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.

I don't see why there's such a huge discussion going on honestly...it's a business.

Most customers are male => cater to them. Sisters are ugly => nobody plays sisters. Make attractive female minis => feminists (or "special" people like them) run berserk.

Classic hero in literature, movies, history, etc.? Male. A female hero simply does not go well because it's so unpopular. Ask people to think of a "hero" and most of the time, your answer refers to a man.

Also...whoever thinks that playing with war game miniatures could be sexist in any way has...likely....issues.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
I think the modern society as a whole has issues with the naked human form and invents problems to hide that plain fact.

Male dominated, bla bla, sexist ectr. there is a nude or almost nude form of males and females exalted to the standards of the current society and there is a problem with that everything else is for me excuses to rationalize this basic problem society has, been unnatural and caged behind "moral" restrictions.

I see nothing wrong in liking the shape of the human body after all that's what we did for millenia, I do have issues with some fake morals that freak out when the form of the human body is revealed and try to disguise that whit excuses like the "sexist".

The problem isn't nudity or the human body, but the sexual objectification of it. Go to a life drawing class, you'll see quite a bit of naked, but no one particularly offended by it. The problem is when you depict a person or character being valuable only as a sexual tool or object, or as a way to promote another character (typically, a female character being played to show just how sexy the male lead is). It's just that having the character as a half naked sex kitten isn't too far from that to begin with.

 Sigvatr wrote:

Classic hero in literature, movies, history, etc.? Male. A female hero simply does not go well because it's so unpopular.

It's only unpopular because nobody even considers that market as being of value in the first place. Hell, it gets to the point where executives are even scared of something appealing to women.

"The initial results – they made the network nervous. The men didn’t respond as strongly as they thought they would, and the women responded more strongly."
- One of the producers of Firefly

Ask people to think of a "hero" and most of the time, your answer refers to a man.

Only because that's almost the only image that's ever popularized in fiction. Seriously, name a mainstream fictional "Hero" icon who is a woman and not a side character. Wonder Woman doesn't count, since no one actually gives a gak about her anymore. It's actually pretty hard to do, and the list is sadly quite small.

Interesting article, concerning film and network executives not wanting to produce things with female leads:
http://thehathorlegacy.com/why-film-schools-teach-screenwriters-not-to-pass-the-bechdel-test/
(and an interesting follow up article)
http://thehathorlegacy.com/why-discriminate-if-it-doesnt-profit/

MightyGodzilla wrote:I'm curious if it's as simple as women don't find war and conflict as interesting as men do.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:]I think at the end of the day, certain hobbies just don't appeal as much to women as they do to men. Whether it actually be gender based or cultural ingraining, I dunno. We still give our girls pink toys and our boys blue toys, we give our girls dolls and or boys action figures. Wargaming is still largely about simulating "war" with "toy soldiers". I would be mighty surprised if it had a lot of women in it.

Now that's not to say women can't enjoy the hobby, but I think it's unrealistic to assume there would ever be 1:1 ratio of genders.

I don't expect gender equality in all hobbies, and a result certain hobbies are targetted to a particular gender.

I certainly agree with your theory, I think that what's odd about 40k is how grotesquely tilted the ratio is.

Peregrine wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
They've trended heavily to different games than guys, but there have been female video gamers as a small but notable minority since forever. Ditto RPGs.

The same is true with wargaming. The person running Warmachine events at my old FLGS was a woman, occasionally I'll see women playing games, even looking at gaming forums will show you a small but notable minority. It looks like the exact same kind of situation that other games have been in before, so why concede defeat for this one game? What's so special about wargaming? [

I guess my experience has been that women are fantastically rare in wargaming, to the extent that I've maybe seen one in a tournament. D&D in the 1980s was heavily male, but even then the percentage of women was drastically higher than it is in wargaming now.

And here's an honest question: if a woman was running events, wouldn't that help make the culture more inviting for other women? And did any other women express any interest? If not, doesn't that support my argument that it's a lack of inherent interest holding women back?

This brings up an interesting point: it's a given that GW views girls as having cooties. But PP clearly doesn't.

Out of the starter sets for WM/Hordes, 3/5 Warmachine starters have female warcasters (Khador, Cryx and Retribution), while 2/4 Hordes starters have female Warlocks (Circle and Legion). 5 out of 9 starter products for PP's flagship games come with a female character (and if you go by the 2-player boxes, 3/4 are female), and no single faction has an absence of female (or male, in fairness) "leaders".

