Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
In thinking about the fluff, I can only actually recall a single mention of a objectively "female" AM, and that was in one of the Cain books, that he has a dalliance with. something about "her tail". There may be many more, but I am not extremely well versed in the Ad mech fluff. That is my subjective observation.

There are others and a gender neutral one with neutral pronouns to boot. They more though of them selves as having surpassed human failings such as gender, more machine than man/woman.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
In thinking about the fluff, I can only actually recall a single mention of a objectively "female" AM, and that was in one of the Cain books, that he has a dalliance with. something about "her tail". There may be many more, but I am not extremely well versed in the Ad mech fluff. That is my subjective observation.

Koriel Zeth, from the 30k book 'Mechanicum', identified using female pronouns, as well as the Sisters of Cydonia, a cult of Techpriest Assassins. Whether the Sisters of Cydonia are *all* female is unclear.

Again, when it comes to the Mechanicum, I imagine gender is rather fluid, ranging from using gendered pronouns, no gender at all, or readily switching between different gendered identities.

Druhkari are actually the best faction for mixed forces. Kabals, Cults and Covens can all have mixed forces (as much as a genetically altered giant can be any sex/gender for Covens). Bit since they are Xenos they don't get stories and it's harder to "relate" to characters (no human experiences).

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
In thinking about the fluff, I can only actually recall a single mention of a objectively "female" AM, and that was in one of the Cain books, that he has a dalliance with. something about "her tail". There may be many more, but I am not extremely well versed in the Ad mech fluff. That is my subjective observation.

Predating the Adeptus part (and thus the gender gendering of the Mechanic*um*), they do exist in the Heresy stuff, though the admech are a great space for non-binaric (hah) characterisation, anyway.

Andykp wrote:
Quick female model count,again,

AM 3 possibly 4 heads on a sprue released last month. A sergeant that is event only and there was a commissar but no longer available.

Admech, none specifically but it would be harder to tell.

Inquisition, 2 models

Assassins 1 out of 4.

Knights is an odd one because it’s mostly vehicles, the one human you can see is built with either a helmet or a beard so it’s 50/50 at best although they do have decent in fluff representation so any knight could have a female pilot.

So a good estimate would be 7-8 models specifically depicting women outside of sisters of battle and silence.

Craftworld we have 1 in 4 guardians and the howling banshees/Jain Zar. That’s it for these paragons of equality.

Couple of harlequins. Dark eldar fare a bit better but only thanks to wych cults.

Now genestealer cults have a hand ful at best, couple of characters that are female and some crew, 2nd wave of kits was better than the first.

Still around 2 dozen total female miniatures outside of battle sisters.

That’s pretty poor. Especially guard. Lots of representation in the fluff. Very little on the table top, but none of these exclude women like the 16 marine based factions. 16! That’s a marine faction for every 2 sisters of battle kits available.

Just to amend this- Raine is still available.
The ‘98 GD commissar, Catachan w/grenade launcher, the Last Chancer woman and a couple more RT ones also exist/existed. They’re not available, obviously, unless you’re recasting or buying second hand, but I’ll just add them for the sake of completeness.
It’s still nowhere near enough.

The imperial guard having women in it in an imperium founded by a potentially sexist emperor may have something to do with the fact that the emperor had little/nothing to do with the creation of the imperial guard, as the role of the imperial guard was served by prototypical guard forces of local militia, and primarily by space marine legions. The infrastructure of the imperium likely would have been radically changed several times as well, and it may also be very possible that outside the space marine legions the emperor did not see a need to codify his gender biases. Or it could have been a later sort of thing, think conquer first define what his imperium would be later. Of note is the fact that the imperium already radically diverges from the emperor’s personal beliefs and intents with the imperial cult and ecclesiarchy.
A bit of sexism that was hardly blatant could just as easily been lost to the heresy and a shadow of such could have persisted in the astartes culture through ignorance. Like I said, what if they could have made them the whole time but simply didn’t because they believed they couldn’t, or because the thought never crossed their indoctrinated minds?

That being said, this explanation has not been explored, at all, but could easily be implemented with no retcon whatsoever. I’ve heard that Malcador hinted at the emperor purposefully excluding women from the space marine primarchs, and that is a case for the emperor operating on some gender biases. For these reasons I would say it adds character, and makes sense.

That being said, nothing was explicitly proven in the lore that the emperor was a sexist, and making female space marines something that has always been there would be a relatively minor change compared to primaris.

Realistically, Cawl enabling female marines through primaris shenanigans would be the most realistic way forward in terms of female astartes, because I doubt GW wants to actively devote resources to supporting firstborn loyalist marines. It would just be neater, and they already know they can weather the blowback from such radical changes as primaris marines and come back even stronger.

macluvin wrote:

Well I showed my wife this bit and Her response was a bit of discomfort and the statement that representation most certainly matters to her in her RPG’s and the like. And that with folk saying things like what you said it’s a no wonder women wouldn’t feel comfortable in the hobby. Just in case you would like a woman’s perspective from outside the hobby, which is the perspective that matters most when it comes to discussing what matters to women.

I'm more interested in a woman's perspective from *inside* the hobby, and the women I do know who like 40k enjoy factions that are coded as at least partially female (Eldar + DE), play Tyranids or demons which are coded as neither, or enjoy the overwrought masculinity of Astartes, orks, and CSM and find them ironically humorous.

And in the end it doesn't matter. "Representation" doesn't seem to have a meaningful effect on the number of women who play miniature wargames as a proportion of the playerbase. You can say your wife says that, and maybe it makes her uncomfortable that players can play an all-male faction, but that doesn't mean she'd play 40k if Astartes were gender-integrated. There doesn't seem to be much evidence that women would.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cybtroll wrote:
The idea that women are somehow less interested in wargaming is hilarious. They're less interested in THIS specific way of wargaming, which is in no way given or immutable.... It's simply as it is, but can be different.

I think wargaming itself attracts thing-oriented people overwhelmingly, and women tend to be less thing-oriented than men.

