator of said group without any solid evidence. It might be more constructive to engage with things that have actually been said here.
Time and time again the arguments have been engaged. And no refutation has occurred. You are now at that moment where you have no argument, and you are simply upset. It's fine. I wasn't trying to shut you down in particular, but before this gets escalated and your emotions get the best of you- you might want to take a breath, and refute an actual argument rather than take umbrage.
And yes, I made that assessment. I even said, I could be wrong. But I doubt I am. I'm very familiar with the page owner's tactics and writing style. Anyone with any experience with the individual in various other groups could attest to that.
And hey, if I was mistaken- the OP certainly went reeling more so than I'd expect.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
unitled wrote: Sorry fren: pepe is dead. Remember when /r/the_donald melted down when /r/Sweden demolished them? They were, if you'll excuse the phrase, sent into hysterics.
Funny, the meme is still pretty active and still sends folks like you screaming about Nazis.
And, isn't Sweden having a bit of a... problem right now? And aren't they known for being really, really dishonest about reporting their actual problems?
I could be wrong. I'm no -huge- fan of Trump, but I support him just as I did Obama. Doesn't mean I agree with him, or like everything he does- but he has my support.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Commissar Benny wrote: In all seriousness, this is like the 3rd "feminist" related thread I have seen in our forum in a week.
They're fading in relevance in the community, they gotta stir the pot.
There's a solid difference between escapism and refusing to think about anything ever. 40K has far more modern-world political origins than chess does. You're bristling at the suggestion that perhaps people should analyse the intellectual content of the things they interact with and offer up "thinking about global politics" as a ridiculous hypothetical conclusion to such behaviour.
The 40K setting is definitely fascist. It's a setting where eternal suspicion, genetic cleansing, war against an incomprehensible alien Other and hatred of compassion is perhaps grim but the only way that things could be. There has to be mass violence based upon the intrinsic qualities of the non-human. It's not just that the Imperium is written as fascists as part of justifying any faction fighting against any other faction in a tabletop game originally based on a mix of Judge Dredd and Dune
Yes, the Imperium is built upon authorianism, millitarism, repression, fanatical zeal, and genocidal cleansing of the entire galaxy (no less). Is it bad that these things appears in what is very clearly fiction?
I like the imperium just as I like Sauron, Mordor and Isengard in LOTR. That doesn't mean I support what they actually represent in real life. But as fiction they are cool. They couldn't be more different from my political views.
You need only look at Marvel, Magic the Gathering, Hollywood, the new Star Wars movie to see where this road leads.
You're speaking about Star Wars, the Last Jedi, one of the most successful films ever?
Everytime certain sort of people in the internet cry about 'feminist ruining' certain films, it turns out those films will be amazing and very successful. Mad Max the Fury Road, Wonder Woman, the Last Jedi. I loved them all, and they all did financially very well.
Crimson wrote: Sorry to disappoint you, bou did not hurt my feelings. It is just that you have been raving about the facebook group, listing bunch of things that may or may not have happened, and accused the OP of being administrator of said group without any solid evidence. It might be more constructive to engage with things that have actually been said here.
Time and time again the arguments have been engaged. And no refutation has occurred. You are now at that moment where you have no argument, and you are simply upset. It's fine. I wasn't trying to shut you down in particular, but before this gets escalated and your emotions get the best of you- you might want to take a breath, and refute an actual argument rather than take umbrage.
And yes, I made that assessment. I even said, I could be wrong. But I doubt I am. I'm very familiar with the page owner's tactics and writing style. Anyone with any experience with the individual in various other groups could attest to that.
And hey, if I was mistaken- the OP certainly went reeling more so than I'd expect.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
unitled wrote: Sorry fren: pepe is dead. Remember when /r/the_donald melted down when /r/Sweden demolished them? They were, if you'll excuse the phrase, sent into hysterics.
Funny, the meme is still pretty active and still sends folks like you screaming about Nazis.
And, isn't Sweden having a bit of a... problem right now? And aren't they known for being really, really dishonest about reporting their actual problems?
I could be wrong. I'm no -huge- fan of Trump, but I support him just as I did Obama. Doesn't mean I agree with him, or like everything he does- but he has my support.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Commissar Benny wrote: In all seriousness, this is like the 3rd "feminist" related thread I have seen in our forum in a week.
They're fading in relevance in the community, they gotta stir the pot.
I can attest to that, and you are right, he still hasnt replied to my breakdown of why "his" Bols article is a bigoted attack on the wargaming community, he thinks its fine, he is delusional.
You need only look at Marvel, Magic the Gathering, Hollywood, the new Star Wars movie to see where this road leads.
You're speaking about Star Wars, the Last Jedi, one of the most successful films ever?
Everytime certain sort of people in the internet cry about 'feminist ruining' certain films, it turns out those films will be amazing and very successful. Mad Max the Fury Road, Wonder Woman, the Last Jedi. I loved them all, and they all did financially very well.
Financially successful sure, one of the most successful films of all time, not even close, not even remotely, just over to the SWTLJ thread if you want to continue this discussion.
The Last Jedi is the 9th most grossing film of all time. What are you people talking about? Only Star Wars the Force Awakens (Another SJW movie because the female and black protagonists) did more money than it, talking about the SW saga. (If you adjust inflation it goes down yeah, but not so much, Force Awakens should be rank 7-8 even with inflation for example)
Time and time again the arguments have been engaged. And no refutation has occurred. You are now at that moment where you have no argument, and you are simply upset. It's fine. I wasn't trying to shut you down in particular, but before this gets escalated and your emotions get the best of you- you might want to take a breath, and refute an actual argument rather than take umbrage.
I think you're projecting now. I'm not really sure what your argument is besides talking gak about the FB group (which may or may not be true) and posting meme pics.
And yes, I made that assessment. I even said, I could be wrong. But I doubt I am. I'm very familiar with the page owner's tactics and writing style. Anyone with any experience with the individual in various other groups could attest to that.
And hey, if I was mistaken- the OP certainly went reeling more so than I'd expect.
It is not constructive to make such claims based mere hunch.
You need only look at Marvel, Magic the Gathering, Hollywood, the new Star Wars movie to see where this road leads.
You're speaking about Star Wars, the Last Jedi, one of the most successful films ever?
Everytime certain sort of people in the internet cry about 'feminist ruining' certain films, it turns out those films will be amazing and very successful. Mad Max the Fury Road, Wonder Woman, the Last Jedi. I loved them all, and they all did financially very well.
While the Last Jedi clearly sucked (for reasons entirely unrelated to feminism) Fury Road was an awesome movie. I really cannot think of a great movie that was ruined by political correctness, but I can hardly think of one that was made better by it either. Strong female characters are great when their characterisation works, and when they are interesting, relatable and awesome. But the exact same is true of super-macho characters, like Quaid in Total Recall or Slaine in the comic-book series.
You need only look at Marvel, Magic the Gathering, Hollywood, the new Star Wars movie to see where this road leads.
