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.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Representing women and people of colour in the model range and attracting them to the hobby aren't necessarily linked, but both are important. One can only hope they involve these people in the planning, rather than a bunch of white mostly males trying to come up with all the answers!

Yeah, as a black wargamer seeing the african features in the space marine sternguard(or was it deathwatch) made me irrationally happy. Its one of those things that you dont necessarily demand but it was really nice to see and made me happy that they added a little unnecessary optional bit like that.

I don't think appealing to a female base requires more female models (although I would like to see more) I think it comes more from the gaming culture, clubs and community. I really think it's about time that GW shops change their image from all dark and deep red to a lighter more inviting space.

 Leth wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Representing women and people of colour in the model range and attracting them to the hobby aren't necessarily linked, but both are important. One can only hope they involve these people in the planning, rather than a bunch of white mostly males trying to come up with all the answers!

Yeah, as a black wargamer seeing the african features in the space marine sternguard(or was it deathwatch) made me irrationally happy. Its one of those things that you dont necessarily demand but it was really nice to see and made me happy that they added a little unnecessary optional bit like that.

So pleased you had that experience. I'm white, but every time a non-white skin tone is shown on a mini in White Dwarf or a Duncan vid it just feels so damn important!

 His Master's Voice wrote:
I don't think many would seriously argue that women expect to be able to play with woman shaped miniatures as a prerequisite to participation in the hobby

It's mostly about positive representation as far as the product is concerned, something GW has been relatively good about, if only because pretty much every single female that shows up in their settings is a grade A badass.

While this is true, they still have a long ways to go as far as representation in the number of models in their range is concerned. There's been a noticeable uptick in terms of other minorities (i.e. people of colour) being represented in their display ranges, though, so it is encouraging.

But it's not, as some people are suggesting, about wanting to play with an army or model specifically because it's the same type of person as you are - it's about representation as a whole. When people can look to a game they play and see examples of people like themselves in it, it's a very welcoming and encouraging feeling. It's nice to be acknowledged and affirmed, and it's the sort of thing that's difficult to understand for anyone who is used to seeing themselves represented nearly 100% of the time in the media they consume.

A noteworthy example of a game/setting that's made great strides on this front (and has always been pretty good about it, generally) is Magic: The Gathering. In recent years in particular they've made a conscious effort to bring the gender parity in their artwork and character roster as close to 50:50 as they can manage and the results show. It honestly feels really refreshing after so many decades of male-dominated (and male-oriented) fantasy and sci-fi settings.

TLDR:
Representation doesn't make players more likely to pick up a given faction, but it goes a long way towards making a setting feel more inclusive and "complete" and that can translate over into the game.

Source:
As someone who's bisexual I'm not inherently more likely to be drawn to another bi (or just non-straight) character showing up in a setting I enjoy, but it's pretty damn nice when it happens. It's nice to be even tacitly acknowledged.

 Jadenim wrote:
If they want to increase their female market, GW need to crack idolisation vs objectification. I saw this explained very neatly the other day; objectification is based around the desire to have/own a thing, whereas idolisation is based around the desire to be the person. This was the big deal with the Wonder Woman film; here was a female character girls could want to be.

Yeah, no. That comment reeks of Tumblr feminism, which should be a major warning sign. The reason WW did well is because, ultimately, it is a decent film. It could've easily turned out like Ghostbusters 2016 or contemporary Marvel comics if it wasn't. For every success like Wonder Woman, there are hundreds of failed attempts at turning feminist theory into profit. It is because these theories are fundamentally unsound.

The thing about science, and useful theories, is that they don't necessarily explain something that happened, but that they can predict something that will happen. You can explain the movement of the stars in the sky using an earth-centric model of the stars moving in orbits or you could explain it using a helio-centric version that the stars don't move, but the earth does. They both attempt to explain what is happening right now, but only one of those models is able to predict where the stars will be in a thousand years. Most feminist theories try to explain things that have happened by explaining that the stars are moving in circles, but when used to try to actually predict a success or build a better future, they fail spectacularly. Repeatedly. They have a like a 1% success rate (if that). But then you find that 1%, like Wonder Woman, and confirmation bias makes it seem like the theories were right.