 Cybtroll wrote:
You can backtrack THE EXACT SAME DISCUSSION in RPG forum in the first year of 2000 (from 1995 to 2010, depending on where you live). Up to that point, the only intersection with Rpg and female audience where the Goth culture and Vampire the Masquerade.

I don't find that to be true at all. There were typically women involved with tabletop and LARP rpgs back in the day, in a way that wasn't true with wargaming. Let's keep in mind that *most men* aren't into tabletop wargaming either.

 Cybtroll wrote:
Guess what? Female where interested, but not in old incarnation on RPGs l. Now we gave new ones, that support both the old approaches, bit add new ones.

Speak for yourself. I knew plenty of women who played tabletop rpgs pre-2000.

 Cybtroll wrote:
The same happended with Larp around 2010-2015 (at least in Italy, not sure in US that I think are behind in this specific gaming segment).
We moved (in general) from Lorien enclosed campaigns focused on fighting and politics to full fledged roleplaying events (including, for the sake of the argument, Victorian gala events, historical reconstruction and such).

There are cases after this transition where 80% of participants where female, because they felt interested and engaged in different storylines, storytelling and character within the boundaries of the hobby.

I don't think that negates my point. LARPing is even more people-oriented than tabletop rpg games, typically.

 Cybtroll wrote:
And note: none cried SJW and other idiotic stuff... Ever. Everyone was simply happy we're more than before, also doing more varied things Because the buzzwords to shut the discussion down weren't invented yet (if it was more than a propaganda buzzword, the same problem would have been expressed with other words. It hasn't).

In general, it's almost inevitably a simple failure in imagination. Which I always find pretty damning when manifest itself in a hobby that is supposed to encourage imagination and creativity.

I don't get why people conflate what they believe (or the current temporary contingencies) with things as they are.

Again, still just reinforces my point. There is always going to be a subset of women who like things like tabletop wargames, because women are not a monolith, but it can remain a hobby that mostly appeals to men, and there's nothing morally wrong with that, despite what people in this thread are trying to say.

Hecaton wrote:

macluvin wrote:

Well I showed my wife this bit and Her response was a bit of discomfort and the statement that representation most certainly matters to her in her RPG’s and the like. And that with folk saying things like what you said it’s a no wonder women wouldn’t feel comfortable in the hobby. Just in case you would like a woman’s perspective from outside the hobby, which is the perspective that matters most when it comes to discussing what matters to women.

I'm more interested in a woman's perspective from *inside* the hobby, and the women I do know who like 40k enjoy factions that are coded as at least partially female (Eldar + DE), play Tyranids or demons which are coded as neither, or enjoy the overwrought masculinity of Astartes, orks, and CSM and find them ironically humorous.

And in the end it doesn't matter. "Representation" doesn't seem to have a meaningful effect on the number of women who play miniature wargames as a proportion of the playerbase. You can say your wife says that, and maybe it makes her uncomfortable that players can play an all-male faction, but that doesn't mean she'd play 40k if Astartes were gender-integrated. There doesn't seem to be much evidence that women would.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cybtroll wrote:
The idea that women are somehow less interested in wargaming is hilarious. They're less interested in THIS specific way of wargaming, which is in no way given or immutable.... It's simply as it is, but can be different.

I think wargaming itself attracts thing-oriented people overwhelmingly, and women tend to be less thing-oriented than men.

 Cybtroll wrote:
You can backtrack THE EXACT SAME DISCUSSION in RPG forum in the first year of 2000 (from 1995 to 2010, depending on where you live). Up to that point, the only intersection with Rpg and female audience where the Goth culture and Vampire the Masquerade.

I don't find that to be true at all. There were typically women involved with tabletop and LARP rpgs back in the day, in a way that wasn't true with wargaming. Let's keep in mind that *most men* aren't into tabletop wargaming either.

 Cybtroll wrote:
Guess what? Female where interested, but not in old incarnation on RPGs l. Now we gave new ones, that support both the old approaches, bit add new ones.

Speak for yourself. I knew plenty of women who played tabletop rpgs pre-2000.

 Cybtroll wrote:
The same happended with Larp around 2010-2015 (at least in Italy, not sure in US that I think are behind in this specific gaming segment).
We moved (in general) from Lorien enclosed campaigns focused on fighting and politics to full fledged roleplaying events (including, for the sake of the argument, Victorian gala events, historical reconstruction and such).

There are cases after this transition where 80% of participants where female, because they felt interested and engaged in different storylines, storytelling and character within the boundaries of the hobby.

I don't think that negates my point. LARPing is even more people-oriented than tabletop rpg games, typically.

 Cybtroll wrote:
And note: none cried SJW and other idiotic stuff... Ever. Everyone was simply happy we're more than before, also doing more varied things Because the buzzwords to shut the discussion down weren't invented yet (if it was more than a propaganda buzzword, the same problem would have been expressed with other words. It hasn't).

In general, it's almost inevitably a simple failure in imagination. Which I always find pretty damning when manifest itself in a hobby that is supposed to encourage imagination and creativity.

I don't get why people conflate what they believe (or the current temporary contingencies) with things as they are.

Again, still just reinforces my point. There is always going to be a subset of women who like things like tabletop wargames, because women are not a monolith, but it can remain a hobby that mostly appeals to men, and there's nothing morally wrong with that, despite what people in this thread are trying to say.

No body is saying making female marines will get all women or even most women into the hobby. No one is even saying it we’ll get a equal number of female and male players in to 40K. But there are women put off by the exclusion of women in the marine factions, and this might change that. There are certainly women put off by the sexist drivel spouted by some in defence of male only marines. Undoubtably the hobby would remain predominantly male and I have never claimed otherwise but it may become a nicer place with a few more women in it who feel safer and more comfortable. Equality of opportunity rather than equality outcome.

Your claim that women aren’t into wargaming because they a inclined to like different things doesn’t really stack up but it also doesn’t excuse treating the women who are into wargaming like gak. Allowing or endorsing the behaviour of some in the community towards women or those who dare to want female marines isn’t cool. The community hides behind defending the integrity of the lore or the faction identity to excuse or justify abusive and discriminatory behaviour.