It's fair to say that PP products are about as inclusive on the gender level as could possibly be expected. Is there any evidence that this has attracted more female players? Honestly not sure how one could even tell this. I notice female staffers are often prominently highlighted on the Privateer Insider web feature, but as for attendance at conventions, no clue.

Women in PP events are uncommon, but probably well over 1% of the player base, making them far more common than 40k gamers.

IMO, even PP falls into the "Nuns and Femme Fatales" stereotypes with women in WM/H, at least with the models.

Winter Guard explicitly in the fluff contain women. The box set? All dudes: http://privateerpress.com/files/products/33086_WinterGuardInfantry13manWEB_0.jpg

Don't worry ladies, you can include a Kayazy eliminator team of killer chicks! http://privateerpress.com/files/products/33074_KayazyEliminators_WEB.jpg

To be fair to PP, there is a female widowmaker that's actually somewhat subtly female: http://privateerpress.com/files/products/33014_Widowmakers_WEB.jpg

 Fafnir wrote:


Only because that's almost the only image that's ever popularized in fiction. Seriously, name a mainstream fictional "Hero" icon who is a woman and not a side character. Wonder Woman doesn't count, since no one actually gives a gak about her anymore. It's actually pretty hard to do, and the list is sadly quite small.

Interesting article, concerning film and network executives not wanting to produce things with female leads:
http://thehathorlegacy.com/why-film-schools-teach-screenwriters-not-to-pass-the-bechdel-test/
(and an interesting follow up article)
http://thehathorlegacy.com/why-discriminate-if-it-doesnt-profit/

That's precisely my point

What's popular sells. Look at video games. The Call of Duty series sells like mad yet is the very same thing over and over and over again. People dig it, so they keep doing it.

Well, I can't exclude myself from that "women in wargaming" argument. I don't want to play ugly women aka SoB. I am not really excited to play an all attractive female army either - in 40k, it would mess up the fluff and in Fantasy, I just can't imagine women having any place in the setting despite being mages or sth. You got uber-menschen aka Chaos Warriors or brutes like Ogres, or hordes of goblins and skaven. Where would a woman fit in? Sure, give her better stats. But any Chaos Warrior would rip her into shreds with ease (after raping her )...in other systems, it might work. But in GW games? I can't see them having a place (yet).

40k has a neo medieval setting, thus their portrayal of women is not surprising.

While I like scantily clad ladies as much as the next guy, I find them totally out of place in wargames. This makes their objectification all the more apparent. It would be nice if Corvus Belli stopped making such models in Infinity, but that is unlikely as they are trying to emulate the pulp pinup style.

 Sigvatr wrote:

Well, I can't exclude myself from that "women in wargaming" argument. I don't want to play ugly women aka SoB. I am not really excited to play an all attractive female army either - in 40k, it would mess up the fluff and in Fantasy, I just can't imagine women having any place in the setting despite being mages or sth. You got uber-menschen aka Chaos Warriors or brutes like Ogres, or hordes of goblins and skaven. Where would a woman fit in? Sure, give her better stats. But any Chaos Warrior would rip her into shreds with ease (after raping her )...in other systems, it might work. But in GW games? I can't see them having a place (yet).

Wow. Talk about proving a point despite yourself.

1) How would an attractive female army "mess up the fluff" of 40k?

2) Why are the only options "all female army" and "all male army?" Why not have an IG regiment with a few female soldiers included?

3) You say that despite women being in WFB as mages, you still can't imagine a place for them. You do realize that means that you can't see how models already in the range belong there, right?

4) If the standard for belonging in WFB is not getting ripped to shreds by a chaos warrior, Warhammer 9th edition is going to be nothing by Chaos and Lizards!

5) And, as a flourish, you drolly point out that a woman would get raped before being killed. No doubt in the middle of a battle, because that makes sense. But I'm sure to you, that's what she deserves, right?

 Sigvatr wrote:


That's precisely my point

What's popular sells. Look at video games. The Call of Duty series sells like mad yet is the very same thing over and over and over again. People dig it, so they keep doing it.

You missed the point completely.

Also, what Polonius said.

1) How would they fit in? SoB are ugly and underplayed. Furthermore, what is hte point of women in battle when you got huge space marines to fight? What could they bring to the battlefield? Sandwiches? (sorry.)

2) I don't know about the IG fluff, I only know that there's one female officer in the IG army. Do they still rely on normal reproduction? Are the genetically changed too in a lesser way?