You're speaking about Star Wars, the Last Jedi, one of the most successful films ever?
Everytime certain sort of people in the internet cry about 'feminist ruining' certain films, it turns out those films will be amazing and very successful. Mad Max the Fury Road, Wonder Woman, the Last Jedi. I loved them all, and they all did financially very well.
The Last Jedi had an historical week-to-week drop. It started amazing because of TFA but then dropped. The WSJ reports that performed less than expected (and is easy to understand why). I did not see WW and I loved MM:FR, absolutely loved it. TLJ is one of the worst written movies ever but the "feminist"* pandering is not even in the top 10 of its problems. The movie has potentially alienated part of the fanbase. We discussed, and still discuss it, in the appropriate part of the board, in two threads (one closed, one not) with a lot elements described and analyzed. * I would argue against the term because I think that a true feminist would be annoyed at women characters written like that
I agree thought that The Last Jedi is a horrible movie. But I haven't been a fan of star wars to begin with... for me, the worst part of the SW universe is the movies.
I recognized the style of the OP too, someone using academic langauge (explained) to brooch a dangerous subject. In neither his style nor line of thinking do I see clear evidence pointing to one particular FB page. I have read many threads like this on many forums and really none of it is new and none of it specific enough that I would brazenly declare knowing who OP is.
I love reading these threads where feminists pretend to love/ always loved 40k.... yet
1.Don't like the model range due to lack of diversity (ignore the fact that all models grey and the only thing separating a female and male space marine is a head swap)
2. Don't like the lore because of lack of diversity (ignoring that GW encourages you to make your own lore and unique army)
3. Don't like the player base because of lack of diversity/ everyone is a bigot/fascist/racist ect.
I'm always curious what exactly you like about 40k? Or is the truth that you simply want to turn someone else's hobby into your so that we have to be miserable people that cant enjoy anything without feeling oppressed about 10000 different things
Earth127 wrote: I recognized the style of the OP too, someone using academic langauge (explained) to brooch a dangerous subject. In neither his style nor line of thinking do I see clear evidence pointing to one particular FB page. I have read many threads like this on many forums and really none of it is new and none of it specific enough that I would brazenly declare knowing who OP is.
I have to respectfully disagree, I have read enough of the Fem40k admins stuff to recognise his style, while I may be wrong, I still think its the same person, It wasnt just me thinking this either, but as I said, I may be wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galas wrote: I agree thought that The Last Jedi is a horrible movie. But I haven't been a fan of star wars to begin with... for me, the worst part of the SW universe is the movies.
Nerak wrote: If this thread isn't at least 16 pages by tomorrow morning I'm going to be very upset.
Contributing to the cause! I don't want to disappoint Nerak in the morning
Also: more shameless promoing for my super macho, all male with raging testosterone conversions for my army. Only 1 non-GW piece used in all 3 of these models (the head on the sister), everything else supplied by the super-sexist GW.
I think the "missile tits" were a great touch, btw. Very Slaanesh, there's 6 of 'em, just like the Forgeworld Keeper of Secrets or whatever it calls itself these days.
Commissar Benny wrote: [
You need only look at Marvel, Magic the Gathering, Hollywood, the new Star Wars movie to see where this road leads. Devastation, ruin, decay & billions in lost revenue everything feminism touches.
This is entirely incorrect.
Commissar Benny wrote: [If anyone thinks 40k lacks diversity, obviously they are ignoring the Sisters of Battle, Sisters of Silence, IG women, Eldar/Dark Eldar women, female Tau..etc
Anyone ignoring women in the Imperial Guard are doing mostly what GW has done. Maybe something was snuck out in the past few years or maybe FW did something but I can't recall a single guardswoman model. Sisters of Battle aren't a great example because of their lack of support (plus the whole "it's the woman army" thing). The Custodes, a faction known mainly for staying on Earth, has received more plastic models than the SoB. GW just haven't put a lot of effort into fleshing the SoB out as an army.
Yes, the Imperium is built upon authorianism, millitarism, repression, fanatical zeal, and genocidal cleansing of the entire galaxy (no less). Is it bad that these things appears in what is very clearly fiction?
What makes the 40K setting fascist isn't that the Imperium has those qualities. it's that they're written as largely justified because that's just how the galaxy works.
The 40k setting his a parody, they aren't justified, is just that the galaxy sucks and everybody is horrible, like the Negative Universes of DC (I don't know if you have read Dark Nights: Metal)... and I don't know if you have realised that since Guilliman was resurrected they have been doing the good work of putting the Imperium that follow Guilliman as the good guys. Thats why he put aside all the Lords of Terra, those old and incompetent bad guys!
Is hard to marketing your setting to the widder audience when the "protagonists" are space-Nazis/KKK. Personally I prefer the grimdark, warhammer setting, I have always defended that the Imperium of man are the Great Devourer, not the Tyranids, but some people will "abuse" me for saying that... eh Sgt_Smudge?
Commissar Benny wrote: [
You need only look at Marvel, Magic the Gathering, Hollywood, the new Star Wars movie to see where this road leads. Devastation, ruin, decay & billions in lost revenue everything feminism touches.
This is entirely incorrect.
Commissar Benny wrote: [If anyone thinks 40k lacks diversity, obviously they are ignoring the Sisters of Battle, Sisters of Silence, IG women, Eldar/Dark Eldar women, female Tau..etc
Anyone ignoring women in the Imperial Guard are doing mostly what GW has done. Maybe something was snuck out in the past few years or maybe FW did something but I can't recall a single guardswoman model. Sisters of Battle aren't a great example because of their lack of support (plus the whole "it's the woman army" thing). The Custodes, a faction known mainly for staying on Earth, has received more plastic models than the SoB. GW just haven't put a lot of effort into fleshing the SoB out as an army.
Yes, the Imperium is built upon authorianism, millitarism, repression, fanatical zeal, and genocidal cleansing of the entire galaxy (no less). Is it bad that these things appears in what is very clearly fiction?
What makes the 40K setting fascist isn't that the Imperium has those qualities. it's that they're written as largely justified because that's just how the galaxy works.
The Marvel Execs seem to think its hurt their sales, MTG lost an estimated 8 million players over this too, although I very much doubt those numbers as the source is not as reliable as I would like, Star Wars has lost money for many many reasons, the perceived SJW issue is just one of them, Hollywood is completely correct, its overrun with entitled jackasses, but what else is new there
So he isnt totally wrong, just lacking clear proof.
Galas wrote: I like the imperium just as I like Sauron, Mordor and Isengard in LOTR. That doesn't mean I support what they actually represent in real life. But as fiction they are cool. They couldn't be more different from my political views.
Yep, exactly.
People who seem to identify with the Imperium a bit too much worry me...