Again, why not change that? And I assume you are still searching for my abusive posts and not just ignoring that?

Mk, so your argument is we should only care about people's opinions if they're already in the hobby? You do understand that one of the goals of this is to get more people in the hobby right? You can't get more people in the hobby if you don't consider the opinions of those people chief.
As for your second point, the biggest issue with male-exclusive SM is that it is used as an excuse by people who seek to exclude women and girls from joining the hobby or creating SM models that better represent them. These same people harrass and threated people already in the hobby who make female SM and use the background as an excuse. How are you going to solve that problem?



Have you got any evidence to support this claim beyond your opinion?



Yet there is a much greater proportion involved in Wargaming and RPG's today and in a much more visible way. Almost like society changes and things don't always stay the same.
Also, who cares that most men don't do Wargaming? Many women who are interested in Warhammer don't get past the first hurdle because of the culture and environment that surrounds 40k. It might not be true everywhere but there is still a vocal enough part of the wider community that actively seeks to exclude women and threatens or harrasses those already in the hobby.


And I knew none but still I can look at the way RPGS and Wargaming is portrayed in modern media and see that there is a much greater mix of people involved than previously.


What point would that be because I'm not entirely sure what you mean here.


It can be a hobby that appeals to men more than women but that doesn't mean that the background should be able to be used as a tool of exclusion and harassment. That's what the problem is here, not that the hobby appeals to men but that men within the hobby are using it as excuse to front their exclusionary views.

Andykp wrote:
No body is saying making female marines will get all women or even most women into the hobby. No one is even saying it we’ll get a equal number of female and male players in to 40K. But there are women put off by the exclusion of women in the marine factions, and this might change that. There are certainly women put off by the sexist drivel spouted by some in defence of male only marines. Undoubtably the hobby would remain predominantly male and I have never claimed otherwise but it may become a nicer place with a few more women in it who feel safer and more comfortable. Equality of opportunity rather than equality outcome.

Again, I don't see any evidence that it will get more women into the hobby to any degree. Some women might not like it... but they seem to be the kind of women who weren't into wargaming anyway. And there's people who will see a hobby that a lot of men enjoy and assume it must automatically be sexist, and that's a problem.

Andykp wrote:
Your claim that women aren’t into wargaming because they a inclined to like different things doesn’t really stack up

Yeah it does, as much as you might wish it didn't. I haven't seen any evidence that disagrees with me here.

Andykp wrote:
but it also doesn’t excuse treating the women who are into wargaming like gak. Allowing or endorsing the behaviour of some in the community towards women or those who dare to want female marines isn’t cool. The community hides behind defending the integrity of the lore or the faction identity to excuse or justify abusive and discriminatory behaviour.

You are not an oppressed minority because you want female marines in 40k. You don't get to steal the "valor" of women who actually experience sexism for yourself.

I know plenty of men who treat women with respect and dignity who aren't ok with the idea of female Astartes, and I know men who have very paternalistic and dehumanizing ideas about women who want them.

Andykp wrote:
Again, why not change that? And I assume you are still searching for my abusive posts and not just ignoring that?

I mean at the point where you're calling people an imbecile, that's abusive. And Catulle was doing that. And you've been doing similar.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gert wrote:

Mk, so your argument is we should only care about people's opinions if they're already in the hobby? You do understand that one of the goals of this is to get more people in the hobby right?

We shouldn't care about the opinions of people who aren't interested in wargaming in this context, no. This is different from the people who are curious or who might be interested.

 Gert wrote:

As for your second point, the biggest issue with male-exclusive SM is that it is used as an excuse by people who seek to exclude women and girls from joining the hobby or creating SM models that better represent them. These same people harrass and threated people already in the hobby who make female SM and use the background as an excuse. How are you going to solve that problem?

Harassment is bad. I don't think it's caused by the Astartes being all-male, I think it's caused by the fanbase being gakky. The actor who played Joffrey in GoT got death threats because people couldn't separate reality from fantasy, the solution is not to change the way characters like that are portrayed, it's for people to stop being idiots and making threats over stuff like this.

And I don't see it being used as an excuse by people who are trying to exclude women and girls from the hobby. In fact, I don't really know anybody who actually wants to exclude them.

 Gert wrote:

Have you got any evidence to support this claim beyond your opinion?

I don't think it's very controversial that wargaming attracts thing-oriented people. As for women being less thing-oriented than men, take a gander if you want.

 Gert wrote:

Many women who are interested in Warhammer don't get past the first hurdle because of the culture and environment that surrounds 40k

Citation needed, chief.

 Gert wrote:

And I knew none but still I can look at the way RPGS and Wargaming is portrayed in modern media and see that there is a much greater mix of people involved than previously.

No, it's more that Hasbro is invested in portraying its customer base as diverse now.

 Gert wrote:

What point would that be because I'm not entirely sure what you mean here.

That wargames attract a different sort of person than LARPs, and that kind of person is more often male than female.

 Gert wrote:

It can be a hobby that appeals to men more than women but that doesn't mean that the background should be able to be used as a tool of exclusion and harassment. That's what the problem is here, not that the hobby appeals to men but that men within the hobby are using it as excuse to front their exclusionary views.

Just to be clear, are you saying that men wanting male-only Astartes is exclusionary in and of itself? If you're not, then why would making Astartes gender-integrated solve the problem?