SoB sit in a bit of a midway point; they have the purity and strength aspects, which are good, but it's all focused around sacrificing their lives in service to the Emperor, which is mixed (service for the greater good, good, being totally subservient to a man, bad). And then there's the "if you've been a bad girl you need to strip naked, whip yourself and run around with a giant weapon" bits. Ahem.

I heard that Hillary Clinton compared herself to Cersei Lannister, who had to walk naked through the streets as nuns shouted "shame shame" at her. I guess you can never predict what people will idolize...

Your mistake (one of many) is to assume that people only respond to positive role models, and to their positive attributes, while anybody who has known a college student with a Scarface poster will attest that maybe it is not so cut or dry. Harley Quinn is a good example of an extremely weak woman, trapped in an abusive relationship, forced to change her entire personality to suit the whims of her abuser, and yet is extremely popular with women. I'm pretty sure characters like Quiet from Metal Gear or anyone from Kill la Kill were an experiment in testing the boundaries of cosplaying, as there's no shortage of female cosplayers happily wearing those dental floss outfits. I don't think you can predict what kinds of characters people will latch on to, and I think any attempt to build a character (or army) specifically to do so will result in abject failure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kawauso wrote:

When people can look to a game they play and see examples of people like themselves in it, it's a very welcoming and encouraging feeling. It's nice to be acknowledged and affirmed, and it's the sort of thing that's difficult to understand for anyone who is used to seeing themselves represented nearly 100% of the time in the media they consume.

I'm going to call bs on this. I don't think anybody is looking at Warhammer 40k and thinking, wow, I really identify with these ten foot tall space soldiers with extra internal organs in peak physical condition fighting heresy and xenophobic threats under an oppressive and dogmatic galactic hegemony because I too am a white man.

People are made up of more than just their skin color and dangly bits between their legs. Like, if that's how you interpret and identify with the world at large, you've got serious issues of empathy and understanding for your fellow man, and you might as well be playing pretend at being human.

I don't think theres a problem with the "negative" aspects of Sisters of Battle, as long as they are portrayed as negative. The Imperium is a sad and dark place.

The Imperium is a very big parody about totalitarian regimes and fanatical religion and ideologies, but like all parodies, theres people that don't see it, and think is actually "idolising" the kind of things that in reality is making fun of. Personally, I always liked the bad authoritarian guys. I like the Sith empire, I like Mordor and Sauron, I like the Imperium, etc... but those are as apart as my political ideologies in real life. Fantasy/Sci-fi is just that. Like when you kill a prostitute to recover your money after having sex with her in GTA because you just want to do it. Is a cathartic experience, but it doesn't mean that you would do that in real life.

Sqorgar I whole-heartedly agree with you. The unfortunately reality is that you're going to catch a gak ton of heat for your post because your trying to be objective instead of politically correct.

If women want to play 40k they will, if they find the community to be hostile that's not something GW can change by introducing a few more females into the model line.

And on the subject of minorities, unless you're talking about official artwork, these are models that YOU paint. If the artist wants Guardsmen, Marine Captains, Eldar, etc with darker skin that's their prerogative. People tend to paint what they see in the art, and what they're familiar with. The art is mainly light-skinned people, and lets face it, I don't see a whole lot of black dudes when I go to the FLGS on saturdays. I just don't. I see about a 80/20 ratio of white/latino. That's probably an indication of my area seeing as how the city I live in is about 2-3 hours from the Mexican border.

I agree in the part of "people is more than their skin colour and what they have between their legs": But at the same time as I said before, theres a difference between not picking something because you don't want to, and because you can't.
Personally I have ALWAYS had, in my entire life, the possibility of picking a exact representation of myself whatever and whenever I wanted. Normally I never did that, but that was a concisious choice because I had the posibility of making that choice.

 Sqorgar wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kawauso wrote:

When people can look to a game they play and see examples of people like themselves in it, it's a very welcoming and encouraging feeling. It's nice to be acknowledged and affirmed, and it's the sort of thing that's difficult to understand for anyone who is used to seeing themselves represented nearly 100% of the time in the media they consume.

