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.

 kveldulf wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
I wouldn't even say it is subconscious racism. It is PURE laziness.

Subconscious racism and laziness are quite well intertwined.

Uh, subconscious rascism? intertwined with laziness?

Whatever happened to the matter of racism (which is a product of irrationality) being a matter of choice than being classified as some mental illness?

I guess I don't 'believe' in subconcious racism. I do believe that there is a cultural imprint, and that there is a propensity to lean on items that identify you with that. In natural terms this infers skin colour and, there is nothing wrong with preferring one culture over another, though, it is wrong/illogical to judge a culture or person of skin colour alone.

Pluralism can be good, but shaming those who don't agree with it is counter to its own mission/logic.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 kveldulf wrote:

MarsNZ wrote:
As if clogging the internet with professional victimhood isn't bad enough SJWs continue their crusade into fictional sci-fi settings. Onward Sarkeesian soldiers!

It's only a matter of time before each boxed set has every ethnicity, disability & gender combination available.

It'll indeed be a sad, yet funny sight to see guardsman in motorized wheelchairs - at least the orks can have their grins once they loot em.

No one wants this. People want appropriate representation of other types of people besides white men. A more inclusive 40k is a better 40k.

What is appropriate to some isn't appropriate to others. As to who's more correct is a matter of belief but they can't both be right.

Being progressively inclusive isn't selling the fiction, its selling a product.

True great works are not determined by a majority.

Having Cadian kits being all male is an innaccurate representation of the Cadian Shock Troops. Men and women are both inducted into the guard so there is no reason to not have female guardsmen. I would say in this case female representation is entirely appropriate.

In addition, how is 40K being more inclusive not appropriate to others? I get female Space Marines being out the window (I am a proponent of an all-male Astartes order) but why should a fiction not being all about white bald men be some kind of exception? Why would 40K compromise it's integrity as a artistic body of work (as if the retcons to sell models didn't already do that)?

I'm guessing a large chunk of it is because white cultures advanced their military to be standardized first in the industrial/modern era and other cultures basically adopted the uniforms as they were functional, so there isn't as much to draw from in terms of modeling when making futuristic looking armour.

I mean look at the Imperial Guard, the units that stand out the most are the Vostroyan/Valhallan and Tallarn, which both mostly do so because of their head gear. The Vostroyan having those Russian hates and the Tallarn (specifically Al'Rahem) feature a more Arabic look with the Saudi hat.

Heck, even the Steel Legion is unique because of their style of helmet and gas mask, more than anything. I mean what gear would you put on a model to make it more easily identifiable as a different race as in those examples?

As for fluff in general, well yea they could diversify it a bit more and it wouldn't hurt. Though I don't know much about it, so for all I know there might be more diversity than I think.

 CrashGordon94 wrote:

 Yarium wrote:
Just paint people of different ethnicities. And I have no idea where the "dark skin tone is harder to paint!" argument comes from. I actually started with painting dark skinned folks for my Space Marines because I found it easier.

Well, there are a bunch of paints for specifically white people skin, but haven't seen any for others, seems you'd need to mix your own.

 Psienesis wrote:
The Salamanders are not African-black, they are asphalt black. They are white dudes with jet-black skin and glowing red eyes because of an environmental reaction in their geneseed.

That's basically my issue with them, would be totally fine with the Salamanders if they just happened to be black people but as it is... They're basically a whole chapter of blackface minstrels, and it's basically scared me away form playing them for fear of being called a racist...

the old Citadel paint Dark Flesh was a great base for an African skintone...

i don't even know what to say about calling the Salamanders "blackface minstrels"...
that is a hell of a stretch...
since they switched the skintone, it makes the juxtaposition of the Salamanders being the Chapter that cares the most about humanity, yet looks the most demonic of all the Space Marines, very interesting and striking...
anyone who would call you a racist for painting Marines with coal black skin and red eyes is probably not someone you want to be hanging out with anyway...

ironically, Salamanders were originally painted with dark skintones, and where never painted as Caucasian...
combine that with their volcanic planet and their love of fire, and it has always made me think that they were Hawaiian...
unlike Psienesis's claim, there is nothing in the fluff that says they are white to begin with...
the normal people of the planet could very easily have a Polynesian skintone, that goes coal black with the Geneseed implant...


