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 think part of the problem is heroic scale - the men are buffed up beyond realistic proportions, so when they sculpt a female character, they give her massive tit-plate armour to try and fit with the proportions of the males, and this inevitably leaves the impression of a sexist model.

Most of the female sculpts really do suck - female eldar gaurdians are just male ones with two misshapen bumps added. They should try harder, but its not just limited to gw. I'm trying to source models for a mixed sex Albion army. I've started with sword maidens and ill be damned if I can find nice female sculpts with regular clothes. I've bought models from celtos and Raging Heroes, and while the proportions are a bit more anatomically correct, they always seem to be showing acres of flesh. Not particularly practical for swordfighting. If I want flesh, I'll be extra nice to the wife, or watch porn.

Blood angels have nipple armor? Can I see it?

I feel it should be noted that whether or not a movie passes the Bechdel test is in no way shape or form an indication that the film(or in our case, franchise) itself is sexist. Rather, it's a way to measure gender biases in the entertainment sector as a whole. A film can pass the test and still be sexist as hell and visa versa.

That being said, for what it's worth, I think the Dawn of War series had some pretty memorable female commanders. Of course, in that case people were complaining about the fact that Eldar seemingly have no male leaders at all.

I guess there really is no way to please everyone.

The women are there, but not in the tabletop game (unless you play Eldar, Dark Eldar or Sisters). I can think of many female characters in BL novels, and FFG's RPGs allow characters of both sexes (except Deathwatch, because all the PCs are Marines). I don't think it's down to misogyny, just lack of thought.

I do think there needs to be more representation of women in the model lines. It'd be cool to see female models for IG,(all the better to show how they really do represent the face of "normal" humanity in the setting) and the art in the Only War book shows you can have women in IG garb without them being sexualised - but I'm sceptical that it'll ever happen.

I seem to remember a fantastic book about the Adeptus Arbites: "Shira Calpurnia" in "Enforcer". This is how I imagine the future of the game fluff going.

nomotog wrote:
Blood angels have nipple armor? Can I see it?

Not to derail the thread, but I feel I've already added my thoughts on the topic, and these models are always good for a laugh.

 Lynata wrote:
Why is it okay for Blood Angels to have "nipple armour", but not for Battle Sisters to have "DDs" on their suits?

First of all, it isn't okay for the Blood Angels, but mostly because...well look at them, they look ridiculous. Secondly, you're being a bit silly if you're assuming that male and female chests have the exact same standard set for them. There do exist cultures where topless women are more socially acceptable without being thought of in a sexual way. However, in most cultures, we all know that one example (female) is highly sexualized, while the other is not (male). Shirtless men are acceptable in a myriad of places where shirtless women are not. Now if you want to open that up to a larger question about whether that double standard should even exist in out societies, then feel free to make that case, but as it is, I think you know there's a big difference.

nomotog wrote:
Blood angels have nipple armor? Can I see it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle_cuirass

... not exactly BA armor, but it's what it's based on, being there, all Greco-Roman.

As far as depicting female characters on the table-top... well, while GW could release a bunch of female troops for all of the armies that would conceivably have them, this area of the hobby is already rather well-served by third-party bits manufacturers or other model lines. Is it worth the expense to GW to produce these models for what will be, essentially, niche sales in an already-niche hobby market, especially when this role is already suitably served by other companies?

Let's also be honest and say that a lot of 40K stories are based on/drawn from/inspired by real-life historical events, and most of those events are, given the setting, various real-world wars and conflicts. While women have served in various military forces throughout history, sometimes openly, sometimes not, the bulk of these stories, especially to the Western world, are about men, in combat, with other men, against other men. While we do get our Joans of Arc and Queen Boudiccas and Helens and such in 40K, they're a relatively small aspect of the totality of the setting... mainly because I think having a Joan of Arc-like character pop out of an Imperial World every other week reduces the impact such a character can have on the setting, which, I think, does no one any favors anywhere, though I would think that we could get more Rambettes out of Catachan than we've seen thus far.