I'm going to call bs on this. I don't think anybody is looking at Warhammer 40k and thinking, wow, I really identify with these ten foot tall space soldiers with extra internal organs in peak physical condition fighting heresy and xenophobic threats under an oppressive and dogmatic galactic hegemony because I too am a white man.

People are made up of more than just their skin color and dangly bits between their legs. Like, if that's how you interpret and identify with the world at large, you've got serious issues of empathy and understanding for your fellow man, and you might as well be playing pretend at being human.

They didn’t say 40k specifically, they said in the media.

As someone who gets weirdly excited whenever I see a model holding a gun in a left handed pose, I can understand to some extent what people mean when they talk about representation being important to them.

I've been trying to get my gf into the game. She like the painting side and might try that out but dislikes the style of game. *joke about a nerd wanting girls goes here*

As for the controlling the narrative part... not sure how i feel about that... maybe people are angry for a reason so why not address that first before controlling a narrative.

 Sqorgar wrote:
I'm going to call bs on this. I don't think anybody is looking at Warhammer 40k and thinking, wow, I really identify with these ten foot tall space soldiers with extra internal organs in peak physical condition fighting heresy and xenophobic threats under an oppressive and dogmatic galactic hegemony because I too am a white man.

People are made up of more than just their skin color and dangly bits between their legs. Like, if that's how you interpret and identify with the world at large, you've got serious issues of empathy and understanding for your fellow man, and you might as well be playing pretend at being human.

Yeah, you're really misunderstanding and/or mischaracterizing what I said.
It's more along the lines of:

 Leth wrote:

Yeah, as a black wargamer seeing the african features in the space marine sternguard(or was it deathwatch) made me irrationally happy. Its one of those things that you dont necessarily demand but it was really nice to see and made me happy that they added a little unnecessary optional bit like that.

 Kawauso wrote:

As someone who's bisexual I'm not inherently more likely to be drawn to another bi (or just non-straight) character showing up in a setting I enjoy, but it's pretty damn nice when it happens. It's nice to be even tacitly acknowledged.

 ImAGeek wrote:

As someone who gets weirdly excited whenever I see a model holding a gun in a left handed pose, I can understand to some extent what people mean when they talk about representation being important to them.

It's not about a lack of empathy - it's about having the setting of a game acknowledge that the world includes people like you. It's a simple affirmation of existence.

People don't identify with the post-human qualities of Space Marines. That's a silly notion. But when the background of Space Marines suggests that they are drawn from a galactic human empire and they are depicted solely as "white dudes" (which was the case for virtually every depiction of them for a very long stretch of the game's lifespan) it leaves people wondering "...where are the people of colour?" Is the setting suggesting that these people just don't exist? Or that the people making the game interact so infrequently with these sort of people that they are less than an afterthought? Some combination thereof? And these questions do have a (small) impact on the culture of the game itself and not just the game's fictional background.

What representation does do, when done right, is say "these type of people exist in the real world...so naturally they exist in ours, too. And this aspect of them isn't a value statement; it's just another facet of who they are."

To pull from another example in another form of media:
I was unreasonably happy when Colonel Volgin in Metal Gear Solid 3 turned out to be bisexual. Yes, he's an evil villain and a sadist - but that didn't matter. Nothing in the game suggested his sexuality or sadism had anything to do with one another. It was just another aspect of the character and it validated to a younger me that "yes, people like you exist" (which can be an especially positive message for bisexuals - see "bisexual erasure"). Again, it's affirming and inclusive without being patronizing or derogatory.

Again, it's the sort of thing that's not really apparent to anyone until it applies to an out-group that they themselves are a part of. So if you don't mind my asking: is there any minority group to which you belong, and if so, have you ever taken note of when said group appeared in any of the media you've consumed? If so, what were your feelings there (admittedly the nature of that depiction will matter, too).

You might be onto something about me "playing at being human", though. You know how we furries are.

You know how we furries are.

Explains everything right there, no need for further clarification.