@Wyzilla: i really liked the Native American representation of the Dark Angels in Deathwing...
they were written as complete badasses, so i don't see why it is a good thing that their character was changed to be just another group of European knights...
whenever i get around to painting a DA Termie squad, they will definitely be an homage to Two-Heads Talking and his homies...

@the OP: there is definitely some racial diversity in the Imperium, but it wouldn't hurt to have more...
although, it seems that GW is moving away from real world influences in the Imperium, which ends up making it seem way more homogenized than it used to be, sadly...

cheers
jah

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 kveldulf wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
I wouldn't even say it is subconscious racism. It is PURE laziness.

Subconscious racism and laziness are quite well intertwined.

Uh, subconscious rascism? intertwined with laziness?

Whatever happened to the matter of racism (which is a product of irrationality) being a matter of choice than being classified as some mental illness?

I guess I don't 'believe' in subconcious racism. I do believe that there is a cultural imprint, and that there is a propensity to lean on items that identify you with that. In natural terms this infers skin colour and, there is nothing wrong with preferring one culture over another, though, it is wrong/illogical to judge a culture or person of skin colour alone.

Pluralism can be good, but shaming those who don't agree with it is counter to its own mission/logic.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 kveldulf wrote:

MarsNZ wrote:
As if clogging the internet with professional victimhood isn't bad enough SJWs continue their crusade into fictional sci-fi settings. Onward Sarkeesian soldiers!

It's only a matter of time before each boxed set has every ethnicity, disability & gender combination available.

It'll indeed be a sad, yet funny sight to see guardsman in motorized wheelchairs - at least the orks can have their grins once they loot em.

No one wants this. People want appropriate representation of other types of people besides white men. A more inclusive 40k is a better 40k.

What is appropriate to some isn't appropriate to others. As to who's more correct is a matter of belief but they can't both be right.

Being progressively inclusive isn't selling the fiction, its selling a product.

True great works are not determined by a majority.

Having Cadian kits being all male is an innaccurate representation of the Cadian Shock Troops. Men and women are both inducted into the guard so there is no reason to not have female guardsmen. I would say in this case female representation is entirely appropriate.

In addition, how is 40K being more inclusive not appropriate to others? I get female Space Marines being out the window (I am a proponent of an all-male Astartes order) but why should a fiction not being all about white bald men be some kind of exception? Why would 40K compromise it's integrity as a artistic body of work (as if the retcons to sell models didn't already do that)?

First, to let you know, I am that guy that believes that there is such a thing as bad/awful art. I am that guy that will tell you that there is such a thing as horrible 'music' - Just to give you an idea where I'm coming from.

In reality, I don't agree with women serving in combat roles, but that doesn't mean in a fake universe that even those fake people on those fake worlds hold my same ideal to be true - granted. Unfortunately the effect of their choice magically working is what I usually have reservation with (not just 40k) - I think it actually takes away from the reality it plays on - thus the story becomes less interesting in ways (at least for the sane reader). I am more prone to believe that something like this comes from 'politicalness' being asserted into the lore (rather than inserted).

Even with Cadia standing on the brink, why on earth would you put the one resource you have in jeopardy? (Bodies - Mothers happen to produce & raise these ) I can understand maybe in a militia/pdf but if it got to that point, being refugees would be more advantageous so to not risk 'stock'. Its a very callous view, but you're talking about a very callous people, that surely would think of these things.

If the people of cadia were vat grown, I suppose it would reduce the logical problem I see there. However, why vat grow women to be warriors when you could have the biological/mental advantage men have in warfare?

Plus, the imperial guard plastics are sort of the standard general template for the Astra Militarum abroad - not just the cadians. So, if you want diversity in them, ok - let's make it an upgrade kit. /shrug.

 jah-joshua wrote:

combine that with their volcanic planet and their love of fire, and it has always made me think that they were Hawaiian...

You know, I was going to say I disagreed with the Hawaiian part as they reminded me of Tosh from SC2 and Ronon from Stargate: Atlantis, due to some of their artwork... But I looked it up and the guy who played Ronon (Jason Momoa) is actually Hawaiian.