Plugging your ears, clenching your eyes shut and saying “lalalalala I don’t see any evidence lalalala” is a terrible argument when we’ve already discussed things like women already in the hobby experiencing sexism and harassment of all possible degrees from a subfaction of the most ardent anti-female marines faction. And how they use the lore to hide behind and to fuel their rampant sexism. If the only opinions you consider are people already in the hobby then you’ve created a sampling bias. Which is a terrible methodology for trying to reach a logical conclusion. Especially when we are discussing making the hobby more accessible to people not in the hobby already. And at the expense of women and their voices.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

At the end of the day, the anti female space marine crowd ultimately only has the argument of personal preference to justify maintaining the lore. It is acceptable to like marines being male exclusive. To try argue the superiority of it in any way or that this is what is best for the setting is an argument that is unsubstantiated. It also does a piss poor job of explaining why someone else can’t have official endorsement of their female space marine army when signals like that are a very welcoming message to others that have voiced a feeling of being unwelcome. This is in light of the fact that you can still keep your male exclusive marines chapter and personal lore, on account of the diversity in space marine culture.
Excluding the voices of women in affairs regarding women to make your argument is just plain atrocious and shameful.

Kinda just seems like you're ignoring the evidence that is provided or passing it off as something you disagree with so it's wrong. Could you point to anywhere in this thread where someone has said that men enjoying a hobby is bad and not allowed?


It's still there even though you've ignored it and decided it's wrong because it doesn't promote your viewpoint. You're not having discussions, you're just calling everyone who doesn't agree with you wrong.


Where does Andykp call themselves an oppressed minority? Where have they exhibited "stolen valour"? You also didn't actually address any of Andykp's points, instead, you sidetracked and started making up nonsense. So what I want to know is do you think harassing and threatening people for making female SM is acceptable?


And there is ample evidence in this thread that shows there is a portion of the community that feels it is 100% OK to harass and threaten women hobbyists. I am also heavily inclined to not believe that these men with "very paternalistic and dehumanizing ideas about women" are pro-female SM for the right reasons.



You flat out said you think everyone who wants female SM is only in it to satisfy sexual urges.

I find this push for female Astartes to be more about satisfying the borderline-kink desires of men in the community.

That's fairly insulting and you've been consistent in your abrasive and rude manner towards other posters.


If they're curious or interested in the hobby then they aren't in the hobby. How do you not get that very basic concept?


I mean we have specific examples of hobbyists making female SM then being harrassed and threatened. Those people doing the harrassing and threatening then specifically reference SM background as their reasoning for doing so. The way to stop this is to remove their "justification". And again, there have been posters in this thread specifically advocating for the exclusion of women from the hobby.


I have to pay to access that research paper, I'm not doing that. Find evidence that doesn't hide behind a paywall.


https://www.wired.com/story/women-wargaming-sexism-harassment/
http://www.chickhammer.com/2012/06/experiences-as-lady-in-wargaming.html
https://www.leftlion.co.uk/read/2020/february/bad-squiddo-games-gaming-industry-female-miniatures/
I also found an article about someone who does professional wargaming, as the military type, but I wasn't 100% sure it was valuable to the discussion.


Damn, didn't know Hasbro owned literally every single group who plays RPG's. Weird.


Can you provide evidence that isn't locked behind a paywall?


I've yet to see an argument that justifies male-only SM that doesn't inlcude flat out sexism or "but the lore!!". The background comes second when they background is being used as a tool for harrasment and threat. People come first.

I am not an oppressed minority but does that make it ok to pelt me with online abuse, threats and insinuation? Because that’s what has happened when discussing this. And for the women in the community being subjected to this, is that ok?? You might know perfectly nice people who are against female marines but that again does not excuse those that abusive and threatening. You really need to stop playing the victim here and rather demanding citations etc put up a credible argument rather than your opinions masked as fact. Plenty of evidence in this thread to show how some people are who oppose this idea. I don’t need to provide anymore.

And again, show me where I have called anyone an imbecile? 3rd time of asking, second time you have accused me of being abusive. Put up or shut up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

macluvin wrote:
Plugging your ears, clenching your eyes shut and saying “lalalalala I don’t see any evidence lalalala” is a terrible argument when we’ve already discussed things like women already in the hobby experiencing sexism and harassment of all possible degrees from a subfaction of the most ardent anti-female marines faction. And how they use the lore to hide behind and to fuel their rampant sexism. If the only opinions you consider are people already in the hobby then you’ve created a sampling bias. Which is a terrible methodology for trying to reach a logical conclusion. Especially when we are discussing making the hobby more accessible to people not in the hobby already. And at the expense of women and their voices.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

At the end of the day, the anti female space marine crowd ultimately only has the argument of personal preference to justify maintaining the lore. It is acceptable to like marines being male exclusive. To try argue the superiority of it in any way or that this is what is best for the setting is an argument that is unsubstantiated. It also does a piss poor job of explaining why someone else can’t have official endorsement of their female space marine army when signals like that are a very welcoming message to others that have voiced a feeling of being unwelcome. This is in light of the fact that you can still keep your male exclusive marines chapter and personal lore, on account of the diversity in space marine culture.
Excluding the voices of women in affairs regarding women to make your argument is just plain atrocious and shameful.

Macluvin gets it.

Andykp wrote:
And again, show me where I have called anyone an imbecile? 3rd time of asking, second time you have accused me of being abusive. Put up or shut up.

That was me, in the face of page after page of "nu uh, my *opinion*" arguments and asinine theory like the kink bit he still hasn't supported one jot.

At the time, I thought it was hyperbolic.

Catulle wrote:

Andykp wrote:
And again, show me where I have called anyone an imbecile? 3rd time of asking, second time you have accused me of being abusive. Put up or shut up.

That was me, in the face of page after page of "nu uh, my *opinion*" arguments and asinine theory like the kink bit he still hasn't supported one jot.

At the time, I thought it was hyperbolic.

The frustration is real though. Takes all my patience not to go on an all caps rant.

Hecaton, you have already doubled down on saying I’m being abusive to anyone, yiu retracting it in light of the above or sticking to your guns???

 Bosskelot wrote:
Well, I wouldn't assume that just inserting marginalized groups into things will automatically make them more comfortable with the setting and the hobby.

I know plenty of women into nerdy hobbies and some who do tabletop gaming and not one of them really cares about the Sisters of Battle refresh and push because, in the words of my missus, they're indoctrinated religious fanatics with little personality who mindlessly enforce and uphold a patriarchal fascist hierarchy. And this is only exacerbated by them being part of the PoV faction and treated like the good guys within the narrative.