Wow...saw this thread gained two more pages overnight and wondered what was up. I was thinking a interesting discussion of further business deals and GW activities, silly me.

Should've known nipple armor started this wildfire.

 Kawauso wrote:

Yeah, you're really misunderstanding and/or mischaracterizing what I said.
It's more along the lines of:

 Leth wrote:

Yeah, as a black wargamer seeing the african features in the space marine sternguard(or was it deathwatch) made me irrationally happy. Its one of those things that you dont necessarily demand but it was really nice to see and made me happy that they added a little unnecessary optional bit like that.

 Kawauso wrote:

As someone who's bisexual I'm not inherently more likely to be drawn to another bi (or just non-straight) character showing up in a setting I enjoy, but it's pretty damn nice when it happens. It's nice to be even tacitly acknowledged.

 ImAGeek wrote:

As someone who gets weirdly excited whenever I see a model holding a gun in a left handed pose, I can understand to some extent what people mean when they talk about representation being important to them.

It's not about a lack of empathy - it's about having the setting of a game acknowledge that the world includes people like you. It's a simple affirmation of existence.

In all three of those examples, they are people who were already engaging with the media (and presumably enjoying it already) and merely enjoyed it slightly more when they found something rare that complimented them - and the rarity is important. If you saw minority models or left handed guns all the time, no doubt it would cease to be something seen as noteworthy, and thus would not deliver such excitment. It's not the doughnut, it's the sprinkles. Advertising that you've got a whole bunch of sprinkles ain't going to increase the number of doughnuts being sold except to the people who only consume doughnuts as sprinkle delivery devices - which aren't very numerous, aren't big spenders, and honestly, have mental hangups that prevent them from playing well with others.

People don't identify with the post-human qualities of Space Marines. That's a silly notion. But when the background of Space Marines suggests that they are drawn from a galactic human empire and they are depicted solely as "white dudes" (which was the case for virtually every depiction of them for a very long stretch of the game's lifespan) it leaves people wondering "...where are the people of colour?" Is the setting suggesting that these people just don't exist? Or that the people making the game interact so infrequently with these sort of people that they are less than an afterthought? Some combination thereof? And these questions do have a (small) impact on the culture of the game itself and not just the game's fictional background.

Anybody who has played games before knows the concept of ludonarrative dissonance, in spirit if not in definition. Why do we consider Nathan Drake, the protagonist of Uncharted, to be a hero, even though he murders the population of a small city in each game? Because it is what it is, and as gamers, we can either accept that or we can whine about it - and the people who accept it tend to have happier, fuller lives which the games contribute to rather than draw away from.

What representation does do, when done right, is say "these type of people exist in the real world...so naturally they exist in ours, too. And this aspect of them isn't a value statement; it's just another facet of who they are."

And if you want to get completely technical, 40,000 years in the future, the concept of race would be gone anyway, since cultures would've come and gone and come again a hundred thousand times on a hundred thousand planets. Skin color would naturally favor lighter skin since space travel would yield less exposure to the sun, creating seasonal depression to people with darker skin while people with lighter skin would thrive more because they would require less exposure to sunlight to produce vitamin D. On the planets where sunlight and radiation was stronger, we have the technology (like sunscreen) to make up for that deficit. Not to mention, if the Emperor were white, it could be seen that those with darker complexions simply fall out of fashion in an effort to appease their god emperor.

I'm not saying there's no black people in space. I'm saying that if you are going to be nitpicky about unimportant things, you are being selective in what you nitpick so don't pretend that your answers to dissonance are any more important or considered than they are. The simple fact is, you want this thing. You may come up with a bunch of compelling reasons (to you) that you deserve this thing, but it's just justification for something you want, not something you need, deserve, or righteously should have.

To pull from another example in another form of media:
I was unreasonably happy when Colonel Volgin in Metal Gear Solid 3 turned out to be bisexual. Yes, he's an evil villain and a sadist - but that didn't matter. Nothing in the game suggested his sexuality or sadism had anything to do with one another. It was just another aspect of the character and it validated to a younger me that "yes, people like you exist" (which can be an especially positive message for bisexuals - see "bisexual erasure"). Again, it's affirming and inclusive without being patronizing or derogatory.