Asmodios wrote: I love reading these threads where feminists pretend to love/ always loved 40k.... yet
1.Don't like the model range due to lack of diversity (ignore the fact that all models grey and the only thing separating a female and male space marine is a head swap)
2. Don't like the lore because of lack of diversity (ignoring that GW encourages you to make your own lore and unique army)
3. Don't like the player base because of lack of diversity/ everyone is a bigot/fascist/racist ect.
I'm always curious what exactly you like about 40k? Or is the truth that you simply want to turn someone else's hobby into your so that we have to be miserable people that cant enjoy anything without feeling oppressed about 10000 different things
You know you can enjoy something and acknowledge it has issues right? Also, I started on GW over 20 years ago and proud to call myself a feminist. At what point does this become 'my' hobby?
Asmodios wrote: I love reading these threads where feminists pretend to love/ always loved 40k.... yet
1.Don't like the model range due to lack of diversity (ignore the fact that all models grey and the only thing separating a female and male space marine is a head swap)
2. Don't like the lore because of lack of diversity (ignoring that GW encourages you to make your own lore and unique army)
3. Don't like the player base because of lack of diversity/ everyone is a bigot/fascist/racist ect.
I'm always curious what exactly you like about 40k? Or is the truth that you simply want to turn someone else's hobby into your so that we have to be miserable people that cant enjoy anything without feeling oppressed about 10000 different things
You know you can enjoy something and acknowledge it has issues right? Also, I started on GW over 20 years ago and proud to call myself a feminist. At what point does this become 'my' hobby?
Never, in the same way it will never become "my" hobby, being a feminist has nothing to do with it, just as if i was a misandryst (SP?) would have no bearing either, such is life.
Crimson wrote: I think you're projecting now. I'm not really sure what your argument is besides talking gak about the FB group (which may or may not be true) and posting meme pics.
If you don't know what my argument is, you're still too focused on the little bruise I dealt to your ego about making things regardless of whether or not it's lore-friendly.
Crimson wrote: It is not constructive to make such claims based mere hunch.
It's not when you're wrong.
And in a lot of cases, where I've seen this thing posted before- I wouldn't have made this leap. But, I've read the OP's exact style, phrasing, and references a multitude of times on the very page we're talking about. This is neither the first nor last time they've done this. In fact, their entire reaction to being 'named without being named' is always the exact same. He goes into a panic, and refuses to actually engage a 'debate' or 'discussion' (unless you're agreeing with him), and then plays victim because he really, really hates the fact that people found out 'Feminist 40k' is less 'feminism', and more like a bunch of guys that would do anything to get a woman to game with them.
unitled wrote: You know you can enjoy something and acknowledge it has issues right? Also, I started on GW over 20 years ago and proud to call myself a feminist. At what point does this become 'my' hobby?
I like the way you try to craft it as 'having its issues'. What I think you mean to say is "acknowledge the issues that I have with it". Just because you dislike something does not make it a universal fault.
What makes the 40K setting fascist isn't that the Imperium has those qualities. it's that they're written as largely justified because that's just how the galaxy works.
Well it IS how the galaxy works in 40k. It would be a pretty boring wargame without conflict and war. Thankfully it is a fictional empire in a fictional galaxy full of fictional demons and fictional aliens.
Crimson wrote: I think you're projecting now. I'm not really sure what your argument is besides talking gak about the FB group (which may or may not be true) and posting meme pics.
If you don't know what my argument is, you're still too focused on the little bruise I dealt to your ego about making things regardless of whether or not it's lore-friendly.
Crimson wrote: It is not constructive to make such claims based mere hunch.
It's not when you're wrong.
And in a lot of cases, where I've seen this thing posted before- I wouldn't have made this leap. But, I've read the OP's exact style, phrasing, and references a multitude of times on the very page we're talking about. This is neither the first nor last time they've done this. In fact, their entire reaction to being 'named without being named' is always the exact same. He goes into a panic, and refuses to actually engage a 'debate' or 'discussion' (unless you're agreeing with him), and then plays victim because he really, really hates the fact that people found out 'Feminist 40k' is less 'feminism', and more like a bunch of guys that would do anything to get a woman to game with them.
unitled wrote: You know you can enjoy something and acknowledge it has issues right? Also, I started on GW over 20 years ago and proud to call myself a feminist. At what point does this become 'my' hobby?
I like the way you try to craft it as 'having its issues'. What I think you mean to say is "acknowledge the issues that I have with it". Just because you dislike something does not make it a universal fault.
Yep, we agree on this i think, I have asked him twice now to reply to my breakdown of what is wrong with his BOLS article and he still hasnt, show a lack of integrity and moral courage, further hurting his cause, I have asked many many times for him to apologise publicly for that article and attacking the community he pretends to love, this will go a long way to redress the issues people have with him and his political movement, as it stands now he has zero credibility, and his message has suffered for it.
If you don't know what my argument is, you're still too focused on the little bruise I dealt to your ego about making things regardless of whether or not it's lore-friendly.
At this point I'm just honestly confused. I don't even know what the thing you think I'm upset about is.
Formosa wrote: Yep, we agree on this i think, I have asked him twice now to reply to my breakdown of what is wrong with his BOLS article and he still hasnt, show a lack of integrity and moral courage, further hurting his cause, I have asked many many times for him to apologise publicly for that article and attacking the community he pretends to love, this will go a long way to redress the issues people have with him and his political movement, as it stands now he has zero credibility, and his message has suffered for it.
You wanna hear the funny thing?
FEMINIST 40k: "We want female guardsmen!"
EVERYONE: "Oh, yeah- that'd be awesome!"
FEMINIST 40k: "Plastic Sisters, with improved units and the like! And different boob plate options!"
EVERYONE: "YES!"
FEMINIST 40k: "Female characters in 40k!"
EVERYONE: "Hell yeah!"
FEMINIST 40k: "Female Space Marines!"
[only a few people cheer]
FEMINIST 40k: *Posts 5000 word essay on why the Warhammer 40k community is toxic and sexist, and needs to be 'fixed'*
[People are angry for being painted with broad strokes and called disgusting things]
FEMINIST 40k: "See? It's PROOF they hate women!" [in a man's voice]
Earth127 wrote: I recognized the style of the OP too, someone using academic langauge (explained) to brooch a dangerous subject. In neither his style nor line of thinking do I see clear evidence pointing to one particular FB page. I have read many threads like this on many forums and really none of it is new and none of it specific enough that I would brazenly declare knowing who OP is.
If you're familiar with the person, and their writings- you'll see it's a lot more than style. It's references, examples, and 'sources'. Not sure where you're at, but I'm not sure I've encountered too many 'academics' that want female space marines, praise Mao and Marx, make overly-elaborate posts that use more buzzwords than actual facts, and duck and hide from any possible counter-argument.
The 40k community is small, and like I said- if it's a coincidence, it's a pretty damned bizarre one.