3) What major female models are there?

4) I don't get it.

5) I just imagined a Chaos Warrior kneeling down in front of her, proposing. Jolly. Seriously though, what do you think would happen to women that survive a battle? Chaos Warriors...especially Marauders. Ya think they'll ask them out for a date? Let's just be real here. Have a look at what happened to women after pillaging a village back in the times. Or don't.

The thing is: there are very few people making angry posts / threads about how women are represented now and then and happily lunge at everyone who dares bringing some rationalism in. 99,5% of the players do not care about the issue. At all.

 Polonius wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

Well, I can't exclude myself from that "women in wargaming" argument. I don't want to play ugly women aka SoB. I am not really excited to play an all attractive female army either - in 40k, it would mess up the fluff and in Fantasy, I just can't imagine women having any place in the setting despite being mages or sth. You got uber-menschen aka Chaos Warriors or brutes like Ogres, or hordes of goblins and skaven. Where would a woman fit in? Sure, give her better stats. But any Chaos Warrior would rip her into shreds with ease (after raping her )...in other systems, it might work. But in GW games? I can't see them having a place (yet).

Wow. Talk about proving a point despite yourself.

Well I do not agree with sigvatr, but I will respond to your points.

 Polonius wrote:

1) How would an attractive female army "mess up the fluff" of 40k?

Because 40k is a neo Medieval setting, and there were no armies that consisted solely of attractive females in Medieval times.

 Polonius wrote:

2) Why are the only options "all female army" and "all male army?" Why not have an IG regiment with a few female soldiers included?

Because that is not the role that women played in the Middle Ages.

 Polonius wrote:

4) If the standard for belonging in WFB is not getting ripped to shreds by a chaos warrior, Warhammer 9th edition is going to be nothing by Chaos and Lizards!

Again in a Medieval setting, few women took to the battlefield. Some were accused of being witches, but few were warriors.

GW's settings do not reflect the modern mindset. Women are not portrayed as equal to men and do not play the same roles.

 spaceelf wrote:
40k has a neo medieval setting, thus their portrayal of women is not surprising.

In my years of medieval studies, I did notice that the only women mentioned ever were the female military order knights who were slightly less cool than the male military order knights and got picked on a lot by everyone.



The imperium in 40k is a mélange of many different things. Most of its society looks much more like something drawn from imperial rome. Its wars are WW1. Its iconography is modern gothic. Only parts of its religious institutions are especially medieval, and even in there imperial rome rears its head a lot.

 Sigvatr wrote:
1) How would they fit in? SoB are ugly and underplayed.

Well, of course SoB are underplayed and ugly. Their models are ancient, hard to find, ridiculously expensive and GW hates them and their ruleset. If GW redid the range and made the models look as good as their artwork, they'd look pretty damn fine (the iron corsets/braziers are kind of silly, but it kind of fits with the whole gothic/grimdark vibe, so I'll let it slide, honestly).

Furthermore, what is hte point of women in battle when you got huge space marines to fight?

That's like saying every other army in the game isn't worth playing because of SPACE MARINES.

Eldar and Imperial Guard are both, by and large, equal opportunity societies. In fluff, expect to have regiments composed of both men and women.

And the Sisters themselves are pretty damn solid as far as training and combative abilities are concerned.

What could they bring to the battlefield? Sandwiches? (sorry.)

...

2) I don't know about the IG fluff, I only know that there's one female officer in the IG army. Do they still rely on normal reproduction? Are the genetically changed too in a lesser way?

There are plenty of women in the Imperial Guard. Despite the fact that there are no models to represent them (outside of that hideous female commissar), you'll generally find about an equal amount of men and women in the guard (of course, this also depends on the culture of the regiment itself, for example, the Vostroyan firstborn). Man or woman, you're good enough to die for the Emperor.

5) I just imagined a Chaos Warrior kneeling down in front of her, proposing. Jolly. Seriously though, what do you think would happen to women that survive a battle? Chaos Warriors...especially Marauders. Ya think they'll ask them out for a date? Let's just be real here. Have a look at what happened to women after pillaging a village back in the times. Or don't.

And the men wouldn't fare much better (especially in the hands of Slaanesh). Your point?

 Sigvatr wrote:
1) How would they fit in? SoB are ugly and underplayed. Furthermore, what is hte point of women in battle when you got huge space marines to fight? What could they bring to the battlefield? Sandwiches? (sorry.)

What's the point of anybody else in battle if you have space marines?