So yea, totally see it now.

Edit: On a side note, wow is Jason Momoa talented. I had no idea he played Khal Drogo.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Having Cadian kits being all male is an innaccurate representation of the Cadian Shock Troops. Men and women are both inducted into the guard so there is no reason to not have female guardsmen. I would say in this case female representation is entirely appropriate.

Again, pure laziness. The current Cadian kit is from 5th ed and is the same models from even earlier than that, they just reboxed them. They must be some of the oldest plastics in the game now. If we got a new kit for them then there might be some women in there and they might not all have the same potato face.




As for lazy = racist, feel free to go ahead and actually explain how that works instead of just stating it as if it were fact.

In reality, I don't agree with women serving in combat roles, but that doesn't mean in a fake universe that even those fake people on those fake worlds hold my same ideal to be true - granted. Unfortunately the effect of their choice magically working is what I usually have reservation with (not just 40k) - I think it actually takes away from the reality it plays on - thus the story becomes less interesting in ways (at least for the sane reader). I am more prone to believe that something like this comes from 'politicalness' being asserted into the lore (rather than inserted).

women don't do combat in western armies not because they are worse soldiers, but because western man have the tendency to protect them and line units with women have a higher death toll, because of it as soldiers do stuff they wouldn't do for male soldiers. But if you have a sociaty that does not care what your gender is at all, but only if you can get off those 4 precise shots within a minute with your overheating lasgun, then a female soldier makes sense.

In africa they use children and teens of both sex as soldiers. Very effective at pacification and not much worse, then regular local troops. In vietnam and china there were ton of female combatants too.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Having Cadian kits being all male is an innaccurate representation of the Cadian Shock Troops. Men and women are both inducted into the guard so there is no reason to not have female guardsmen. I would say in this case female representation is entirely appropriate.

Again, pure laziness. The current Cadian kit is from 5th ed and is the same models from even earlier than that, they just reboxed them. They must be some of the oldest plastics in the game now. If we got a new kit for them then there might be some women in there and they might not all have the same potato face.




As for lazy = racist, feel free to go ahead and actually explain how that works instead of just stating it as if it were fact.

Female models existed before the Cadians were sculpted. Hell, if I'm not mistaken there were female Guardsmen too. Saying "they're old" isn't a good excuse for the lack of women in the kit. I would accept "They did it to make all parts interchangeable" as female models would require different bodies.

Laziness is just another word for subconscious discrimination. On page 1 I gave a break down of this to Las but, in summation, white older men* work on 40k. White 30 year old men paint the miniatures, draw the artwork and do the sculpts. These white, older men grew up in a culture where white men is considered the default. You can see this is countless works of fiction produced by "Western" culture. In their minds, "White heterosexual adult man" is the default while qualities such as "Gay, woman or different skin color" are exceptions. This is one manifestation of subconscious discrimination or racism if we are using the 21st century usage of the term. This is why a faction that features women as much as if not more than women is an exceptional case. If that subconscious discrimination weren't there we would have ~50% females in our miniatures. Same goes for race. We would see all kinds of skin tones amongst Eldar, humans and any other humanoid race.

On a tangent, is it more or are Elves as a whole "Mighty whitey" made manifest?

@kveldulf

Well, not all Cadian army personnel are on the front line serving (read: dying) for the Emperor. Cadian regiments cycle in and out of the Cadian Interior Guard giving any Guardswomen time to rear children for the state. Additionally, they still produce bodies for the Shock Troops. White Shields are the sons and daughters of Guardsmen who are eager to prove themselves worthy of the title "Guardsmen". There are also the tons of Cadians still at their home world fulfilling jobs like engineering, services and other civilian tasks. Not all people in the army are on the front line after all.

Whatever physical differences between the genders is moot in the Imperial Guard. LAsguns have so little recoil old people and children could fire them straight and Cadians are trained from birth to operate them. It doesn't take a macho man to stand in a trench and fire flashlight at those Ork boyz before they chop you to pieces.

*Disclaimer: I am not a proponent of identity politics. I think it is intellectual cancer and I hope it dies soon.

 jonolikespie wrote:


As for lazy = racist, feel free to go ahead and actually explain how that works instead of just stating it as if it were fact.