Then again, I'd also like to see an Inquisition-based novel, inspired by the James Bond series, where the Inquisitor in question is required to James Bond/Captain Kirk his/her way through all sorts of heretical nobles, planetary officials, etc etc in pursuit of while being decidedly, openly homosexual. This would, of course, be a novel lighter in tone than most in BL, and will probably never happen in my lifetime.

Seeing the detain in those models makes me no longer buy the idea that nice female modes would be too hard to do. If you can put nipples on a SM, then you can make nice looking female models.

There is also some in-universe reasons for the Sisterhood's armor to be over-emphasizing of feminine traits (the Decree Passive), and also the argument that the armor is relatively mass-produced, without knowing the actual measurements of the woman who will be wearing it, so it's designed with the "one size will (sorta) fit most", within an average range of body-size that the Sisterhood will see (their physical regimen, much like that of the IG, all but ensures that there will be an average range of measurements, without the wide variety of body-types one would see in average society).

Mr Morden wrote:Ahh but thats one of so many good female characters

I admit, I'm probably giving the author too much flak.
Ultimately, I still feel he "devalued" both the Sisterhood as well as the Commissariat by presenting both organisations in such a drastically different and more humane light. Just like the Space Marines, they're not meant to be like "the guys from next door", and if he wanted to write a story like that he should've picked characters from a more ordinary profession.
But yeah, that has little to do with gender.

Eggs wrote:I think part of the problem is heroic scale - the men are buffed up beyond realistic proportions, so when they sculpt a female character, they give her massive tit-plate armour to try and fit with the proportions of the males, and this inevitably leaves the impression of a sexist model.

That's a good point. Especially when you compare it with their 54mm minis from the Inquisitor range.

Fezman wrote:It'd be cool to see female models for IG,(all the better to show how they really do represent the face of "normal" humanity in the setting) and the art in the Only War book shows you can have women in IG garb without them being sexualised - but I'm sceptical that it'll ever happen.

Although that swings a bit too far into the other direction, actually. Female Vostroyans? That regiment was supposed to be "firstborn sons", at least in the studio fluff.

I have no problem whatsoever with misogyny in-universe, where it simply belongs to a culture. As such, all-male IG regiments are perfectly okay (as would be all-female ones). Same thing with the Space Marines and the Sisters of Battle.
It only becomes a problem when misogyny may appear to affect out-of-universe decisions, ranging from the lack of female IG minis to the strange absence of the Sisters of Battle in places where one might expect them (Crusade of Fire just being the newest example).

ragingmunkyz wrote:First of all, it isn't okay for the Blood Angels, but mostly because...well look at them, they look ridiculous.

But how often do you see complaints because of it? And how often do we see comments on SoB armour?
We could even expand this to the design of Space Marine armour in general, which in its dimensions is clearly designed to emphasise their masculinity.

For the record, I actually don't have a problem with any of this. To me, 40k is Space Gothic, which means that stuff like that is okay. I might find it ridiculous elsewhere, like in Star Trek or Star Wars. But for 40k? Here it fits.

Psienesis wrote:Let's also be honest and say that a lot of 40K stories are based on/drawn from/inspired by real-life historical events, and most of those events are, given the setting, various real-world wars and conflicts. While women have served in various military forces throughout history, sometimes openly, sometimes not, the bulk of these stories, especially to the Western world, are about men, in combat, with other men, against other men.

Modern society's understanding of history is twisted, though. Example: it's still regarded as "common knowledge" that women couldn't become knights. How many people know that there were entire orders of female knights around in medieval Europe? How many people know that peasant levies for the War of the Roses included armed women? What about Viking shield maidens? Or how many people are aware of these?

Granted, when 40k is meant to represent human history like we are told, then this is of no consequence. Still pretty sad, though.