I see heterosexual characters all the time and it does nothing for me. If anything, you should be excited that your proclivities are still rare and unusual enough to excite you. If bisexuality were commonplace, you'd likely look at Col Volgin with the exact same thrill and joy as a vegetarian looking at an eggplant.

Again, it's the sort of thing that's not really apparent to anyone until it applies to an out-group that they themselves are a part of. So if you don't mind my asking: is there any minority group to which you belong, and if so, have you ever taken note of when said group appeared in any of the media you've consumed? If so, what were your feelings there (admittedly the nature of that depiction will matter, too).

Dude, I'm 40 years old. I was around when people who played DnD were considered satan worshippers and nerds were social outcasts who were bullied every day. I've had crippling social anxiety that prevented me from leaving the house. I have red hair. Whatever the bell curve is, I'm at one end or the other. Never in the middle. I've NEVER been in the in-group. So, as someone who has never belonged and never will, let me give this advice to someone who has grown up in a world where it is perfectly acceptable to admit you are bisexual to a group of strangers - own it. The out group is where the good stuff happens.

You might be onto something about me "playing at being human", though. You know how we furries are.

God damn, I remember when furries were the donkey-caves of the internet. I envy the world you've grown up in that you can freely admit being a furry.

 ultimentra wrote:

Explains everything right there, no need for further clarification.

You got me.

Baron Klatz wrote:
Wow...saw this thread gained two more pages overnight and wondered what was up. I was thinking a interesting discussion of further business deals and GW activities, silly me.

Should've known nipple armor started this wildfire.

I mean, I know you're being facetious, but it's not off-topic as GW admitted they are looking to expand their female demographic.

One of the simplest ways for them to do that is to foster an atmosphere that's friendlier to women and one of the simplest ways to do that is to just make sure that women are represented in their settings to a degree that more closely mirrors the real world.

 Sqorgar wrote:
I see heterosexual characters all the time and it does nothing for me. If anything, you should be excited that your proclivities are still rare and unusual enough to excite you. If bisexuality were commonplace, you'd likely look at Col Volgin with the exact same thrill and joy as a vegetarian looking at an eggplant.

This to me suggests that you are really missing the point that myself and others were trying to make.

...let me give this advice to someone who has grown up in a world where it is perfectly acceptable to admit you are bisexual to a group of strangers...

This is also pretty presumptuous. While things are certainly a lot better today there are still plenty of situations where such an admission is not just uncomfortable but downright dangerous - though that is fortunately less and less the case with each passing year.

I'm not trying to be glib in addressing your response (which was quite extensive) but I do feel that there's an issue with the core of the points we're trying to make not seeing eye to eye. You profess to being part of a variety of social out-groups in a few scenarios and that this the representation of these groups in media has never had an impact on you one way or another. Fair enough; that's your perspective. But do recognize that this sort of thing does matter to quite a number of people (and that the fact that his matters can have a direct bearing on GW in terms of the worlds they create and the products/experiences they sell).

One of the best ways to gain more Female gamers is banning stinky gamers from their stores. Extra points if they are stinky and give strange and horny looks at every female that enter the store. BOOM. Like 300% more female gamers.

 Galas wrote:
One of the best ways to gain more Female gamers is banning stinky gamers from their stores. Extra points if they are stinky and give strange and horny looks at every female that enter the store. BOOM. Like 300% more female gamers.

To be fair that's just the best way to get more gamers, period.

A tidy, well-run store where players are friendly and observe basic hygiene (and etiquette) is always going to get my business over a stereotypical "den of nerds". I actually started attending gaming events at my LGS when the ownership changed hands, for example - one of the determining factors there certainly had to have been that the previous owner openly made a few casual misogynistic comments in conversing with my wife and I the first time we bothered checking the place out, and I was happy to see him gone.

The problem is that normally those closed circles of nerds spend a lot of money, so the owners don't see appeal in the risk of banning them for the possibility of gaining more and better customers.
But all the stores I have seen that are strict in that kind of thing, flourish with a much better enviroment of gamers.