It's a stupid American thing. I mean we are the country that censored the words "Naega" (I/myself) and "Nega" (you) in K-pop songs on the radio because it was too close to a racial slur when sung... Yea...

There is censorship in the US

 Tinkrr wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:


As for lazy = racist, feel free to go ahead and actually explain how that works instead of just stating it as if it were fact.

It's a stupid American thing. I mean we are the country that censored the words "Naega" (I/myself) and "Nega" (you) in K-pop songs on the radio because it was too close to a racial slur when sung... Yea...

Sadly it is a mentality spreading here in Australia as well.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:


As for lazy = racist, feel free to go ahead and actually explain how that works instead of just stating it as if it were fact.

It's a stupid American thing. I mean we are the country that censored the words "Naega" (I/myself) and "Nega" (you) in K-pop songs on the radio because it was too close to a racial slur when sung... Yea...

Sadly it is a mentality spreading here in Australia as well.

Oh hey, you have it worse. At first glance I saw a Brit flag but yea Australia is pretty awful with some of the gaming stuff in particular.

Really, I think it just comes down to how you approach a topic when it comes to views of human mentality. It's sort of like pessimism and optimism, except with maliciousness and not-maliciousness, actually it's exactly pessimism and optimism because it depends on how you view the outlook of others. It's just weird to me that more and more people assume general oversight or whatever else is a result of malicious nature instead of anything else.

Just going back to the OP for a sec, I got the impression that the question was more about the fluff rather than the artwork or GWs studio paintjobs, to which I would say read a book. BL books are full of that since, well, they actually add some depth to the worlds and cultures of the imperium where the codexs kind of just prop up poor caricatures and tend to be a good introduction to an army but a terrible introduction to a race.

Makumba wrote:
There is censorship in the US

Oh, yeah, tons of it. It's really strange too. Bloody violence is alright but nudity/sex? Think of the Children! What would little Johnny and Timmy do if they saw a nipple?

 TheCustomLime wrote:

Makumba wrote:
There is censorship in the US

Oh, yeah, tons of it. It's really strange too. Bloody violence is alright but nudity/sex? Think of the Children! What would little Johnny and Timmy do if they saw a nipple?

A chest, not just a nipple... I've worked a bunch of conventions and the weirdest thing I've encountered was a group of male FF(something) coseplayers being told by building security their bear chest was not allowed. They were not allowed to just cover the nipple area and go about their way either, but luckily the cosplay staff that was part of the convention and not the venue helped them make "chest-shirts" that fit their cosplay.

That is crazy, well I guess you can't be a great country without it.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

Makumba wrote:
There is censorship in the US

Oh, yeah, tons of it. It's really strange too. Bloody violence is alright but nudity/sex? Think of the Children! What would little Johnny and Timmy do if they saw a nipple?

I caught the Jeopardy episode that Penn Jillette did (where they could SHOW the WORD "Bull****" but bleeped out him SAYING it.).

Nothing illustrates that dichotomy of right/wrong and crazy mindset better.

Given 38,000 years of further "blending" (because us whiteys HAVE appeared in the last 40,000 years for the most part), who knows what humans will actually look like? The "cradle of mankind" was Africa, right, where "we" began, right? But the caucasian types only manifested after northern migration to an area with a cooler climate?

Unless planets are settled by entire geno and pheno-types, so you might get the planet of the all-dark-skinned people and the planet of the all-pale-skinned people - but even then, if the environment is different to the conditions that allowed that set of changes to manifest on Earth, it will change anyway. So to maintain the groups "as is" they would have to settle worlds that resemble their home environs and NOT move to other parts of it. The monoclimate planet. Hoth, Tattooine (which doesn't even have icecaps), etc.

 chromedog wrote:
But the caucasian types only manifested after northern migration to an area with a cooler climate?

The white race is really messy to be honest and based on who you ask it could include anyone from just Europeans to Europeans, Japanese, Chinese, Mongols, and Arabs. Oh and in some cases Indians.

Also, if you ask some people, they find it offensive that "Caucasian" is used for white people because most white people aren't from the Caucasus mountain region. I've known Armenians to be particularly touchy on the subject.