Asmodios wrote: I love reading these threads where feminists pretend to love/ always loved 40k.... yet
1.Don't like the model range due to lack of diversity (ignore the fact that all models grey and the only thing separating a female and male space marine is a head swap)
2. Don't like the lore because of lack of diversity (ignoring that GW encourages you to make your own lore and unique army)
3. Don't like the player base because of lack of diversity/ everyone is a bigot/fascist/racist ect.
I'm always curious what exactly you like about 40k? Or is the truth that you simply want to turn someone else's hobby into your so that we have to be miserable people that cant enjoy anything without feeling oppressed about 10000 different things
You know you can enjoy something and acknowledge it has issues right? Also, I started on GW over 20 years ago and proud to call myself a feminist. At what point does this become 'my' hobby?
See the difference between the "feminist" and everybody else is nobody else is trying to fundamentally change what the hobby is. The basic feminist argument seems to be that 1. the background is racist/sexist 2. The models are racist/sexist 3. The people who play are racist/sexist..... Guess what 40k becomes if you 1.change the background 2. change all the models 3. replace all the players.... You all of a sudden dont have 40k and thats what people dont want because we enjoy the setting for what it is.
And all the "issues" for 40k that you see aren't actually issues because of 1. The background is fiction and doesn't hurt anyone 2. The model are grey and don't exclude anyone 3. The Warhammer community is the single most excepting/ nice community I've ever been a part of and I've done everything from play professional sports to the tabletop games.
What makes the 40K setting fascist isn't that the Imperium has those qualities. it's that they're written as largely justified because that's just how the galaxy works.
Well it IS how the galaxy works in 40k. It would be a pretty boring wargame without conflict and war. Thankfully it is a fictional empire in a fictional galaxy full of fictional demons and fictional aliens.
You could definitely have a conflict-ridden 40K galaxy without the setting justifying fascism, though.
I am genuinely confused as to why people think Marx has anything to do with gender. The good man lived in the victorian era (which as you might know was all about strict gender roles) and this is pretty evident in his works. There is absolutely nothing feminist or gender-related in the writings of Karl Marx. Marx wrote about economy, dialectics (especially his theories of dialectical materialism) and related philosophical concepts, social class, societal problems and politics. He was concerned with the welfare of women and wanted to improve their position in society (he wanted to do that for people in general, not just women), but he could hardly be called feminist. He never wrote on gender at all.
So I propose we leave Marx out of this. This discussion is already ridiculous enough.
Rosebuddy wrote: [You could definitely have a conflict-ridden 40K galaxy without the setting justifying fascism, though.
I don't think you're thinking of 'fascism' here correctly, and it's fine- it's normal. Some people think 'fascism' and 'dad' are the same thing.
But keep in mind *why* it's 'justified'.
Humanity is f**cked. Like, literally on the verge of complete annihilation. And their complete annihilation was the only thing that could have 'saved' the galaxy from chaos. Every little thing humanity endures is the best that can possibly be done to ensure survival. That includes annihilating entire planets, conscripting teenagers, sending psykers to be sacrificed, everything is awful.
There is NO other option. There is no 'let's reason with our enemies'. There is no, 'maybe something else would work better'.
What you're calling 'fascism' is only 'justified' here because it's a tool of last resort.
I disagree with that interpretation, Adeptus Doritos, but that is a discussion about the lore so its off topic. And I know my view is not a very popular one.
What makes the 40K setting fascist isn't that the Imperium has those qualities. it's that they're written as largely justified because that's just how the galaxy works.
Well it IS how the galaxy works in 40k. It would be a pretty boring wargame without conflict and war. Thankfully it is a fictional empire in a fictional galaxy full of fictional demons and fictional aliens.
You could definitely have a conflict-ridden 40K galaxy without the setting justifying fascism, though.
In a setting where everything is out to kill you and the only choice is total war, how can you not have fascism? That's where the grimdarkness from the setting comes from. Its not as if a bunch of lords got together and decided to be donkey-caves for the fun of it. They are donkey-caves because the alternative is annihilation. Not to mention that it doesn't even justify fascism to begin with, as unless you are a masochist or insane, you really wouldn't want to live in Imperium.
What makes the 40K setting fascist isn't that the Imperium has those qualities. it's that they're written as largely justified because that's just how the galaxy works.
Well it IS how the galaxy works in 40k. It would be a pretty boring wargame without conflict and war. Thankfully it is a fictional empire in a fictional galaxy full of fictional demons and fictional aliens.
You could definitely have a conflict-ridden 40K galaxy without the setting justifying fascism, though.
You are the reason we cannot have nice things. I jest. Kinda. Look friend. Nothing justifies fascism in 40k. The setting is quite brutal because that is its flavor. If you dont like that flavor kindly sod off and find one you do like. This is why I despise identity politics. There are things you may not enjoy, it does not mean others cannot enjoy that very same thing. It is a game. Played by men and young boys. WIth out these very same men and boys who are horrible sexist pigs, 40k would not exist. But in the end.......
It...........................................is................................................fictional. No one is getting hurt and no one needs representation in this fictional universe. I kindly suggest that you, and "feminist gamers" go find something you like and leave us sexist nazi pigs to enjoy our terrible breeding ground for future fascist's.
What is next up on the alter of diversity? Im sorrry if I am being severe here. I am a liberal but I do not interject my politics where they do not belong, you should not as well.
See the difference between the "feminist" and everybody else is nobody else is trying to fundamentally change what the hobby is. The basic feminist argument seems to be that 1. the background is racist/sexist 2. The models are racist/sexist 3. The people who play are racist/sexist..... Guess what 40k becomes if you 1.change the background 2. change all the models 3. replace all the players.... You all of a sudden dont have 40k and thats what people dont want because we enjoy the setting for what it is.
And all the "issues" for 40k that you see aren't actually issues because of 1. The background is fiction and doesn't hurt anyone 2. The model are grey and don't exclude anyone 3. The Warhammer community is the single most excepting/ nice community I've ever been a part of and I've done everything from play professional sports to the tabletop games.
That's not really the argument, it is caricature of it. It is that representation of females in fluff is lacking and in model form even more lacking. This is at least partly due certain sexist attitudes ingrained in the culture, as is the opposition to addressing this issue. This doesn't mean that the GW designers, or the players are bigots (though of course in huge player base there will be fair share of bigots.) Many people get super defensive when it is pointed out that institutionalised sexism or racism might be a thing. But it is a thing, it affects all of us, and realising this is the first step at trying to address it.
And people want things that about 40K changed all the time. Eldar have almost always been OP as feth, yet most people don't think that asking that to be addressed is somehow ruining 40K.
What makes the 40K setting fascist isn't that the Imperium has those qualities. it's that they're written as largely justified because that's just how the galaxy works.
Well it IS how the galaxy works in 40k. It would be a pretty boring wargame without conflict and war. Thankfully it is a fictional empire in a fictional galaxy full of fictional demons and fictional aliens.
You could definitely have a conflict-ridden 40K galaxy without the setting justifying fascism, though.
The setting doesn't 'justify facism'. The setting takes things that facist regimes have claimed are "emergency powers" and asked "what kind of emergency would you need for this s*** to be actually necessary?"