I agree wholeheartedly, and really would like to see a lot of store owners step up in that regard.

 Sqorgar wrote:
Dude, I'm 40 years old. I was around when people who played DnD were considered satan worshippers and nerds were social outcasts who were bullied every day. I've had crippling social anxiety that prevented me from leaving the house. I have red hair. Whatever the bell curve is, I'm at one end or the other. Never in the middle. I've NEVER been in the in-group. So, as someone who has never belonged and never will, let me give this advice to someone who has grown up in a world where it is perfectly acceptable to admit you are bisexual to a group of strangers - own it. The out group is where the good stuff happens.

I'm calling BS on you.

If you really think having red hair equates to being bisexual or black in the United States, you really need to educate yourself on the current social issues facing our part of the world, ie. no one is refusing you rights because of your hair colour.

In response to some of your previous comments in this thread, it's fallacious to compare "Tumblr feminism", as you so put it, to the movement of the celestial bodies as both "useful theories". Wonder Woman inspired a whole bunch of girls that they aren't exempt from being superheroes by virtue of their gender - ask any kid wearing Wonder Woman apparel why they like her. Media has portrayed polarized the sexes for the longest time, with men as the heroes and women as those in distress, and it's frankly nice to see a movie where the sex/gender of the characters doesn't matter to the storyline. The idolization vs. objectification nicely contrasts the underlying problem, and dismissing it as "Tumblr feminism" shows your ignorance on the topic.

Of course, all of this could and probably should be continued in PM rather than airing dirty political laundry out in the open.

More on topic (and IMO), GW could entice more women gamers by toning down the sexualization of their (limited) female line. My wife saw a Lelith Hexperax model I had painted, rolled her eyes at me and asked why anyone goes into war in a bikini. I told her about the background of the character and why she might be so scantily clad, but her immediate reaction was of distaste. Having a model range like that will cause people to immediately form opinions of both the company producing the models and the people buying them, which goes a very long way to keeping them away from the hobby. Add in that the community and shops are male-dominated (or as others in this thread have put it, "Oh my god is that a real girl?!"), and it further drives women away.

No one in the United States is refused any rights for being black or bisexual either. But you picked the least relevant part of his description in him having red hair.

D&D players were certainly portrayed in a bad light.

strepp wrote:

If you really think having red hair equates to being bisexual or black in the United States, you really need to educate yourself on the current social issues facing our part of the world, ie. no one is refusing you rights because of your hair colour.

While I don't disagree with you, I wouldn't dismiss his experiences with discrimination as gingers have received their share of abuse over the years. South Park certainly didn't do anyone any favours there, particularly for younger demographics who pick up on their jokes in all the wrong ways. Nowhere near as severe, of course, as what other groups have had to endure but the point stands.

More on topic (and IMO), GW could entice more women gamers by toning down the sexualization of their (limited) female line.

This is a legitimate point made about one facet of the diversity topic as it applies to games/GW. There's room for models like Lelith, of course, but it's al about context and contrast. Sexualized female characters aren't as big of a deal when there are just more female characters in general and when the sexualization encompasses male characters as well. I'd argue there's plenty of work for GW to do on both fronts.

Really, it would go a long way just to have heads and torsos on-sprue to allow ~50% of the models in some common, core kits to be female. I'm thinking kits like Guardsmen, Eldar, Tau, etc. The Dark Eldar range is pretty much there as-is but it's kind of unfortunate that they didn't take this opportunity with some of the newer kits they revisited - I think the current Tau kits only have one female head apiece, for example, and it really was a mis-step in my opinion to not use the introduction of the Primaris marines to bring female Astartes to the setting...

But they are making (admittedly) slow progress on these fronts, as with the aforementioned African-featured marine head and that new female Stormcast character. It's nice to see but they still have a ways to go. It doesn't help that some companies (as I mentioned, Wizards of the Coast) spoil us with how they treat diversity in their own properties, but it's something.

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
No one in the United States is refused any rights for being black or bisexual either.

Not to be pedantic but that really is flat-out untrue. Sexual minorities in the US do not have the same legal protections as everyone else and issues like voter suppression (which primarily impact racial and ethnic minorities) are a real problem.