Edit: Oh, and don't get me started on us Russians... We're messed up.

 CrashGordon94 wrote:

 Yarium wrote:
Just paint people of different ethnicities. And I have no idea where the "dark skin tone is harder to paint!" argument comes from. I actually started with painting dark skinned folks for my Space Marines because I found it easier.

Well, there are a bunch of paints for specifically white people skin, but haven't seen any for others, seems you'd need to mix your own.

 Psienesis wrote:
The Salamanders are not African-black, they are asphalt black. They are white dudes with jet-black skin and glowing red eyes because of an environmental reaction in their geneseed.

That's basically my issue with them, would be totally fine with the Salamanders if they just happened to be black people but as it is... They're basically a whole chapter of blackface minstrels, and it's basically scared me away form playing them for fear of being called a racist...

What's funny is that they were before.
Apparently, that was a misunderstanding, and they were always supposed to be jet black with red eyes.
Which is an odd mutation; I understand the jet black skin, but where did the glowing red eyes come from?

Makumba wrote:

In reality, I don't agree with women serving in combat roles, but that doesn't mean in a fake universe that even those fake people on those fake worlds hold my same ideal to be true - granted. Unfortunately the effect of their choice magically working is what I usually have reservation with (not just 40k) - I think it actually takes away from the reality it plays on - thus the story becomes less interesting in ways (at least for the sane reader). I am more prone to believe that something like this comes from 'politicalness' being asserted into the lore (rather than inserted).

women don't do combat in western armies not because they are worse soldiers, but because western man have the tendency to protect them and line units with women have a higher death toll, because of it as soldiers do stuff they wouldn't do for male soldiers. But if you have a sociaty that does not care what your gender is at all, but only if you can get off those 4 precise shots within a minute with your overheating lasgun, then a female soldier makes sense.

In africa they use children and teens of both sex as soldiers. Very effective at pacification and not much worse, then regular local troops. In vietnam and china there were ton of female combatants too.

The most ideal soldier is male /shrug. That's just what nature shows us. If you disagree with that go talk to God or the universe, matter, whatever you believe, to get more justification than what is already made evident.
Men are made differently than females and the way they are made indicate an aptitude for labor/resilience; its just apparent from science. Even the brains are biologically different. There may be outliers but I would even hold most of them guilty of some political foofoo. Even then, the exceptional case doesn't change the natural generality/course.

Please don't confuse my words with me saying: men>women. I can see some people going there, and that's not at all where I'm coming from. Men are simply made differently to fulfill certain tasks better than women as women have the same counter - that they can do certain things better than men.

And yea, sure you can pop a weapon in any persons hands, but that doesn't mean they're the most ideal person for war. Usually warfare means more than running out there with a weapon - it usually means things like humping hills with 60+ lbs of gear among other physical/psychological trials. In the matter of unit cohesion, it's fundamentally based on less differences than more; ones gender incorporates many polarizing differences from the effect of physical body appearance, hormonal levels, and inadvertent sociological attachments to additional overhead requirements to facilitate multiple genders. These differences are utterly profound and is more the antithesis to cohesion. Unfortunately, most people don't like thinking of this line of reasoning because its easier to equivocate everything that discern the truth of the matter.

Anyone disagreeing with me on this I don't think really is disagreeing with me; but really the purpose of what nature/natures God makes obvious.

OMG why are we having this discussion again? lol.

 kveldulf wrote:

The most ideal soldier is male /shrug. That's just what nature shows us. If you disagree with that go talk to God or the universe, matter, whatever you believe.

Oh boy, I want to reply to this before you get lynched basically.

To start off, yes males were better as soldiers when it was a matter of physical strength, and that was a large part of our history. However, as technology becomes more advanced the male and female dynamic becomes less of an issue of physical ability, and more of mental one. After all, shield slamming someone, or wielding many melee weapons in the past favoured men in combat due to their physical aptitude, but things such as guns really made it accessible for the average woman to participate as it didn't matter as much when it came to physical build.