40k could be read as a condemnation of facism simply by taking a look at the vast array of existential threats and hostile physics in the 41st milennium, and saying "this is how absurd the world has to be before facism becomes defensible".
Crimson wrote: That's not really the argument, it is caricature of it. It is that representation of females in fluff is lacking and in model form even more lacking. This is at least partly due certain sexist attitudes ingrained in the culture, as is the opposition to addressing this issue. This doesn't mean that the GW designers, or the players are bigots (though of course in huge player base there will be fair share of bigots.) Many people get super defensive when it is pointed out that institutionalised sexism or racism might be a thing. But it is a thing, it affects all of us, and realising this is the first step at trying to address it.
Hold on, let me get this straight.
The lack of female models and female characters in the fluff is because of institutionalized racism and sexism. A vast conspiracy to make the womenfolk and Pee-Oh-Seez feel awful. And adding these things will start fixing these societal problems (that no one can provide genuine evidence for).
I just want to make sure I'm summarizing that correctly.
Because it's hilarious, I'm now convinced you're the greatest satirist ever.
See the difference between the "feminist" and everybody else is nobody else is trying to fundamentally change what the hobby is. The basic feminist argument seems to be that 1. the background is racist/sexist 2. The models are racist/sexist 3. The people who play are racist/sexist..... Guess what 40k becomes if you 1.change the background 2. change all the models 3. replace all the players.... You all of a sudden dont have 40k and thats what people dont want because we enjoy the setting for what it is.
And all the "issues" for 40k that you see aren't actually issues because of 1. The background is fiction and doesn't hurt anyone 2. The model are grey and don't exclude anyone 3. The Warhammer community is the single most excepting/ nice community I've ever been a part of and I've done everything from play professional sports to the tabletop games.
That's not really the argument, it is caricature of it. It is that representation of females in fluff is lacking and in model form even more lacking. This is at least partly due certain sexist attitudes ingrained in the culture, as is the opposition to addressing this issue. This doesn't mean that the GW designers, or the players are bigots (though of course in huge player base there will be fair share of bigots.) Many people get super defensive when it is pointed out that institutionalised sexism or racism might be a thing. But it is a thing, it affects all of us, and realising this is the first step at trying to address it.
And people want things that about 40K changed all the time. Eldar have almost always been OP as feth, yet most people don't think that asking that to be addressed is somehow ruining 40K.
So, whats next, getting in a time machine and bitching at the knights templar for being a warrior fraternity? Come on man.
I don't want to turn gaming into a segue into identity politics or sociology.
Yeah, why can't people shut up and let me enjoy this game about a fascist society who enforces their xenophobic law through state-sponsored violence without bringing politics into it?
So I'm not allowed to play Chess without thinking about race? Or Othello?
If I play poker, because of the card being made of trees, and trees are being cut down, I should be thinking about the environment?
If I play Risk, I shouldn't be thinking about how to win/enjoy a BOARD GAME, but should instead by thinking about global politics and warfare?
Yeah, I believe there's a thing called "escapism". For some, 40k IS escapism, and I see no reason why that should be wrong. If someone doesn't want to bring politics into a board game for plastic toy soldiers, I think that's a reasonable request.
There's a solid difference between escapism and refusing to think about anything ever. 40K has far more modern-world political origins than chess does.
Does it really? Considering it was made as a parody of events several decades before now, I don't really see how it can still be classed as contemporary. In my experience of theatre (yeah, I know, not exactly groundbreaking), things that are ten years old aren't even classed as modern. I fail to see how a wargame that's, what, thirty years old? can bring to "modern-world politics".
Again, I'm not saying to "refusing to think about anything ever". I'm saying that a fictional, genre-merging, over-the-top parody wargame about sentient fungi and chainsaw swords isn't the right place to go thinking about it.
Still - so no chess. Why not Othello? Risk?
You're bristling at the suggestion that perhaps people should analyse the intellectual content of the things they interact with and offer up "thinking about global politics" as a ridiculous hypothetical conclusion to such behaviour.
I wouldn't say "bristling" was the right word, but maybe that's how I come across.
If you're suggesting that it's bad to "bristle" at the suggestion "people should analyse the intellectual content of the things they interact with", then my above points on Chess and Risk should still stand, no?
Nothing wrong with thinking and doing things about global politics. But there are FAR better places to do it than a toy soldiers game which a percentage of a percentage of a percentage of the world's population to has ANY experience of.
The 40K setting is definitely fascist. It's a setting where eternal suspicion, genetic cleansing, war against an incomprehensible alien Other and hatred of compassion is perhaps grim but the only way that things could be. There has to be mass violence based upon the intrinsic qualities of the non-human. It's not just that the Imperium is written as fascists as part of justifying any faction fighting against any other faction in a tabletop game originally based on a mix of Judge Dredd and Dune.
You're right. The Imperium of Man is fascist, totalitarian, egalitarian in that EVERYONE is crushed down, xenophobic, hyper-violent, and that's portrayed in a best case scenario as admirable, or in a worst case scenario, as their only means of survival. It's setting where xenophobia, fascism, hatred and violence are the menu of the day, where billions of lives are tossed away because of hatred and war and slaughter, because it's the only way to survive.
And it's all MADE UP.
You heard me.
Unreal.
Fake.
Fictional.
It's all FICTIONAL fascism. There's no daemons out to get you! There's no Inquisition lurking around to burn you because you got a nosebleed when you read a certain book. There's not even a (realistically functioning) chainsword! It's made up. It's not real.
So why should a fictional setting for a boardgame made to sell plastic toys written decades ago be treated like some deep political message?
So you don't find the idea of the Imperium to be cool? That's 100% okay. Don't play as them. You find their mere existence abhorrent? Don't interact with the (fictional) universe where they (fictionally) exist. Also 100% okay.
If YOU want to bring politics in, that's your choice. But if someone else doesn't want to, it's perfectly reasonable for them to ignore the politics you're forcing in, and escape from it.
Because for some people, this is a hobby, where they can escape from all the politics you're advocating bringing in.
Galas wrote:I like the imperium just as I like Sauron, Mordor and Isengard in LOTR. That doesn't mean I support what they actually represent in real life. But as fiction they are cool. They couldn't be more different from my political views.
Absolutely agreed.
My go-to in 40k is the Imperium.
If given a choice, I will always choose to play as Clone Troopers/Storm Troopers/First Order in a Star Wars setting.
In WHFB/AoS, my favourite faction is Skaven.
Just because I like to play as these in a FICTIONAL setting doesn't mean I'm suddenly a fascistic backstabber - probably furthest from it. But fiction isn't reality, and I think that's a REALLY good thing.
Galas wrote:The 40k setting his a parody, they aren't justified, is just that the galaxy sucks and everybody is horrible, like the Negative Universes of DC (I don't know if you have read Dark Nights: Metal)... and I don't know if you have realised that since Guilliman was resurrected they have been doing the good work of putting the Imperium that follow Guilliman as the good guys. Thats why he put aside all the Lords of Terra, those old and incompetent bad guys!