2) I don't know about the IG fluff, I only know that there's one female officer in the IG army. Do they still rely on normal reproduction? Are the genetically changed too in a lesser way?

I'm not sure what genetics has to do with anything. One thing made painfully clear about the Imperium is that it does not lack for people, so I doubt that ensuring women reproduce is a universal concern.

As for women in the IG, there only a few models of such. Codices allude to more heavily female regiments. Black Library stuff includes many more both in and out of the IG.

3) What major female models are there?

Shadowsun. Jain Zarr. Half of DE models. All howling banshees. All Sisters. half of guardians (and aspects). Two members of the last chancers, both Callidus assassins, several hereticus inquisitors, and arguable, Tervigons. thats just in 40k. Fantasy has many, many more, as did Mordhiem and Necromunda.

4) I don't get it.

You argue that women don't belong in battle because they would get ripped to shreds by a chaos warrior. Do do elves, goblins, Brettonian peasants, Empire troopers, skinks, skaven, and most undead. Should we remove them from the game as well?

5) I just imagined a Chaos Warrior kneeling down in front of her, proposing. Jolly. Seriously though, what do you think would happen to women that survive a battle? Chaos Warriors...especially Marauders. Ya think they'll ask them out for a date? Let's just be real here. Have a look at what happened to women after pillaging a village back in the times. Or don't.

Ok, first off, by definition, a marauder is not a Chaos Warrior. Second, what would happen would depend largely on the nature of the chaos warrior. Slaanesh might, but Khorne would just kill.

As for what happens to the village, if the women are going to get raped and killed no matter what, why wouldn't they fight? And do you think the men captured by chaos warriors are invited to brunch?

The thing is: there are very few people making angry posts / threads about how women are represented now and then and happily lunge at everyone who dares bringing some rationalism in. 99,5% of the players do not care about the issue. At all.

I'm sure that number is well researched...

Nobody is lunging at you for bringing rationalism to anything. Quite the opposite. We live in a world where women serve, and have served, in front line combat roles in everything from highly professional armies, to conscript defense forces, to militias. Aside from a dwindling number of areas, women do well in those roles. Yet somehow it's irrational to that represented in miniature form?

Kaptajn Congoboy wrote:

 spaceelf wrote:
40k has a neo medieval setting, thus their portrayal of women is not surprising.

In my years of medieval studies, I did notice that the only women mentioned ever were the female military order knights who were slightly less cool than the male military order knights and got picked on a lot by everyone.



The imperium in 40k is a mélange of many different things. Most of its society looks much more like something drawn from imperial rome. Its wars are WW1. Its iconography is modern gothic. Only parts of its religious institutions are especially medieval, and even in there imperial rome rears its head a lot.

It is certainly not controversial to state that women were not considered equal to men in the settings that GW draws from. Moreover, although there were many women who participated in battle, such as Joan of Arc, battle was considered a masculine activity. The vast majority of combatants were men. I would assume that the number is greater than 99 percent. Most instances in which women were combatants were dire ones.

 spaceelf wrote:

Because 40k is a neo Medieval setting, and there were no armies that consisted solely of attractive females in Medieval times.

I'm going to stop you right there, because no conclusions based on that premise are going to be valid.

There are strong medieval elements to 40k, most notably the government of the imperium as a feudal, highly religious, society.

But 40k is based on whatever cool thing the writer wants to include. Obvious references include Dune, high fantasy tropes, Imperial rome, modern industrial warfare,

If the imperium is so medieval, why do they allow sanctioned witchcraft in the form of psykers? Why do they have all female battle orders at all? What about things like corporations, which clearly exist in 40k but not in a medieval form?

There is no answer to those questions that could not apply to female warriors. Hell, the 3rd edition IG codex even refers to a female regiment.

In terms of the very sexualized female mini's out there:

Your talking about an industry that was founded by a group people who probably had bad experiences with women due to social norms of their time. Women usually ended up with the jocks and trickled down from there. Through their mini's they produce they are personifying this ideal female that they could never have. Its not that they don't know how to make realistic proportions, rather why would they. Asking them to look from a women's perspective would be paramount to an insult to them considering women never looked tat thing from their point of view.

 spaceelf wrote:
. Most instances in which women were combatants were dire ones.

The average game of 40k involves one only a million or so Space Marines, often wearing terminator armor that is passed down for millenia. More games than not involve heros or villains of galactic repute. You can go to a big 40k event and see more plasma guns (incredibly rare) than laspistols (incredibly common).