You do make a point about the weight of gear, but remember this is far in the future, where technology is far evolved and we have lighter metals, in addition to cybernetics, so more and more women would be able to enter the fighting force. That's not to even talk about any planet that might favour females in terms of evolution and as such make them better combatants. It's just kind of silly to look at historical aspects when people have robotic parts that allow them to surpass current human strength significantly.

So yea, while I get why you believe what you do, I don't agree with you. In a world of super advanced robots and magic (psykers and more) you can't really bring in historical aspects that favoured men over women, especially when in our modern age they're becoming amazingly irrelevant. I mean even if you want to argue that women still are somehow less suited for combat, what about the super awesome female aircraft pilot, or tank driver, or anything else that doesn't depend on the things you mentioned? There's a reason they call it the "chair force", instead of the air force, these days, even if it's insulting you can imagine how much future advancement would make it easier.

So yea, I read your whole post and I just disagree with you. I don't think your view on the matter is fair, as technology really allows us to break the bearers of gender for the most part, even today. I'm just trying to approach your views in a reasonable and polite manner.

The very first depiction of Salamanders was with dark African skin tones.

(thesixth picture in this blog post)

Then, the next depiction in 1992 was a white chap:
[url=http://m1.paperblog.com/i/158/1584145/battle-for-armageddon-chaos-attack-L-UN0Nk0.jpeg]

Codex: Armageddon in 2000 showed them as reasonably racially diverse (a white sergeant and an African-looking captain, although he still had the blond 'do from the 80s painting guide).

By the time of the 5th edition we had the jet-black skin and red eyes, although I don't know if that was actually introduced in the 4th edition. I'm going to put the "they were always supposed to be coal-black" up there with "I always intended there to be nine Star Wars films, right from the beginning".

The "Dark Flesh" paint was useful, although it was quite reddish, rather than properly "black". Vallejo Model Color has a dark flesh colour, and the Perry Miniatures website has a method of painting dark, central African skin tones which works well.

I did hear a rumour once that the lack of non-white faces was due to more than just laziness, but I've only ever heard it from one source, so I don't give it much credence.

It's not just the painting, though; all the miniatures have European facial features, and just painting them black looks odd; I tried it once, and what I actually ended up with was an army of Indians rather than Africans.

Saying "but all Imperial Guardsmen in a regiment will look the same because they're from the one planet" makes no sense; just look around you for the counter-evidence. You might end up with something odd, though (the Honor Harrington novels have a planet that was populated by colonists of African descent, but who have lost their skin pigmentation due to the low light levels on their planet; they have pasty white skin and blond hair, but their features and kinky hair are still African).

I could see black Space Wolves working (If it's good enough for Heimdall ...); fatty fish are a good source of Vitamin D, so dark skin shouldn't be a detriment even in the winters.

Any in-universe discussion isn't ultimately a reason, though. Basically, no-one chose to commission or approve visual artwork, for whatever reason. I agree with the OP that it's something that should be rectified. It's not something I'm going to do anything about, but I don't understand the backlash.

 Tinkrr wrote:

 kveldulf wrote:

The most ideal soldier is male /shrug. That's just what nature shows us. If you disagree with that go talk to God or the universe, matter, whatever you believe.

Oh boy, I want to reply to this before you get lynched basically.

To start off, yes males were better as soldiers when it was a matter of physical strength, and that was a large part of our history. However, as technology becomes more advanced the male and female dynamic becomes less of an issue of physical ability, and more of mental one. After all, shield slamming someone, or wielding many melee weapons in the past favoured men in combat due to their physical aptitude, but things such as guns really made it accessible for the average woman to participate as it didn't matter as much when it came to physical build.

You do make a point about the weight of gear, but remember this is far in the future, where technology is far evolved and we have lighter metals, in addition to cybernetics, so more and more women would be able to enter the fighting force. That's not to even talk about any planet that might favour females in terms of evolution and as such make them better combatants. It's just kind of silly to look at historical aspects when people have robotic parts that allow them to surpass current human strength significantly.

So yea, while I get why you believe what you do, I don't agree with you. In a world of super advanced robots and magic (psykers and more) you can't really bring in historical aspects that favoured men over women, especially when in our modern age they're becoming amazingly irrelevant. I mean even if you want to argue that women still are somehow less suited for combat, what about the super awesome female aircraft pilot, or tank driver, or anything else that doesn't depend on the things you mentioned? There's a reason they call it the "chair force", instead of the air force, these days, even if it's insulting you can imagine how much future advancement would make it easier.