Bi-Sexual and Black people absolutely do have the same legal protections as everyone else.

Actually, I suppose that's not strictly true. It would be illegal to deny someone a job for being black or bi-sexual, but perfectly legal to do so because they have red hair. So they do have more legal protections than most "groups".

strepp wrote:
More on topic (and IMO), GW could entice more women gamers by toning down the sexualization of their (limited) female line. My wife saw a Lelith Hexperax model I had painted, rolled her eyes at me and asked why anyone goes into war in a bikini.

Thanks, but no, thanks. I like my Lilith the way she is. Next thing we know they'll come for Slaanesh.

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
It would be illegal to deny someone a job for being...bi-sexual...

This is actually perfectly legal in a number of states. Housing can be denied on this basis, too.

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
Bi-Sexual and Black people absolutely do have the same legal protections as everyone else.

I don't want to venture farther afield from the topic of this thread but I'd be happy to rebut that claim in a PM.

 His Master's Voice wrote:

Thanks, but no, thanks. I like my Lilith the way she is. Next thing we know they'll come for Slaanesh.

I agree that Lelith is fine in the right context. When the range of female models is as limited as it is, currently, it's a bit of a problem.

As long as there are more Sigvalds, though, and more female models just in general, it's a non-issue.

I mean, I know you're being facetious, but it's not off-topic as GW admitted they are looking to expand their female demographic. 

One of the simplest ways for them to do that is to foster an atmosphere that's friendlier to women and one of the simplest ways to do that is to just make sure that women are represented in their settings to a degree that more closely mirrors the real world. 

Haha, sorry about that, I've seen this kind of debate/discussion so much and fall into such states of lunacy thst I kind of auto-discredited it.

You are correct, though. It is a legitimate topic to discuss.

As for mirroring the real world, well it's fantasy and fantasy sci-fi, they should go beyond what reality's capable of. I can't speak for 40k but AoS is certainly on the right track with that. Lots of power women leaders and goddesses in charge or vital to a story's success have been done and some armies have lore justification for entire forces of women soldiers.

Baron Klatz wrote:

Haha, sorry about that, I've seen this kind of debate/discussion so much and fall into such states of lunacy thst I kind of auto-discredited it.

It's all good!
It's a fraught subject so I understand.

You are correct, though. It is a legitimate topic to discuss.

As for mirroring the real world, well it's fantasy and fantasy sci-fi, they should go beyond what reality's capable of. I can't speak for 40k but AoS is certainly bones the right track with that. Lots of power women leaders and goddesses in charge or vital to a story's success have been done and some armies have lore justification for entire forces of women soldiers.

Agreed that AoS is off to a good start - I just feel there's a lot more ground to cover. And I hope they do!

Again I was admittedly let down by the recent shake-ups in 40k completely overlooking the potential in female Primaris marines...but I have hope they can make other progress going forward.

The problem is not female sexualization.
The problem is that we don't have enough male sexualization!

Pretty much, yeah.

 His Master's Voice wrote:

strepp wrote:
More on topic (and IMO), GW could entice more women gamers by toning down the sexualization of their (limited) female line. My wife saw a Lelith Hexperax model I had painted, rolled her eyes at me and asked why anyone goes into war in a bikini.

Thanks, but no, thanks. I like my Lilith the way she is. Next thing we know they'll come for Slaanesh.

As Kawauso eloquently put it above, there is absolutely room for characters like Lilith (although according to my significant other, just not where anyone else can see ). No one is calling for a knee-jerk removal of models like this from the setting, but instead to supplement the other side of it. I have a Harlequin army, and I really like that there's the opportunity to make 50% of your troupe female. They're bringing this in in other lines (Stormcasts), and I'm confident they'll be able to eventually reach parity, but in the meantime, a disproportionate number of sexualized models will run the risk of steering away prospective players.

Albino Squirrel, it would be illegal to refuse someone a job based on how they look (race, hair colour, etc.) - you're just as protected from one as the other. Just consider that no one is on the receiving end of a stop-and-frisk because of their hair colour.