Obviously most people are able to divorce themselves from reality and engage in fantasy, but it's easier to do that when the underlying meta-text of your story isn't so problematic and inherently uncomfortable. My missus loves the Drukhari lore because you have true equality within their society but the narrative doesn't hide that they're just comically evil and awful and that's where the endearing and fun nature of the faction comes in. People love villains after all and if they're equal opportunity villains then that's even better.

But when you have a (practically) mono-gendered faction that outwardly looks to be about bad-ass women being heroic when the actual reality of their existence is really the total opposite, while the women themselves hold incomprehensible and abhorrent views and they're treated as being protagonists? It ends up not being as appealing as people think. Just in 40k my ANECDOTAL experience of women in the hobby is that they almost always gravitate towards the Xenos factions because they can more easily portray equal gender distribution in their collections (Eldar have the actual models to do it and a Tau battlesuit can be whatever gender you want it to be) or because you can play horrible irredeemable pieces of gak (Orks or Drukhari) but not be treated as the good guys or shown in a positive light.

This is more about a wider issue with 40k as an IP and how GW continues to develop and market it as time goes on, where the actual satirical and self-aware nature of it is long gone and is dead and buried and we're now in a world where the Imperium and its fascist nature is just never challenged within the text and is excused and reinforced to a ridiculous degree. When you have the blue-eyed blonde superman outsider coming in to drain the swamp and Make the Imperium Great Again and at no point is this portrayed as potentially a negative and worrying thing then it tends to raise a few eyebrows. You can ACKSHULLY all you want and say how the Imperium may very well have eliminated gender discrimination, or point to hints about gay characters, or how there's a black Ultramarine on a novel cover or how Xenocide is fine because they're not killing other humans.... it doesn't matter because the subtext (not very sub mind you) and imagery of the MAIN PROTAGONIST FACTION of the setting calls back to political movements and governments that have historically discriminated against and/or tried to exterminate the previously mentioned groups (and if you can't understand the role of aliens in sci-fi often just being obvious parallels to real world ethnicities and races then, uh, okay dude). And in current 40k writing, there's basically no attempt made to refute or challenge the awfulness of the Imperium and its many subfactions.

This is not to say a gay black woman will never like 40k. I'm a bisexual man and I like 40k. People are individuals after all. But it's very telling in my local area, that despite living in a very diverse and open-minded part of the country, with a 40k community that is incredibly cool and accepting, and a local wargaming scene that isn't just white men.... that the 40k community is just 99% white men. I see more diversity in AOS and some fething historicals than 40k.

EDIT: And also, some of the replies in this thread are why people are so dissuaded by 40k and why GW will always be very conservative about making big changes towards it. I bet someone had to fething fight hard to actually put a black Ultramarine on that novel cover because if you saw the reaction to it from some of the 40k grognards you can just imagine the marketing and management guys fething sweating. There's a short story in the new Lumineth battletome and BR Teclis of two female crew of one of the Ballista's and how they're in a romantic relationship with each other. It's basically impossible to imagine something like that being put in any 40k Codex right now.

I mean fething hell, GW couldn't even make any female Incubi. Doesn't exactly fill you with much hope for good gender representation in any potential Craftworld refresh. Meanwhile AOS is just throwing female sculpts into boxes left and right whereas they're locked away and confined to their own faction in 40k or just made a gakky upgrade kit.

Wow, what a post.

Reading through this thread has been incredibly tedious but also eyeopening.

That you and others perceive SoB in such a negative light, when I see them as one of the most 40k of 40k factions, says a lot about what you want 40k to be.

It also helps me better understand the underlying purpose of AoS, it's target market, and why I find it so un-engaging and typical of every other modern fantasy setting created. Something I've never really thought about before. It also explains the push from people who want to reboot 40k as a setting and start from scratch. They want to remove everything they deem "problematic", which is most of it.

I wonder if it's wise for a game company to try and appease a market that may or may not exist, who also actively hate the setting of said game? Something to think about.

Hecaton wrote:

 LumenPraebeo wrote:
Quite simply, because i want to? Just because YOU don't think I care about GW conventions, doesn't mean I can't have it as a hobby..

Doesn't seem like you want to, since you find all-male space marines repulsive. Why don't you come play Infinity? The minis are ace.

Hecaton wrote:

 LumenPraebeo wrote:
Lets not forget this guy also assumes that wanting female marines means you find all-male marines repulsive.

Nope. Literally people in this thread are saying that it's "Not a good look" for the hobby to be predominantly male.

He isn't even attempting to give thought and understanding to other peoples opinions. He's pulling assumptions out of his rear, and attempting to use it to reinforce his VERY arbitrary arguments.

SoB should be perceived in a negative light though, all of the Imperium should be. It's a theocratic fascist state that thrives on fearmongering and xenophobia but it's constantly portrayed as "yeah they're bad but they have to be bad cos all the baddies out there" or just straight up the "good" faction. The SoB are religious maniacs that have been given flame throwers and been told they have a divine sanction to purge the enemies of mankind. They are a very 40k faction because yes 40k is a bad place to be but GW consistently plays it of as necessary evil, which isn't always true, or again not as bad as it seems.
I'm not sure what you mean with regards to AoS, care to elaborate?
GW isn't a game company, it's a miniatures company that also has a game. As for hating the setting, I don't hate the setting. I hate that GW can't decide whether it's a bad setting filled with loads of bad guys and the "good" factions are few and far between or a "it's bad but here are thousands of Imperial heroes who are all good guys, please ignore all the bad stuff the Imperium does". A 40k reboot would give the setting a chance to actually make changes that aren't "enemy X pushes the Imperium but the Imperium gets a phyrric victory and nothing has really changed". That's fine for certain events but when literally ever single war/battle in 40k is exactly the same in outcome its just boring. Nobody makes gains, nobody really loses anything.

Turns out people (generally) are capable of critically reflecting on things they enjoy. Mind blowing, right?

