Feminist 40k, the story of an ideology trying to enter the 40kverse

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.

**Luciferian**

Let's get some female guard models, more female characters, new Sisters of Battle, and maybe some different skin tones featured in GW's studio models and artwork. OK, OK, just to keep it realistic I'll give up on SoB.

Anyone making a fuss after that, is definitely suspect.

This argument is so easy to win in 40k because it's so easy to give Feminists what they claim they want without really changing the IP at all except for some new models. So give it to them. Everyone who truly loves the game wins. When those who are left unsatisfied start demanding half the Primarchs get retroactively gender bent or that all depictions of violence get taken out of the rules and lore and the game become about all of the races standing shoulder to shoulder in the same State-issued Solidarity Coveralls, it won't be hard to brush them aside.

**Luciferian**

Sim-Life wrote:
Something I've always been curious about is hownexactly you make a model look female while keeping away from things that are considered sexist by some.

Take the female Far Seer for example. Their heads are totally covered by the ghost helm, they can't have boob plate because sexism or whatever and the Eldar are a naturally slender race. The same problem applies to any female with a helmet or any sort of face protection and the muntitorum factories are hardly going to make armour with special pinched in waists so we can all see that the wearers are female. Same applies to space marines but then I subscribe to the No Space Marines without helmets philosophy so I dunno. Every one of my grey knights could be women under there.

There was a thread about precisely that, but it got locked. Just like this thread will get locked. Men and women are biologically different, and as such, there is no way to give them each representation as sculpts without showing those differences somehow. Although that clearly doesn't account for pantsu french maid models.

I see people here who identify as both Feminist and anti-Feminist who say that the solution is simply more of everything for everyone. More options, not less. I agree. Then, we can all have our thing and stand together as 40k fans against culture warriors whose only interest in the hobby is to use it as a political bludgeon.

As a side note, Feminist40k is a really creepy, cult-like group made up almost entirely of straight white male "allies". They have an ideological purity test you have to take before you can even join the group. With all of the things coming out these days, people like that are probably the last people one should trust, if you know what I'm saying.

**Luciferian**

Dandelion wrote:

In all honesty, GW just needs to update their products. Cadians have terrible proportions and do a disservice to both males and females. They really would just need to do what they did for Tau strike teams: mostly helmeted with some male and female heads, just pick what you want. Since they've done it once I suspect they'll do it again. They've also gotten more variety in their skin tones of late, in the Guard codex they have a few black guardsmen. So it's a start that'll take some time.

The only real point of contention (that I have seen) is that some people have advocated for female marines. I personally don't see the point because a genetically enhanced female super soldier would look EXACTLY like a male enhanced super soldier. Especially with armor. Unless you make the armor feminine, which also makes no sense and might draw attention for sexualizing them. So either it's strictly a lore change or you're treading a fine line of what is or is not an acceptable female model. Either scenario is bad IMO.

I agree completely.

**Luciferian**

Spinner wrote:
Commissar Benny wrote:
You need only look at Marvel, Magic the Gathering, Hollywood, the new Star Wars movie to see where that road leads. Devastation, ruin, decay & billions in lost revenue everything that ideology touches.

Heaven forbid we see more women as major characters in our imaginary worlds. The cootie epidemics could wipe out entire franchises. The crows will pluck out our eyeballs! The sun will bleach our bones! And lo, the survivors will wander the shattered ruins of comic stores and convention halls, lamenting the fools of the past whose willfulness - nay, whose blind hubris wrought such apocalyptic insanity! Woe! Woe unto those who write major characters without testicles!

There's really no reason not to have female Guard, or what have you. In fact, there's a thriving third-party market for it. You can throw out whatever buzzwords you like or put scare quotes around the word diversity or whatever the new hotness for these threads is, but there's nothing wrong with expanding the character roster beyond the five billion different super-grizzled Marines.

That's kind of a straw man. I have never once seen anyone say that there shouldn't be more female models, female guardsmen or major female characters. However, there's a big difference between doing that because it makes sense and carries the internal logic of the setting (which it does in 40k) and turning an IP into a mouthpiece for a certain brand of politics at the expense of everything else. I don't read comic books, but when I read a book or watch a movie I really don't care what the gender, ethnicity or BMI of the protagonist is, as long as they are a well-written character in a well-written story. Make them an obvious token character who only exists to parrot the words of a gender studies professor and I'm out.

**Luciferian**

Arachnofiend wrote:
The boob plate thing is barely a feminist problem, it's a "it looks fething stupid" problem. GW and similar companies designing with their dicks is the primary reason I'd be wholly turned off on a Sisters of Battle army even if the army was available in plastic.

This is the type of chest protector female fencers wear, because it's terribly uncomfortable for them not to be contoured:

Also, having worn my share of body armor alongside females wearing the same body armor, I can tell you that when it's on properly I find it really constricting on MY chest. I can only imagine how uncomfortable it is for them.

**Luciferian**

I kind of appreciate the baroque sensibilities of the corset armor, because I think it fits aesthetically with the theme of SoB, but I wouldn't cry if it toned down a bit.

**Luciferian**

If it's a choice between Sargon and Big Red, I have to say I'd take Sargon any day, even though they both have annoying voices. It's an easy litmus test for me - one of them would let you speak and provide your own opinions and arguments, the other wouldn't.

Fortunately that's not quite the level of decision we're forced to make in the case of 40k.

**Luciferian**

Aaaaaand now we get to implied insults and false dichotomies which label only one specific way of viewing things as correct, and anything else as the last gasp of threatened, inadequate manchildren etc. in spite of the fact that literally everyone here is advocating for more female representation in the models.

Yawn.

**Luciferian**

It's bait, mate.

**Luciferian**

Aesthete wrote:
Luciferian wrote:
Aaaaaand now we get to implied insults and false dichotomies which label only one specific way of viewing things as correct, and anything else as the last gasp of threatened, inadequate manchildren etc. in spite of the fact that literally everyone here is advocating for more female representation in the models.

Yawn.

Is this targeted at anything or anyone in specific?

Why, looking for recognition? Here, have this award for posting in bad faith.

**Luciferian**

Selym wrote:
Unusual Suspect wrote:
Jordan Peterson videos would be linked (I saw you, OP)
You say that like he's a bad thing...

It's a rhetorical tactic. Take a hard stand and marginalize anything which dissents from your ideology without directly addressing any of the underlying principles and arguments. This works especially well on Dakka, where certain political topics are taboo and you can throw out ad hominems and insults as long as you don't direct them to a certain user. Then, if anyone responds, you play the "if you're offended it must be true, what are you, triggered?" game. Alternatively you play the innocent victim of a personal attack, even though they're responding to some kind of generalization you made in the first place.

**Luciferian**

I mean, she doesn't really look like more or less of a potato than any guardsman ever, to be honest. Guardsmen look pretty silly and the whole line could use an update.

**Luciferian**

Yeah, the whole idea that you have to identify with your army in order to feel welcome or comfortable with the hobby is absolute nonsense. And it's also one I've never seen espoused by a single woman who plays 40k.

**Luciferian**

He's saying that it's not easy to identify with IG even as a male, because their models are potatoes.