Is hard to marketing your setting to the widder audience when the "protagonists" are space-Nazis/KKK. Personally I prefer the grimdark, warhammer setting, I have always defended that the Imperium of man are the Great Devourer, not the Tyranids, but some people will "abuse" me for saying that... eh Sgt_Smudge?
Rosebuddy wrote: [You could definitely have a conflict-ridden 40K galaxy without the setting justifying fascism, though.
I don't think you're thinking of 'fascism' here correctly, and it's fine- it's normal. Some people think 'fascism' and 'dad' are the same thing.
But keep in mind *why* it's 'justified'.
Humanity is f**cked. Like, literally on the verge of complete annihilation. And their complete annihilation was the only thing that could have 'saved' the galaxy from chaos. Every little thing humanity endures is the best that can possibly be done to ensure survival. That includes annihilating entire planets, conscripting teenagers, sending psykers to be sacrificed, everything is awful.
There is NO other option. There is no 'let's reason with our enemies'. There is no, 'maybe something else would work better'.
What you're calling 'fascism' is only 'justified' here because it's a tool of last resort.
That's how desperate humanity is.
Yeah, that's kinda fethed up way to look at it. It is a view that in certain circumstances facism is justified. It is not. 40K Imperium is plainly evil. And I love that, because that's the flavour of the setting and whole thing is absurd black comedy.
Asmodios wrote: ...See the difference between the "feminist" and everybody else is nobody else is trying to fundamentally change what the hobby is. The basic feminist argument seems to be that 1. the background is racist/sexist 2. The models are racist/sexist 3. The people who play are racist/sexist..... Guess what 40k becomes if you 1.change the background 2. change all the models 3. replace all the players.... You all of a sudden dont have 40k and thats what people dont want because we enjoy the setting for what it is.
And all the "issues" for 40k that you see aren't actually issues because of 1. The background is fiction and doesn't hurt anyone 2. The model are grey and don't exclude anyone 3. The Warhammer community is the single most excepting/ nice community I've ever been a part of and I've done everything from play professional sports to the tabletop games.
...No?
The background is seldom the problem. The solution to lacking representation in the miniatures range is to expand it, not to replace it. The people who play aren't universally racist/sexist, but the people who take complaints about the state of the game and read them as "ooh, you want to destroy everything" are kind of a problem.
Crimson wrote: That's not really the argument, it is caricature of it. It is that representation of females in fluff is lacking and in model form even more lacking. This is at least partly due certain sexist attitudes ingrained in the culture, as is the opposition to addressing this issue. This doesn't mean that the GW designers, or the players are bigots (though of course in huge player base there will be fair share of bigots.) Many people get super defensive when it is pointed out that institutionalised sexism or racism might be a thing. But it is a thing, it affects all of us, and realising this is the first step at trying to address it.
Hold on, let me get this straight.
The lack of female models and female characters in the fluff is because of institutionalized racism and sexism. A vast conspiracy to make the womenfolk and Pee-Oh-Seez feel awful. And adding these things will start fixing these societal problems (that no one can provide genuine evidence for).
I just want to make sure I'm summarizing that correctly.
Because it's hilarious, I'm now convinced you're the greatest satirist ever.
Our time is up BROTHER. We shall now be punished for being sexist and have our toys taken away until we play nice.
Asmodios wrote: ...See the difference between the "feminist" and everybody else is nobody else is trying to fundamentally change what the hobby is. The basic feminist argument seems to be that 1. the background is racist/sexist 2. The models are racist/sexist 3. The people who play are racist/sexist..... Guess what 40k becomes if you 1.change the background 2. change all the models 3. replace all the players.... You all of a sudden dont have 40k and thats what people dont want because we enjoy the setting for what it is.
And all the "issues" for 40k that you see aren't actually issues because of 1. The background is fiction and doesn't hurt anyone 2. The model are grey and don't exclude anyone 3. The Warhammer community is the single most excepting/ nice community I've ever been a part of and I've done everything from play professional sports to the tabletop games.
...No?
The background is seldom the problem. The solution to lacking representation in the miniatures range is to expand it, not to replace it. The people who play aren't universally racist/sexist, but the people who take complaints about the state of the game and read them as "ooh, you want to destroy everything" are kind of a problem.
This is backlash from the recent invasion of "feminism" to other historically male based games and media. And honestly. Its justified to an extent. Identity politics solves nothing. Only ruins.
So gender is a social construct and telling little girls that they should be playing with Barbies (female toys) is a tool of patriarchal oppression designed to maintain societal gender expectations.
And the way to liberate them is to provide better access to more female toys?
Crimson wrote: Yeah, that's kinda fethed up way to look at it. It is a view that in certain circumstances facism is justified. It is not. 40K Imperium is plainly evil. And I love that, because that's the flavour of the setting and whole thing is absurd black comedy.
Yes, think of it this way.
"Humanity was so screwed, that the ONLY way they could survive was to be fascists, and sacrifice a little piece of that humanity."
THAT is how desperate we have to be to have any reason to be fascists.
Also, comedy- Communism probably just got tossed right outside the window.
What makes the 40K setting fascist isn't that the Imperium has those qualities. it's that they're written as largely justified because that's just how the galaxy works.
Well it IS how the galaxy works in 40k. It would be a pretty boring wargame without conflict and war. Thankfully it is a fictional empire in a fictional galaxy full of fictional demons and fictional aliens.
You could definitely have a conflict-ridden 40K galaxy without the setting justifying fascism, though.
The 40k setting justifies nothing of the kind. Not anymore than the smurfs justifies communism, judge dreadd justifies police states, or smallworld justifies genocide, or risk justifies expansionist wars. They are all fictional universes with fictional rules and fictional logic.
Could we leave a discussion on the virtues ,or lack thereof, of Karl Marx out of it?
Good representation does not hurt anyone. Bad representation reinforces bad stereotypes. No representation keeps things as is.
The female marine debate has become so toxic, I don't blame GW for staying away. Fun fact SM have to start their augmentations before puberty (I believe the first implants happen around seven?) so there would be almost no difference between boys and girls that age. A female space marine would look exactly the same as a male one the gender is irrelevant.
The primarchs are another interesting case. They have no sex as far as we know (and I am willingto bet hand BL will never adress this) and therefore cannot be male/female in the conventional biological sense . The definition there is tied to method of reproduction. So they are guys only because they identify as such.
By and large the gender diversity in BL has been okay. And they have 'in the books I have read, avoided the most dreaded stereotype: the badass woman that constantly needs saving.
Crimson wrote: ...Yeah, that's kinda fethed up way to look at it. It is a view that in certain circumstances facism is justified. It is not. 40K Imperium is plainly evil. And I love that, because that's the flavour of the setting and whole thing is absurd black comedy.