I think dire instances is the bread and butter of 40k play.

 Polonius wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
1) How would they fit in? SoB are ugly and underplayed. Furthermore, what is hte point of women in battle when you got huge space marines to fight? What could they bring to the battlefield? Sandwiches? (sorry.)

What's the point of anybody else in battle if you have space marines?

You do realize that most armies are SM? Or IG that rely on spamming dead meat?

3) What major female models are there?

Shadowsun. Jain Zarr. Half of DE models. All howling banshees. All Sisters. half of guardians (and aspects). Two members of the last chancers, both Callidus assassins, several hereticus inquisitors, and arguable, Tervigons. thats just in 40k. Fantasy has many, many more, as did Mordhiem and Necromunda.

 Sigvatr wrote:

Nobody is lunging at you for bringing rationalism to anything. Quite the opposite. We live in a world where women serve, and have served, in front line combat roles in everything from highly professional armies, to conscript defense forces, to militias. Aside from a dwindling number of areas, women do well in those roles. Yet somehow it's irrational to that represented in miniature form?

I come from a realistic point of view. You come from a very emotional and less rational point of view. Note that I do not say that's a negative trait. I get the impression of you trying to bend any point as hard as you can to somehow justify women in such a setting. Your last point is what reassures me in that assumption. You immediately jump to real-world comparisons and that's where you lose your credibility. It's a game run by a company that wants to sell miniatures. They then cater to their main audience. They continue to produce the stuff people want.

So, because I cite to the real world, I'm not realistic. Because I point out the multitude of females, both in models and fluff, I'm emotionally bending things to justify women in the setting.

I'm not arguing that GW should make tons more female models. That's not my point. My point is solely that female warriors in GW games dont' conflict with any aspect of those worlds. And if they do, it's solely due to arbitrary restrictions placed by the designers.

Tell me how well SoB sold. If I was GW, I would not waste a single second on the line and give up on it. Why would they produce stuff few people want?

See, I don't mind female models. Maybe some amazon stuff in WHFB...iirc, there once was something like that in an old WD. Why not? Attractive females are good to look at and might just fit in the fluff. But as I said before, some people just put their own feelings over business decisions. Not a bad thing by default, but it's unrealistic.

You argued that they won't fit in the fluff, yet now seem to think that because SoB don't sell well, that's why women dont' belong. Pick a gear. I'm not arguing about business. I think GW is making more or less wise choices with it's female ranges. I just don't think there is any rationale beyond sales that dictate whether or not they make more female models.

You can pretend that you've suddenly become a stone cold businessman, but this thread shows you making rape jokes, and asking what women can do in battle beyond bring a sandwich. I have a feeling your interest in this matter goes slightly beyond concern for GW's bottom line.

/e: Actually, you lost your credibility when saying...

But I'm sure to you, that's what she deserves, right?

Ad hominem *yawn*.

Pro-tip: if you want to use big boy words, use them properly. An ad hominem attack is when you try to invalidate an argument based on an attribute of the speaker. So, saying "Jim is left handed, so we shouldn't listen to anything he says about planning a birthday party" is an ad hominem attack. Pointing out that you said something at best insensitve, and at worst mysogenistic, and implying that you're a mouthbreating troglodyte, is deductive reasoning. See, I'm not starting with the assumption that you're a bigot, and therefore what you say is stupid. I'm pointing out that what you are saying is offensive and stupid, and that because of that, you are possibly sexist.

It's as as hominem as it can get. You tried to demote the point by trying to antagonize me. Textbook level.

It's not because you cite the real world. It's because you compare stuff to it. Such a comparison is worthless.

Yes, they do not fit in the fluff. What are SoB supposed to be like? In like every codex out there, they are lambs to the slaughter. Necron, GK, every time they are mentioned, they are pathetic weaklings that get killed. And what role do they serve in the universe? Who would miss them? Would the empire of fools fall without the SoB?

About the jokes - I just like to provoke people when they make themselves an easy target. You come from a very emotional point of view and I like playing with you guys

The difference is that I can step back and have a rather objective view on things. "Cold businessman" if you like that term.

I do apologize for not having a personality as blunt as Mat Ward's creations.

 Sigvatr wrote:
It's as as hominem as it can get. You tried to demote the point by trying to antagonize me. Textbook level.

Even if that were true, that's not ad hominem. Come on man, it's not a difficult concept. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

It's not because you cite the real world. It's because you compare stuff to it. Such a comparison is worthless.