So yea, I read your whole post and I just disagree with you. I don't think your view on the matter is fair, as technology really allows us to break the bearers of gender for the most part, even today. I'm just trying to approach your views in a reasonable and polite manner.

Even in a fantastical universe with high tech, fundamentals still need to be paid attention to or you risk running a string of fouls that will make things convoluted. If the universe is meant to be solely a 'magical' appearance, that's fine, but that's not 40k.

Also, physical strength isn't just some thing to poo on (marginalize) with fancy tech. Strength is sort of a generic term anyway as it could mean multiple things. For men, physical brawn is one of some distinct differences/strengths: the digestive system, the circulatory system, greater activation of the Hypothalamus-Pituitary, hormonal advantage, neural connections are different - with advantages associated to them etc.

Sociological basics can only be abandoned so much in a setting before it becomes some sort of propaganda in the lore (good), or to the reader (bad). Sure, okay, there may be a female pilot, driver etc. That isn't the point. Just because women can do these things doesn't make them the most ideal person to do it - particularly in warfare, where physical ability is only one parameter (as important as that is). Uniformity in a military is paramount for morale, command. The more you deviate from this the more problematic command becomes. Gender differences in a military cause more problems than they 'solve'.

I'd suspect that even the 'chair force' is operated on less than ideal parameters - to facilitate political musings the public demands. Sure you can portray that in a universe, and maybe even done in some believable sense, but generally speaking, its counter to what we understand to the already efficient things nature has made clear.

If equal rights is really the issue you're getting at, go talk to the enforcer over nyah and see how much he cares about your qualms of the child quota you need to meet. Pretty grim eh?
I sure wouldn't want to imagine actually living through that.... so I just remember that its intentionally awful and not meant to be a feel good LOTR land. Less grim is less warhammer eh?

This again...

No-one is stopping you from creating your own ethnicity models. GW Gestapo won't come round your house and smash your models if you do. Same with females. No-one is stopping you. Do it. I'd like to see you make a non-offensive version.

With regards to female Guardsmen, have you actually looked at any of FFG's female guardsmen in Only War? They're there. Female Mordians, Cadians, Vostroyans, Catachans etc. So don't use any BS of saying there is no GW art of female guardsmen. A decent reason why the models don't show this is because: HAVE YOU TRIED LOOKING AT IMAGES OF WOMEN IN FULL BATTLE ATTIRE? They look indistinguishable. To prove:
Doesn't look too different, does it?

As for different ethnicities, I'll echo what others have said. The artists draw what they like. Look at images of White Scars as an asian example. Easily done, with models too. I also have the pleasure of living fairly close (30 mins) away from GW Central, and I can easily say that the vast (as in, there are hardly any exception) majority of people in there are pasty-faced caucasians. Myself included. As in, it's pretty much needle in the haystack otherwise. Can you blame them for only drawing what they see every day? As for freelance artists, they have less excuse, why don't you pester them instead of GW? And Black Library? ITS CANON. Mersadie Oliton, heard of her? Jonah Orion? Jajjo? Midas and Medea Betancore?

 Melissia wrote:
Nobody cares what you think about "SJWs", whatever that might mean this particular minute to you. That's not the topic of discussion.

And yet you're pretty quick to jump to conclusions (always either racism or sexism) about people's motivations to paint models that you don't own as if people cared. Welcome to forums, feel free to get offended by everything.

Man, some of you really remind me of how gakky nerds can be. "Don't get your coloured people/women in my White dude power fantasy game you rabid SJW! You can take our jobs but you can't take my damn space marines!"

 Las wrote:
Man, some of you really remind me of how gakky nerds can be. "Don't get your coloured people/women in my White dude power fantasy game you rabid SJW! You can take our jobs but you can't take my damn space marines!"

Yup. Definitely voting you are a troll, since NO ONE has said this. Or anything remotely close to this.

 angelofvengeance wrote:
I should also mention that this sort of thread has popped up lots of times.. and always gets bogged down with silly arguments.

la plus ca change.