"Facism is justified in a galaxy full of hostile aliens in which deviant thought can cause planet-swallowing Warp rifts that kill everyone" isn't "facism is justified under certain circumstances." It's a stronger version of "when pigs fly." It means "this is ridiculous," not "I can imagine a situation under which this kind of behaviour is acceptable."
Alternately: Drop "justified," accept/acknowledge that the Imperium is 'evil', and the questions/themes of the setting change. Are you going to stick to a human viewpoint and ask "would I rather be evil or dead?" Conclude that Lorgar was correct about the Emperor and start exploring the potential of Chaos? Decide that the Orks or the Tyranids actually have a saner reaction to the whole mess and leave humanity behind entirely?
The dystopia that is the 41st Milennium isn't about what 'evil' behaviour is acceptable, it's about what's the 'lesser evil' when weighed against extinction.
The lack of female models and female characters in the fluff is because of institutionalized racism and sexism.
Yes, at least partly.
A vast conspiracy to make the womenfolk and Pee-Oh-Seez feel awful.
No. Societal attitudes are not a conspiracy. People in 18th century held many views we now view as backwards (I mean most of us do, maybe you don't.) People in 19th century were a lot more sexist than people are now, and people in 80's, when bulk of the 40K lore was created were more sexist than people are now. This doesn't make people in the 18th or the 19th centuries, nor people in the 80's part of some conspiracy (nor inherently bad people.) Attitudes chance, and there will always be some resistance for that. This should be pretty basic common sense stuff.
And adding these things will start fixing these societal problems
In very super miniscule way yes. Representation matters.
(that no one can provide genuine evidence for).
There is gak ton of studies about this, you're just ignorant.
I just want to make sure I'm summarizing that correctly.
See the difference between the "feminist" and everybody else is nobody else is trying to fundamentally change what the hobby is. The basic feminist argument seems to be that 1. the background is racist/sexist 2. The models are racist/sexist 3. The people who play are racist/sexist..... Guess what 40k becomes if you 1.change the background 2. change all the models 3. replace all the players.... You all of a sudden dont have 40k and thats what people dont want because we enjoy the setting for what it is.
And all the "issues" for 40k that you see aren't actually issues because of 1. The background is fiction and doesn't hurt anyone 2. The model are grey and don't exclude anyone 3. The Warhammer community is the single most excepting/ nice community I've ever been a part of and I've done everything from play professional sports to the tabletop games.
That's not really the argument, it is caricature of it. It is that representation of females in fluff is lacking and in model form even more lacking. This is at least partly due certain sexist attitudes ingrained in the culture, as is the opposition to addressing this issue. This doesn't mean that the GW designers, or the players are bigots (though of course in huge player base there will be fair share of bigots.) Many people get super defensive when it is pointed out that institutionalised sexism or racism might be a thing. But it is a thing, it affects all of us, and realising this is the first step at trying to address it.
And people want things that about 40K changed all the time. Eldar have almost always been OP as feth, yet most people don't think that asking that to be addressed is somehow ruining 40K.
If your best argument is saying that discussing power/point cost of units is the same as redoing decades of lore then your even more misguided as I thought.
And that is your argument you just layer it out again. You want to fundamentally changed the lore ( point #1 I made) you want to change the model line to fit your new lore (point # 2) and you think number 1 and 2 need changing because the makers/ player base are racist/sexist (point #3)
Fun fact SM have to start their augmentations before puberty (I believe the first implants happen around seven?) so there would be almost no difference between oys and girls that age. A female space marine would look exactly the same as a male one the gender is irrelevant.
That's the funny thing, space marines are basically meat golems and it wouldn't matter whether they were made out of a boy or a girl. You wouldn't have to introduce new sculpts or anything.
This is backlash from the recent invasion of "feminism" to other historically male based games and media. And honestly. Its justified to an extent. Identity politics solves nothing. Only ruins.
Seriously, the people can't handle that they gave a girl a lightsabre are they biggest crybabies. Grow up! Making hobbies or franchises these 'no girls allowed' treehouses is massively immature.
Crimson wrote: Seriously, the people can't handle that they gave a girl a lightsabre are they biggest crybabies. Grow up! Making hobbies or franchises these 'no girls allowed' treehouses is massively immature.
Yeah, people expecting that girl to have an actual personality and character development? Total woman-hating manbabies. They probably like rape.
This is backlash from the recent invasion of "feminism" to other historically male based games and media. And honestly. Its justified to an extent. Identity politics solves nothing. Only ruins.
Seriously, the people can't handle that they gave a girl a lightsabre are they biggest crybabies. Grow up! Making hobbies or franchises these 'no girls allowed' treehouses is massively immature.
I dont care about identity politics. I dont care if the last jedi is a girl. I care about people coming into a hobby and proceed to tell everyone how things should be. Like you.
This is backlash from the recent invasion of "feminism" to other historically male based games and media. And honestly. Its justified to an extent. Identity politics solves nothing. Only ruins.
Seriously, the people can't handle that they gave a girl a lightsabre are they biggest crybabies. Grow up! Making hobbies or franchises these 'no girls allowed' treehouses is massively immature.
You are aware that Rey wasn't the first woman to wield a lightsaber in Star Wars, right? I didn't notice any bitching about Mara Jade, or about Aayla Secura ,or Kreia. They didn't bitch about the fact she had a lightsaber. They bitched about her because she was a near perfect character who could seemingly do everything, with no development or personality. Immediate control of force powers with no training? Check. Can jury rig and pilot star craft? Check. Can somehow win against a trained sith? Check. There was a lot of contrivances with her character.
Apparently not even the most sacred havens of nerddom are safe from the incursion of the sjw ...
Jokes aside, I think this whole discussion is pretty nonsensical.
This is not about government policy or culture, it's about a product that is entirely driven by the free market and the demand of the customers.
Why is the 40K universe set up the way it is? Because it appeals to its customer base. When (or rather if) GW at some point realizes that female Marines or Guardswomen are in demand, they will produce them.They have been pretty good in gauging customer demand lately, with the re-introduction of specialist games, genestealer cults and so on, so just wait and see whether it is going to become a reasonable thing for them to do.
As far as the 40K universe being a justification of real-world fascism, I'm afraid people reading it this way are rather deluded, to use a nice term. Not every piece of fiction is a political or sociological allegory/comment on the real world and if WH40K ideed is one, it's not exactly supportive of the status quo in the Imperium of man. It's a dystopia if I ever saw one.
It's just as silly a notion as claiming that Bretonnians are a reprehensible concept because they glorify the crusades (and I've seen this argument in this very forum a while back).
Fiction is an outlet in which we can all experience atrocities like war, genocide, fascism, torture etc. without actually having to commit any of them. These things do have a huge appeal to the human mind and we've found a great way of confronting them in the forms of books, video games, movies and tabletop. Why on earth would you want to regulate a space that has been created for precisely this reason?
This is backlash from the recent invasion of "feminism" to other historically male based games and media. And honestly. Its justified to an extent. Identity politics solves nothing. Only ruins.