Psienesis wrote:While we do get our Joans of Arc and Queen Boudiccas and Helens and such in 40K, they're a relatively small aspect of the totality of the setting... mainly because I think having a Joan of Arc-like character pop out of an Imperial World every other week reduces the impact such a character can have on the setting

But why? Or is this referring to a sort of "oversaturation", in the sense that a higher number of female heroes would make them less special? Whilst I could agree on that, is this really a bad thing? And I feel this could be alleviated by still limiting them based on their profession or the uniqueness of the legend they forge. That Special Enforcer Barbaretta in the image above is an example of what I mean. When it works for the male characters, it should work for female ones as well.

I'm cool with SoB's boob armor. I have a love hate relationship with the SoB in general, but the armor i think I like it. It makes sense that It's exaggerated and a little impracticable because they aren't just fighters they are holy warriors.

 Lynata wrote:
It only becomes a problem when misogyny may appear to affect out-of-universe decisions, ranging from the lack of female IG minis to the strange absence of the Sisters of Battle in places where one might expect them (Crusade of Fire just being the newest example).

This. I understand why there may be complaints about a lack of female space marines (or orks), but its much more understandable, insofar as there is a fluff explanation for why they don't exist. Where it starts to bother me is that we know full well that the female IG, Eldar and SoB are all a part of the background, but they never get quite as much face time as it seems like they should. That goes for both in the fluff and on the tabletop. Then when they DO actually get featured, there are precious few situations (though I recognize they exist), where they are portrayed as people in a strong, non-sexualized way, and without always having to relate them back to males. SoB in particular seem to be frequently featured in fetishized, snuff porn scenarios. It makes me sad, because I'd love to see 40k appeal to a broader demographic, and I believe it could, but with this little effort made to portray women in a positive light, its likely be rare.

 Lynata wrote:
We could even expand this to the design of Space Marine armour in general, which in its dimensions is clearly designed to emphasise their masculinity.

See the problem with this thinking is the same problem that plagues our culture, media, and the sculptors at GW. There is a difference between femininity and sexuality. Space marines are designed to emphasize their masculinity, but NOT their sexuality. What seems to happen far too often is that we equate femininity with sexuality, and then when trying to portray femininity in a woman, we (intentionally or unintentionally) wind up sexualizing her. While there is certainly a link between masculinity/femininity and human sexuality, the two are far from inseparable, and it is very possible to display a woman's femininity without making her a sexual object. For ways NOT to do this see the "armor" on the Sisters Repentia:


The equivalent of that on space marine armor is not the masculine armor they currently don, instead imagine space marines with bare upper thighs and abdomens, and then a vaguely dick-shaped codpiece covering their genitalia, and you should have something close.



...Ok now stop thinking about it. You're creeping me out.

 Lynata wrote:

Mr Morden wrote:Ahh but thats one of so many good female characters

Psienesis wrote:Let's also be honest and say that a lot of 40K stories are based on/drawn from/inspired by real-life historical events, and most of those events are, given the setting, various real-world wars and conflicts. While women have served in various military forces throughout history, sometimes openly, sometimes not, the bulk of these stories, especially to the Western world, are about men, in combat, with other men, against other men.

Modern society's understanding of history is twisted, though. Example: it's still regarded as "common knowledge" that women couldn't become knights. How many people know that there were entire orders of female knights around in medieval Europe? How many people know that peasant levies for the War of the Roses included armed women? What about Viking shield maidens? Or how many people are aware of these?

Granted, when 40k is meant to represent human history like we are told, then this is of no consequence. Still pretty sad, though.