Why? Even fantasy worlds have more similarities with ours than differences. And in an open ended setting like 40k, where literally anything can hidden on a planet, you'll probably see every type of human experience.

Yes, they do not fit in the fluff. What are SoB supposed to be like? In like every codex out there, they are lambs to the slaughter. Necron, GK, every time they are mentioned, they are pathetic weaklings that get killed. And what role do they serve in the universe? Who would miss them? Would the empire of fools fall without the SoB?

A lot of interesting half thoughts here. So, do SoB not fit because they aren't power enough? Or is it because they aren't fleshed out enough? There's nothing here to suggest that their existence is antithetical to the 40k fluff, just that they have a bit part in the setting. Which is true. They've only had two proper codices, one of which was in print for six months in 2nd edition. Every army is the heel outside of their own books.

As for their role, they are bound to protect the ecclesiarchy. They are religious soldiers, conducting wars of faith, protecting holy sites and missionaries, and the like. In a setting with a complex political system and an involved State religion, they have the potential to become very interesting in the hands of a good writer.

If necrons, which were crudely shoehorned into the setting in 3rd edition can be rehabilitated into something more interesting and organic, I think SoB can be as well.

About the jokes - I just like to provoke people when they make themselves an easy target. You come from a very emotional point of view and I like playing with you guys

You keep arguing that I come from a very emotional point of view. I'm curious why you think that. I generally make my arguments by citing examples, drawing conclusions from those examples, and making inferences. I'm not sure how I've used any emotional language or statements. I'd be interested if you could show me how I'm being emotional.

As for the jokes, you admit that you are trying to provoke people. That's an attempt at an emotional reaction. You are admitting to doing what you accuse me of. You also tend to pepper your posts with emotionally charged language such as "pathetic weaklings." It seems to me, and maybe I can get a ruling from a judge on this, that you're projecting your own mindset and behavior onto me.

The difference is that I can step back and have a rather objective view on things. "Cold businessman" if you like that term.

Not that I've seen. One of the wonderful things about biases is that the most biased people are usually the least aware of their biases. Frankly, I've seen you argue that women don't' belong in the fluff for poorly articulated reasons, and that because Sob (an army with no codex and ancient models) don't sell, GW should never make another female model. That's simply poor, or at least incomplete, analysis.

Armies that have weak fluff can become popular, just look at Necrons and Ogres. Armies with weak model ranges can become popular, just look at Dark Eldar. I don't find either argument persuasive.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
1) How would they fit in? SoB are ugly and underplayed. Furthermore, what is hte point of women in battle when you got huge space marines to fight? What could they bring to the battlefield? Sandwiches? (sorry.)

What's the point of anybody else in battle if you have space marines?

You do realize that most armies are SM? Or IG that rely on spamming dead meat?

Yes, it annoys many of us and is one of the main reasons I haven't bothered getting into 6th.

 Sigvatr wrote:

3) What major female models are there?

Shadowsun. Jain Zarr. Half of DE models. All howling banshees. All Sisters. half of guardians (and aspects). Two members of the last chancers, both Callidus assassins, several hereticus inquisitors, and arguable, Tervigons. thats just in 40k. Fantasy has many, many more, as did Mordhiem and Necromunda.

So, ether Xenos or E-side-kicks nobody has likely heard of. Ahum. I asked for "major" females. Examples of fantasy?

HE and DE heroes and lords, particularly sorcerers/mages, more specifically Morathi (the woman responsible for the DE even becoming a separate race) and Hellborn (who actually doesn't have a model anymore but she at least still has rules).
The Brettonian prophetesses, damsels (I know that name makes them sound helpless but in the fluff they are actually pretty badass) and the Fey Enchantress.
Valkia the Bloody.
High Queen Khalida.
Isabella Von Carstein and generic vampire lady.
The Wood elf sisters on the dragon.
Half the DE warriors/crossbowmen kit are female, as are many (don't know about the ratio) of the Wood elves.

Over in 40k you have all the Sisters HQs, they still count.
Shadowsun and the eldar have been mentioned but I don't see why humanoid xenoes don't count. I'd also point out in adition to having lots of women spread through their troops there are about 3 DE HQ models.

 Sigvatr wrote:

You argue that women don't belong in battle because they would get ripped to shreds by a chaos warrior. Do do elves, goblins, Brettonian peasants, Empire troopers, skinks, skaven, and most undead. Should we remove them from the game as well?