Seriously, the people can't handle that they gave a girl a lightsabre are they biggest crybabies. Grow up! Making hobbies or franchises these 'no girls allowed' treehouses is massively immature.
No girls allowed
>sister of battle
>sisters of silence
>imperial guard
>elder
>dark elder
The lack of female models and female characters in the fluff is because of institutionalized racism and sexism.
Yes, at least partly.
A vast conspiracy to make the womenfolk and Pee-Oh-Seez feel awful.
No. Societal attitudes are not a conspiracy. People in 18th century held many views we now view as backwards (I mean most of us do, maybe you don't.) People in 19th century were a lot more sexist than people are now, and people in 80's, when bulk of the 40K lore was created were more sexist than people are now. This doesn't make people in the 18th or the 19th centuries, nor people in the 80's part of some conspiracy (nor inherently bad people.) Attitudes chance, and there will always be some resistance for that. This should be pretty basic common sense stuff.
And adding these things will start fixing these societal problems
In very super miniscule way yes. Representation matters.
(that no one can provide genuine evidence for).
There is gak ton of studies about this, you're just ignorant.
I just want to make sure I'm summarizing that correctly.
No you didn't.
Followup summary: Said "institutionalized racism/sexism" may be more accurately described as "inertia". It doesn't usually involve anyone trying intentionally to keep people out, it involves institutions who are resistant to change by virtue of being institutions populated by people who don't think making said changes is worth the trouble (even if they may agree in principle).
Asking for "genuine evidence" is part of said inertia; it isn't actually possible to do a controlled experiment for any kind of social change, so any evidence anyone could come up with would be correlational.
This is backlash from the recent invasion of "feminism" to other historically male based games and media. And honestly. Its justified to an extent. Identity politics solves nothing. Only ruins.
Seriously, the people can't handle that they gave a girl a lightsabre are they biggest crybabies. Grow up! Making hobbies or franchises these 'no girls allowed' treehouses is massively immature.
You are aware that Rey wasn't the first woman to wield a lightsaber in Star Wars, right? They didn't bitch about the fact she had a lightsaber. I didn't notice any bitching about Mara Jade, or about Aayla Secura , or Kreia. They bitched about her because she was a near perfect character who could seemingly do everything. Immediate control of force powers with no training? Check. Can jury rig and pilot star craft? Check. Can somehow win against a trained sith? Check. There was a lot of contrivances with her character.
Shhhhhhh stop pointing out glaring plot holes you bigot reeeeeee
This is backlash from the recent invasion of "feminism" to other historically male based games and media. And honestly. Its justified to an extent. Identity politics solves nothing. Only ruins.
Seriously, the people can't handle that they gave a girl a lightsabre are they biggest crybabies. Grow up! Making hobbies or franchises these 'no girls allowed' treehouses is massively immature.
You are aware that Rey wasn't the first woman to wield a lightsaber in Star Wars, right? They didn't bitch about the fact she had a lightsaber. I didn't notice any bitching about Mara Jade, or about Aayla Secura , or Kreia. They bitched about her because she was a near perfect character who could seemingly do everything. Immediate control of force powers with no training? Check. Can jury rig and pilot star craft? Check. Can somehow win against a trained sith? Check. There was a lot of contrivances with her character.
Shhhhhhh stop pointing out glaring plot holes you bigot reeeeeee
I can't help it. I have a perpetual desire for plot consistency and logic :(
AnomanderRake wrote: Asking for "genuine evidence" is part of said inertia; it isn't actually possible to do a controlled experiment for any kind of social change, so any evidence anyone could come up with would be correlational.
If you can assert it without evidence, you can dismiss it without evidence.
Asmodios wrote: Claims others are being offended
>offended about plastic toy models
>offended about fictional universe
Muh sides
Uh... misfire?
I'm not offended by models or the fictional universe. I like it as it is. And I'm down with more being added. Not... sure where you're going with this.
If your best argument is saying that discussing power/point cost of units is the same as redoing decades of lore then your even more misguided as I thought.
And that is your argument you just layer it out again. You want to fundamentally changed the lore ( point #1 I made) you want to change the model line to fit your new lore (point # 2) and you think number 1 and 2 need changing because the makers/ player base are racist/sexist (point #3)
Do I want fundamentally change lore? I personally don't think that female marines are needed as long as female representation is increased in other factions and those other factions get more equal share of the limelight. But I don't think that having female marines would fundamentally change the lore. It is ultimately quite a minor thing, I've been in this hobby for decades, and the lore has been altered and retconned countless of times. Also, new models get released all the time. Why is it a problem if some of them are female. Also, acknowledging that institutional sexism/racism is a thing is not same as thinking that players/designers are racist sexist (at least not in a way those words are normally understood.)
The lack of female models and female characters in the fluff is because of institutionalized racism and sexism.
Yes, at least partly.
A vast conspiracy to make the womenfolk and Pee-Oh-Seez feel awful.
No. Societal attitudes are not a conspiracy. People in 18th century held many views we now view as backwards (I mean most of us do, maybe you don't.) People in 19th century were a lot more sexist than people are now, and people in 80's, when bulk of the 40K lore was created were more sexist than people are now. This doesn't make people in the 18th or the 19th centuries, nor people in the 80's part of some conspiracy (nor inherently bad people.) Attitudes chance, and there will always be some resistance for that. This should be pretty basic common sense stuff.
And adding these things will start fixing these societal problems
In very super miniscule way yes. Representation matters.
(that no one can provide genuine evidence for).
There is gak ton of studies about this, you're just ignorant.
I just want to make sure I'm summarizing that correctly.
No you didn't.
Followup summary: Said "institutionalized racism/sexism" may be more accurately described as "inertia". It doesn't usually involve anyone trying intentionally to keep people out, it involves institutions who are resistant to change by virtue of being institutions populated by people who don't think making said changes is worth the trouble (even if they may agree in principle).
Asking for "genuine evidence" is part of said inertia; it isn't actually possible to do a controlled experiment for any kind of social change, so any evidence anyone could come up with would be correlational.
40k is hardly a monolithic institution. Its a very small niche hobby that has been around for decades. There is nothing wrong with the people who enjoy said niche hobby wanting to keep it as something they enjoy. If someone does not enjoy the hobby or setting, please by all means I hope they find one they do enjoy. No one is getting hurt. No one is turning into KKK recruits because of 40k or all male space marines.
And that is what is so reprehensible about what the OP is doing. Not everything need fit your political view point. Let dogs be dogs and cats be cats.
they aren't concerned with playing females. They just think that space bugs are cute, and death robots are badass.
) Twitter. If you stay many time on the internet you can forgot that the real world is very different. And warhammer40k is no different. If you go to actual stores, tournaments, etc... you'll see that the internet community is not the real world community. And lets me say that both FeministActivist/SJW (As much as I hate to use that label) and AntiFeminist/Bigots/