Psienesis wrote:While we do get our Joans of Arc and Queen Boudiccas and Helens and such in 40K, they're a relatively small aspect of the totality of the setting... mainly because I think having a Joan of Arc-like character pop out of an Imperial World every other week reduces the impact such a character can have on the setting

But why? Or is this referring to a sort of "oversaturation", in the sense that a higher number of female heroes would make them less special? Whilst I could agree on that, is this really a bad thing? And I feel this could be alleviated by still limiting them based on their profession or the uniqueness of the legend they forge. That Special Enforcer Barbaretta in the image above is an example of what I mean. When it works for the male characters, it should work for female ones as well.

I think it would reach a point of over-saturation (and the setting is *already* oversaturated with hyper-masculine male characters in this same vein, and thus has grown boring in much of its fiction to me) where, in this fictional future of BL books and Codex: Yet More Joans of Arcs In Spaaaaaaace! (C:YMJoAiS), to the point where, if we got a female character that wasn't Wonder Woman/Rogue/Samus/Joan of Arc/Brienne of Tarth, fans would be like "OMG! This lady.... she's average!1!oneone!!eleven!!". Speaking only for myself, I think I like the fact that a well-done female character, of any kind, in any role, in any setting, is still seen as something "special"... though, granted, a lot of the fiction I read involves female characters in male-dominated societies overcoming such obstacles and working within/around the constraints of their societies, to out-wit/out-fight/out-whatever the men of their eras, which is not exactly indicative of the setting of 40K.

Though, I would be all for this over-saturation if we start seeing threads like "OMG! Sisters are so OP in fluffz compaerd to Space Mureenz!!!11eleventy!!".

 ragingmunkyz wrote:
While there is certainly a link between masculinity/femininity and human sexuality, the two are far from inseparable, and it is very possible to display a woman's femininity without making her a sexual object.

I wanted to pick up on this point in particular. For examples of how to do this properly - rather than with Sisters Repentia - look at the older Bretonnian Sorceresses and the female Vampire Count models. Particularly the ones that are riding their horses side-saddle, which gives a ladylike demeanour.

Regarding ladybump proportions, the most recent Wych and Daemonette models are I feel about right and how they should be. They look fit and healthy, so apt for warriors, but not sexually so - nor are they oversized or misproportioned.

Not all the races do this.

All space marines yes.
Imperial guard yes, and it is a mistake.
Tau, we do not really know how their females look or what passes as masculinaty.
Eldar and Dark eldar: A good represensation of males and females. We could still have more females.
Necroms seems to have a maskuline gender representation but no sex. This is bad. It should be neatral or both.
Orks are also very maskuline gender and no sex. Quite bad.
Tyranids have females (lay eggs) and no males.

ragingmunkyz wrote:For ways NOT to do this see the "armor" on the Sisters Repentia

For some reason, the only thing I don't like is that little bit of leather(?) still covering the nipples. Makes it look like some sort of mini-bra, as if they still need to be ashamed of having teats - when all they'd think about is how to throw away their life in a manner that kills as many enemies as possible. It feels like the designers had an idea, but did not quite "dare" to go all the way because naked breasts are a no-go (look at the new Daemonettes compared to the old ones) ... in essence, modern day political correctness creeping into the setting.

The way I see it, the Repentia's semi-nakedness is not about sexuality, but rather about barenaked violence. The reduction of the human being into a vicious animal, driven only by the need to kill - and thus earn their redemption.
It's actually done better in the artwork, where it's not some sort of leather button but a scroll with holy scripture conveniently covering the chest. The miniature designer should take that as inspiration, imho. Looks less awkward.



But I get what you mean about the difference between masculinity/femininity and sexuality, and I agree.

ragingmunkyz wrote:The equivalent of that on space marine armor is not the masculine armor they currently don, instead imagine space marines with bare upper thighs and abdomens, and then a vaguely dick-shaped codpiece covering their genitalia, and you should have something close.

You mean like the guys in 300? Or many male heroes in any sort of "sword and sandal movie"...
If the Space Marines had something like the Sisters Repentia, I could actually see it work out exactly in that way...

Wouldn't that be the Adeptus Custodes?

Now that you mention it ...