Interesting point. You suggest women to take the same role as goblin, skinks, skaven, bretonnian peasants etc. Cheap cannon fodder. Pretty sure that's fair!

Not at all what he said. You seem to think he is suggesting women act as fodder, he was suggesting there is no reason they can't fight on the front lines. Yes Warriors of chaos will shred them but warriors of chaos shred EVERYTHING.
But then that is Fantasy and historically women didn't fight so I wouldn't expect female empire troops any time soon. 40k on the other hand has canon mixed and all female regiments, hell the entirety of Cadia's population is drafted, roughly half of hose are women.


*Man these threads move too quickly*

Bitches be crazy; obviously these minis are just doing a 'slut walk'

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
And of course if anyone complains about the situation a loud and obnoxious element immediately starts screaming about "FEMINAZIS!" and "STOP PERSECUTING MEN JUST FOR BEING MEN!!!!!".

I think a large portion of dislike of feminist ideals is because a lot of feminist goals seem unclear, unrealistic, sexist in their own right and often harsh on men for being men and not being feminine enough.

Define "a lot of feminist goals", because you're really just making things up in order to justify your hatred of feminists.

 Sigvatr wrote:
And what role do they serve in the universe?

Defenders of the faithful, protectors of the innocent, the most elite warriors humanity has to offer (since Space Marines aren't human). The non-Militant Sisters help keep the Imperium together, prevent it from developing in to petty civil wars and ensure that the nobility and the population at large is not consumed by disease, and ensures that the languages within the Imperium are known and bound together.

The Adepta Sororitas serve a bigger role in-universe than the Space Marines do, when taken from the perspective ofe the average Imperial citizen.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Who would miss them?

The general population of the Imperium, for one. Sisters are a far more visible and relevant part of the Imperium than Space Marines according to GW's own lore-- Space Marines are legends, and it can be many generations before one even steps foot on a planet, never mind be seen by the average person.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Would the empire of fools fall without the SoB?

Yes. Arguably, far more so than with Marines, since Marines do not provide any services to the Imperium aside from war-- and even then, by the nature of their rarity Marines do not participate in as much war as the Imperial Guard.

Games Workshop is kind of weird about Space Marines. "We want to make them out to be important, but we also make them out to be so rare that no one ever konws about them and some people don't even believe they exist in-universe!"

 Sigvatr wrote:
Classic hero in literature, movies, history, etc.? Male.

The fact that, historically, popular culture has been misogynistic and male-chauvinist is not an excuse to continue doing so. That is logically fallacious-- argumentum ad antiquitatem, IE argument from tradition. Just because something is traditionally done does not mean that it should continue to be done. Whether or not something should be done is to be based upon its own merits, and tradition is not a merit.

The reason why there were traditionally only male heroes is because women in those days were property, not people. That logic does not hold true today, and indeed, there really isn't any logical reason behind there being only/mostly male heroes, and as a result, popular culture is very slowly changing to accommodate for this.

kb305 wrote:

just because your wife tolerates it doenst mean she likes it.

And what about on a first coffee date? Is bringing it up your WOW and 40k addiction automatically going to kill your chances? maybe not. Is brining it up a good idea? def. not.

anyway, this is getting really off topic, im done.

I'm sorry you've had to hide your hobby from people you want to date, but there are piles of us who haven't had that problem as adults. My wife knew I gamed even before I met her (introduced by a gaming buddy of ~15 years) and it was a non-issue from the beginning. She's taken some interest in the hobby as a way to spend time together, same as I do with hers. When I go up to the club, over half the guys there are married/ in long term (5+ year) relationships-- all their wives/SOs knew about the hobby from early on, excluding one of the older guys who got married before he got into the hobby. As an adult, odd hobbies (at least on the level gaming is) aren't the conversation/relationship killer they are when you're young.

hands_miranda wrote:

kb305 wrote:

just because your wife tolerates it doenst mean she likes it.

And what about on a first coffee date? Is bringing it up your WOW and 40k addiction automatically going to kill your chances? maybe not. Is brining it up a good idea? def. not.

anyway, this is getting really off topic, im done.

I'm sorry you've had to hide your hobby from people you want to date, but there are piles of us who haven't had that problem as adults. My wife knew I gamed even before I met her (introduced by a gaming buddy of ~15 years) and it was a non-issue from the beginning. She's taken some interest in the hobby as a way to spend time together, same as I do with hers. When I go up to the club, over half the guys there are married/ in long term (5+ year) relationships-- all their wives/SOs knew about the hobby from early on, excluding one of the older guys who got married before he got into the hobby. As an adult, odd hobbies (at least on the level gaming is) aren't the conversation/relationship killer they are when you're young.