This idea that including female Marine is somehow neutering the setting is beyond ridiculous.

We've discussed more than once how female space marine would add to the grimdark of the setting, not reduce it.

So, maybe there's someone who wants a 40k with unicorns and rainbows... But I don't see anyone here.


However, it's interesting to mention how it is yet another failure of imagination this almost primal need to see a real world discrimination in a fictional setting to be able to picture something as bad. One could say also that it's a lack of empathy instead, but I think can be either.

On one side I blame the people who don't get it: imagination isn't education, doesn't require anything if not some effort from your part. If you fail on that side it's your fault for not cultivating it.

On the other hand, it's also GW's fault. I get their corporate issues: they are a company with an IP based on satirical commentary that need to scale up the brand... and satire isn't particularly marketable internationally.

 Gert wrote:
The SoB are religious maniacs that have been given flame throwers and been told they have a divine sanction to purge the enemies of mankind.* They are a very 40k faction because yes 40k is a bad place to be but GW consistently plays it of as necessary evil, which isn't always true, or again not as bad as it seems.

*Naturally, being affiliated to the Ordo Hereticus, a significant quantity of those "enemies of mankind" will be humans deemed ideologically impure... (and thus the more horror-aspected elements of the faction)

Removed - Rule #1 please

I try and engage with everyone on here in good faith but I’m not sure it’s worth it with this one. And so far they haven’t said anything that’s needs a reply, just noted their dislike any kind of representation.

You don't even know what that post said, since it was quickly removed by the mods.

It's fair to say I won't be losing any sleep disengaging from conversations with political ideologues who have a lot more in common with the Imperium than they think.

I don't get how people can look at "humanity is degraded to such a point where nothing is considered when children are taken and turned into indoctrinated murder machines" and say "this is making 40k a more pleasant setting".



A setting that relies on putting real world discrimination at its core to be "grimdark" is a bad setting. Thankfully 40k isn't this outside of certain factions.

As for the other recent posts:
I think maybe bringing in things from other threads isn't the best idea. It doesn't really matter what was said there, especially since the mods have already taken action.

That being said, I also don't think calling people fascists is a particularly good idea either. It's not conductive to a discussion in good faith.

macluvin wrote:
Plugging your ears, clenching your eyes shut and saying “lalalalala I don’t see any evidence lalalala” is a terrible argument when we’ve already discussed things like women already in the hobby experiencing sexism and harassment of all possible degrees from a subfaction of the most ardent anti-female marines faction. And how they use the lore to hide behind and to fuel their rampant sexism. If the only opinions you consider are people already in the hobby then you’ve created a sampling bias. Which is a terrible methodology for trying to reach a logical conclusion. Especially when we are discussing making the hobby more accessible to people not in the hobby already. And at the expense of women and their voices.

You've discussed it, but there's not really good evidence about its relevant prevalence other than anecdotes.

macluvin wrote:

At the end of the day, the anti female space marine crowd ultimately only has the argument of personal preference to justify maintaining the lore. It is acceptable to like marines being male exclusive. To try argue the superiority of it in any way or that this is what is best for the setting is an argument that is unsubstantiated. It also does a piss poor job of explaining why someone else can’t have official endorsement of their female space marine army when signals like that are a very welcoming message to others that have voiced a feeling of being unwelcome. This is in light of the fact that you can still keep your male exclusive marines chapter and personal lore, on account of the diversity in space marine culture.
Excluding the voices of women in affairs regarding women to make your argument is just plain atrocious and shameful.

The 40k setting is art. It's *all* personal preference.

I think that anyone (male or female) who isn't interested in wargaming shouldn't be worried about too much by wargaming manufacturers. It's just that people keep pretending that (white, college-educated) women have something important to say on the topic when they're part of a demographic that's uninterested in the hobby, whether or not it depicts women. Z

Again, games which show a more balanced depiction of men and women in their miniatures don't have women showing up to play more than 40k. So the only thing putting female Astartes in would do is satisfy people who *specifically like female Astartes*... who are overwhelmingly male.

 Gert wrote:

Kinda just seems like you're ignoring the evidence that is provided or passing it off as something you disagree with so it's wrong. Could you point to anywhere in this thread where someone has said that men enjoying a hobby is bad and not allowed?

I'm not being provided with evidence. Just anecdotes.

 Gert wrote:

It's still there even though you've ignored it and decided it's wrong because it doesn't promote your viewpoint. You're not having discussions, you're just calling everyone who doesn't agree with you wrong.

I'm having a discussion in which the people arguing against me are insisting I take their claims on faith. I won't do that.

 Gert wrote:

Where does Andykp call themselves an oppressed minority? Where have they exhibited "stolen valour"? You also didn't actually address any of Andykp's points, instead, you sidetracked and started making up nonsense. So what I want to know is do you think harassing and threatening people for making female SM is acceptable?

They're claiming pro-female Astartes proponents have been harassed and threatened and this makes their cause worthy. It's laughable.

 Gert wrote:

And there is ample evidence in this thread that shows there is a portion of the community that feels it is 100% OK to harass and threaten women hobbyists. I am also heavily inclined to not believe that these men with "very paternalistic and dehumanizing ideas about women" are pro-female SM for the right reasons.

I'm not. And male hobbyists get harassed and threatened by those portions of the community too. There are shitbags out there. You're not going to solve it by making female Astartes.

 Gert wrote:

You flat out said you think everyone who wants female SM is only in it to satisfy sexual urges.

I said that was the main thrust, yeah, and I think it's broadly true, though not in every case.

 Gert wrote:

If they're curious or interested in the hobby then they aren't in the hobby. How do you not get that very basic concept?

I'm saying that many of the women who people claim are being discouraged from the hobby aren't, actually interested in participating in it, they're just used as an excuse to criticize it.

 Gert wrote:

I mean we have specific examples of hobbyists making female SM then being harrassed and threatened. Those people doing the harrassing and threatening then specifically reference SM background as their reasoning for doing so. The way to stop this is to remove their "justification". And again, there have been posters in this thread specifically advocating for the exclusion of women from the hobby.