Entirely true but there is still a curtain stigma attached to it in that it comes across as a pretty nerdy hobby, and TV tells us nerds should be laughed at.

 jonolikespie wrote:
Entirely true but there is still a curtain stigma attached to it in that it comes across as a pretty nerdy hobby, and TV tells us nerds should be laughed at.

Dunno. 'Nerd Culture' is becoming more mainstream for reason, so I've noticed that I don't even get an odd look when I mention I paint figures or play D&D. Sure, you're supposed to liagh at the Big Bang Theory, but you're also supposed to root for them. Hell, almost every person in my age group that I know reads comics, even if only the alternative arty ones instead of the standard cape books. There might be a stigma, but it's hugely decreased over both time and also as you go up in age group-- adults tend to not be as cliquish as kids, and older adults even less so.

Ah yes, the golden rule of life, it's only sexist is men do it.

I dislike it when men are portrayed as stupid brutes in many TV shows which happen to have women as the main demographic but you don't hear me crying sexism.

 MetalOxide wrote:
Ah yes, the golden rule of life, it's only sexist is men do it.

This has not been said in this thread. Stop making things up and then claiming that other people are saying it.

 Melissia wrote:

Games Workshop is kind of weird about Space Marines. "We want to make them out to be important, but we also make them out to be so rare that no one ever konws about them and some people don't even believe they exist in-universe!"

 Sigvatr wrote:
Classic hero in literature, movies, history, etc.? Male.

The fact that, historically, popular culture has been misogynistic and male-chauvinist is not an excuse to continue doing so. That is logically fallacious-- argumentum ad antiquitatem, IE argument from tradition. Just because something is traditionally done does not mean that it should continue to be done. Whether or not something should be done is to be based upon its own merits, and tradition is not a merit.

The reason why there were traditionally only male heroes is because women in those days were property, not people. That logic does not hold true today, and indeed, there really isn't any logical reason behind there being only/mostly male heroes, and as a result, popular culture is very slowly changing to accommodate for this.

I think this is the real vital center point. Hero stuff is traditionally a male thing, so you get a lot of push back from men when women start to invade that space. And that's not counting in the standard "feminists hate men" canard that gets brought out every time any level of male privilege (I wish there was another word to use for it, but this is the term) gets challenged. The take away is that men need to realize that women are going to come into 'boy's clubs' of all kinds and demand we act better, both to them directly and also in the kinds of figs we literally bring to the table. They are right for doing this and it should be encouraged to allow people on both sides to become better and more fully actualized.

Jesus, this thread is embarrassing.

Arguing about the logical ability of women to fight fantastical monsters is so unbelievably ridiculous. For example, I don't necessarily think there should be female space marines as there is nothing wrong with having an all male 'brotherhood' of genetically modified humans in fiction, but hypothetically how is it so difficult for people to imagine a genetically modified female able to stand toe to toe with a male counterpart? It's fiction. All you have to say is "yes they're equal in prowess because of augmentation." boom, done.

As for the Guard, there really isn't any excuse as to why there arent female sculpts, other than the uncomfortable feeling insecure men get by fielding women in their super tough guy space soldiers. We currently have fully capable female soldiers in combat roles in RL military organizations the world over who are able to perform their duties just as well as any male soldier. Considering the Guard is basically the US army in space with technology varying from moderately advanced to downright anachronistic there is no reason to not have women in IG battalions. You think the Emperor cares what his canon fodder has between their legs?

Especially when you look at all the examples of female Guard characters in, say, the Gaunt's Ghosts novels who are among the most interesting and are presented as equally valuable as any other male character, it becomes downright disappointing that my Guard army is just one giant sausage fest.

The quickfire reaction of many in this thread, I think, is based on a misconception. Just because there is sexism in the representation of women in GW games does mean that it is malicious. Just because you want an all male miniature army does not mean that you are a sexist. You don't have to defend yourself here, boys. Feminism is NOT an attack on the male psyche. You do not have to be a leftist weener to be a feminist. Feminism is just the idea that men and women have equal worth as humans. It is true that the two genders are not equal biologically and are naturally suited to different roles in nature, however in our constructed societal structure we are absolutely equal in capabilities and worth. You can be a testosterone fueled meat head and still recognize the validity of that fact. Lower your shields, fellas.