There's a difference between saying you don't want women in *wargaming* and saying you don't want female Astartes. One is sexist, the other is a matter of artistic depiction. You're conflating the two and I'm not going to fall for that gak.

 Gert wrote:

I have to pay to access that research paper, I'm not doing that. Find evidence that doesn't hide behind a paywall.

Do I really have to show you how to use researchgate.net?

 Gert wrote:

https://www.wired.com/story/women-wargaming-sexism-harassment/
http://www.chickhammer.com/2012/06/experiences-as-lady-in-wargaming.html
https://www.leftlion.co.uk/read/2020/february/bad-squiddo-games-gaming-industry-female-miniatures/

None of these are anything about anecdotes, and quite sexist with their "40k's rules are too complicated for female brains" bs. But, like I said, the kind of person who's pro female Astartes tends to have those kinds of paternalistically sexist attitudes that women somehow need an extra boost to be an intellectual equal of men.

 Gert wrote:

Damn, didn't know Hasbro owned literally every single group who plays RPG's. Weird.

You don't know much about RPGs if you didn't know that Hasbro owns the industry leader.

 Gert wrote:

Can you provide evidence that isn't locked behind a paywall?

See above, though if you're so unfamiliar with scientific papers that you don't know researchgate.net it might not be comprehensible to you.

 Gert wrote:

I've yet to see an argument that justifies male-only SM that doesn't inlcude flat out sexism or "but the lore!!". The background comes second when they background is being used as a tool for harrasment and threat. People come first.

People are going to harass and threaten regardless. Putting in female Astartes isn't going to stop gakky people from being gakky.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:
I am not an oppressed minority but does that make it ok to pelt me with online abuse, threats and insinuation? Because that’s what has happened when discussing this. And for the women in the community being subjected to this, is that ok?? You might know perfectly nice people who are against female marines but that again does not excuse those that abusive and threatening. You really need to stop playing the victim here and rather demanding citations etc put up a credible argument rather than your opinions masked as fact. Plenty of evidence in this thread to show how some people are who oppose this idea. I don’t need to provide anymore.

Honestly, man, the fact that you think that any abuse that you have been subjected to makes you right is really sad. It doesn't. Putting female Astartes in the game won't stop people from being harassed. But I think you know that.

Andykp wrote:
And again, show me where I have called anyone an imbecile? 3rd time of asking, second time you have accused me of being abusive. Put up or shut up.

I didn't say you did. I just said you were gakky to me.

Where have I been “gakky” to you? Last chance to put up or gak up?

Again you side step the question, is it ok for people in the hobby to receive abuse, you seem to be happy to defend the abuse and abusers. “It would happen anyway”, “it always happens online”.

Of course I think adding female marines would stop some in the community from being abusive. They hide their bigotry behind the excuse that female marines aren’t allowed, take that away and they will have way to feel validated and people like you will find it harder to defend or excuse their actions. The fact that you think it’s ok to abuse people and threaten them over toy soldiers or anything is frankly disgusting and shameful. (Sorry if that comes across as gakky but so is your behaviour right now).

Having to explain the advantages of representation again for the millionth time is tiresome. It’s well established. And please stop trying to interpret my intentions and insinuating that I have anterior motives. It’s bad enough you have tried to pass it off as sexually motivated.

Fact: RPGs and LARPs and boardgames changed their demographic also (someone would say almost exclusively) thanks to a better representation, to the detriment of the grand total of... none.
Why shouldn't the same applies to a very similar hobby?

Also, including female marine won't stop abusive behavior? You think wargamers are inherently worsted than role players? Because that's the implication. And it's wrong.

But even if we admit that point, the rest of the argument is you saying that since something isn't 100% effective, it's worthless.
The problem then is on you to propose a realistical, practical and effective way to solve the issue, because as partial as it can be, I think it's been throughoutly discussed that changing the situation by changing the lore will have a net positive effect.

- short excursus -
It's a perfect blueprint of another conversation that I distantly follows (because I'm not involved in it at all) about gun control in US.
Gun don't kill people, people kill people. Yet guns are a tool that designed, produced and marketed to kill people (we can have another discussion about what "defense" means when you're relying on a lethal weapon).
Here we have almost the same: lore doesn't hurt people, people hurt people. Yet the lore is a tool used to exclude and judge the other people, without providing (on this specific SM topic) no other positive function, role or advancement.
Both, in a perfect world, won't cause issue because people of such world won't abuse of that.
Yet we're not living in a perfect world. Yet you seems to think that is more pragmatic to change the world or leave it as it is, rather than 13 lines of lore about a fictional world.
- end of excursus -


Criticism, like opinions, comes very cheap. So do you care to add something significative and proactive to the many hours you're dedicating to negate the issue?

Everyone can claim things can't change, or that they are perfect as they are. Every single generation of human being does this mistake.
Maybe you should learn from everything else ever happened in the world from forever?
You're behaving like Pangloss in Voltaire's Candid: a book from 1759.

First off – apologies everyone, this will be something of a wall!
For Gert!

For Sgt_Smudge!

And then in order of appearance:

Goose LeChance wrote:
Lots of stuff about how talking on the internet gets nothing done, in an offensive manner

This discussion has done a lot already. It’s moved my position from “no we don’t need female marines”, to “I understand why we need female marines”, and now to “We need female marines not a political statement”.
Without this discussion there would be (at least) one more uneducated opposer to the cause – me!

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
But on the bright side my block list is now an entire page! And we've shone Sunlight into some of the darker corners of the hobby. If nothing else, I'm proud of Dakka Forums tonight.

Given that I’ve not had any response from you for my last few relies I feel I am probably on this list.
I wonder if perhaps you are missing the point of a discussion if you are adding people to your block list whilst also trying to discuss things with them?

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
And wargaming is also uninteresting to many men too. But there are both men, women, and everyone in between who *do* enjoy it. Why shouldn't we appeal to all of them?

I would question how many people who are interested in wargaming would be swayed simply by what heads the faction in the window had. Not a reason not to do it – but it does seem like the flimsiest of things to hang the reasoning on. The environment in store (which could improve if female models were more prevalent in the game) is the bigger hurdle.

Psionara wrote:
Females are included in the story and setting of Warhammer 40,000. I think people are mistaking what is represented on the tabletop versus what is established in lore. The Astra Militarum, Adeptus Mechanicus, Officio Assassinorum, Imperial Knights, Inquisition, etc. all include females. There are even a couple of factions that are comprised of only females. So why are people saying that there isn't enough female diversity?

‘cos they’re not spehz mehreens! (j/k)

Andykp wrote:
As for the lore being sexist, it is in that it arbitrarily excludes people based purely on their gender, the definition of sexist. Their is no reason for women to not be Marines it was decided entirely without basis. We have discussed sisters to death but end of the day, marines make up around half the factions and they exclude women for no good reason. All the factions you just listed have a handful of female models at best and some of them only this last month or so. Representation is getting better but isn’t great and while marines are excluded it will, only ever but tokenisitic.

It would be sexist if they had said that anyone can be a marine but only elected to make male models – that is sexist.
Making a decision - arbitrary or business driven or not – to make a faction all-male and then making them all male isn’t sexist. Not everything which involves gender is a sexist thing. They could have made elaborate lore about why, but arbitrarily decided not to.
Technically the Imperial Guard is a much more sexist faction, because despite their lore already allowing female models, there are barely any female options in the model range. Saying women can be guard and then denying people the models to represent them is more sexist that saying women can’t be space marines and then continuing with that decision.
If they had decided it “because women were too weak to pass the space marine tests”, then that would have been a sexist reason for making the decision. The fact that it was arbitrary is actually vindication that it is not a sexist decision. Unnecessary, yes, but not sexist.


As an interesting diversion of thought – a new injection in the line of “what effect would it have”, the logistics of putting it in place aside:

One of the issues that women have voiced (I know it’s somewhere in the 59 pages behind, please don’t make me go and look for it…) is that they feel like sisters of battle aren’t a good representation as they make it feel like women are a separate entity, to be put on the sidelines and used as a “girl faction”.
Would introducing female marines add to this issue? Would women go into a store and be shown sisters of battle and marines, because they have women in their armies so she can make an army of female marines? Will the storekeepers be commonly inclined to assume that women gamers want female models in their armies? Will their every purchase be met by people saying “oh, there aren’t any female heads in that kit yet, you know?”?
I wonder if adding female marines might have a positive effect on getting women to feel more comfortable coming through the door, but a negative effect in making everyone assume that women will all want female models because the girls want to play with space-marine-barbies whilst the boys play with space-marine-action-men. If I were a woman, I would get very fed up with that assumption very quickly.
I almost feel like assuming that the gender of the plastic models is an important thing because of the gender of the person playing with them is itself a sexist idea. Women can’t have marines because they are men, they should use sisters of battle. That mentality. Is it going to be made worse by saying “now women can use marines, because there are female models!”?

Furthermore to the discussion about what demographics 40k appeals to – it is probably always going to be more popular with men than it is with women. The reasons are probably varied, complex, and irrelevant. The net result it that if everyone who’s ever had even a passing interest in 40k were added up, it would be more men that women.
However, if you then compare that to the mount of people actively playing, then you’ll find more men actually go on to play the game than women – and that is an issue. It means that women have had reasons not to take the game up. On suggestion is a lack of representation which has compounded into the people playing with all-male models thinking it’s an all-male game, so that should be addressed. But it should be done sympathetically to the lore and be a natural change (Which it can be) rather than a jarring one. It doesn’t need to be shouted about, it just needs to be there. We need to change the game and make things better, not make a political statement about how we’re doing it.

I also feel like, whilst people say “there aren’t many people making female marines”, I think as soon as the lore allowed it and the models are made available, you’ll see a lot of them being made. Loads of people who maybe never even thought about female marines (it’s not a problem for them and they never had a reason to think it was for anyone else) will go “ooh, I could make a shieldmaiden chapter for the space wolves! OMG that would be so cool!”. And female marines will become a big thing over a very short period of time!
As such, the word will get out – it will become visible and obvious, without the need for a political statement reiterating how bad it was before and how good it will be now.
Just make the change and reap the benefits, we don’t need to shout about it! I ask those who are for this – particularly Sgt_Smudge – what is more important? Making the change, or shouting about it and making it a big deal? It seems like the same mentality as when people spend so long photographing their food for Instagram that the meal goes cold – spending so much effort to tell everyone what you’re eating that the dish is ruined in the process.

Some bloke, I think we are on a slight different tangent about what is sexist and what’s not, or what is lore and what’s not. I agree having females in a faction in the lore but not in models is a sexist business decision. But my point is the exclusion of women from marines is based on a sexist creative decision. It probably wasn’t that big a deal at the time and there were issues with moulding feminine features etc that have been discussed to death. But sticking with the creative decision to exclude women for no good reason is what is inherently sexist. GW Not making female marines is not the issue, them not “allowing” them is. They are addressing this in different factions like the guard eventually. So I don’t disagree with you but think I need to clearer in my point.

This is all real world as well and does not speak of the imperium bias’s.

As not not shouting about it, that is ideally how I would like it done, again, look at stormcast, not fuss or announcements just female models in the 2nd edition of them. And more since and now female leaders and cover art. Same with representation of different ethnic groups in 40K, it just happene. But sadly, this topic stirs up such anger and vocal push back in those against it that we have have to have, no are lucky to have, 60 pages of discussion and some shouting and band standing because if we don’t we get shouted down by the haters and doom sayers. I would love it to be an organic natural progression of the setting but the gatekeeping angry mob won’t allow that.

Now others might feel differently and want a more political statement out of it but I’m glad you have come to see that for in the in game and creative reasons alone it just plain makes sense. Thanks for that and taking the time to point out to others that discussion can make a difference.