I have no problem with SoB armours. I like them looking like crazy fetish nuns. If it would be up to me they'd even have heels like in Blanche's artwork. The sheer absurdity of it is glorious. (Repentias are still just stupid, though.)

HOWEVER, it becomes problematic when these are pretty much only (human) female models you have. There should be a wide variety of different sorts of female models, like there is wide variety of male models.

I think it might be the lingering idea of 'women and children'. The death of these is considered noteworthy to mention in media reports. Men getting killed is nothing special in our view. But the other two are still placed in the category of shocking. 40k is very dark and gw might think it will turn people off if they write too much about the ''brutal slaughter of the .... female regiment''. Gender isnt really mentioned in the big picture, women die by quite a good amount, but it is almost never mentioned as express as certain male guard regiment.

Although Im all for including more women in the fluff (most of it is military). Currently women in the military isnt really that accepted yet, its still mainly seen as the proffesion of males. GW might not want to take the risk in offending some of their costumers. Id like to end my opinion with an example. If women get fully accepted in the fluff, like 50-50, when is it time to include children or the elderly? The Imperium doesnt make much of a difference (whiteshields) on age if you can fight.

I notice that your poll has two postive and one negative response, with no neutral response. The available answers seem to slate the numbers towards your opinion. Personally, I would have responded with neutrality. There are plenty of female characters who aren't crazy, stupid, fantasy-fetish characters, or red shirts. Not in every author's work, mind, but Aaron Dembski-Bowden, Sandy Mitchell, and Dan Abnett are all very good about keeping the gender balance positive. Kara Swole, Euphrates Keeler, Colonel Kasteen, Bequin, Octavia, and Medea Betancourt are all reasonable female characters (as reasonable as the well-written male characters, certainly). I grant that the setting is a bit male-dominated and male-oriented. I also grant that a series from an author targeted at a female section of the audience might be a good move, but only if it were well done. I could also see it being a ham-fisted failure, depending on who wrote it.

I think that female characters are on the sparse side in the setting, but I don't find the setting to be particularly misogynistic. If the setting has any fault when it comes to gender relations, it's that it's far, far too chaste for my preference. I'm fine with family-friendly entertainment, but when your violence and mature content are at the 'R' and 'NC-17' levels, respectively, while your sexual content is well within 'G' standards, it makes for a rather odd imbalance, I think.

In any event, that's just my opinion. I could, of course, be wrong.

yeah, they could be throwing ladies in with pretty much every army but space marines (since the genetic template only works on men AFAIK apparently)

I do notice a LOT more females in the books and fluff then on the table,

Disciple of Fate wrote:40k is very dark and gw might think it will turn people off if they write too much about the ''brutal slaughter of the .... female regiment''.

Dunno about that ... looking at some of the fluff bits in which the Sisters of Battle play a less glorious role (Sanctuary 101, GK anointment, ...), the writers seem to have little problem with describing the death of female troops.

It may be fear of the customers, as you say. Or maybe it's some abstract idea about an archetypical image of where the soldier = male, where SoB don't really count as they are more like an army of Jeanne's d'Arcs. Not even truly misogynystic but rather just set to a very specific picture of how an IG regiment "should" look like. An unconscious thing.

Similar to what I touched upon earlier when I remarked how media are dominated by 30-something white male action heroes, often with cropped brown or black hair, and three-day stubble. It's not racism either, it's just that this is the first thing that comes to their mind when they try to think of a hero. Which in turn is a result of the image society has managed to instill in them. Kind of like a vicious cycle where people get this idea because that's what they grew up with, so this is what they show the kids, who will grow up with it, and have the same idea, and will show it to their kids, ...

Disciple of Fate wrote:If women get fully accepted in the fluff, like 50-50, when is it time to include children or the elderly? The Imperium doesnt make much of a difference (whiteshields) on age if you can fight.

With the Whiteshields, you already mentioned one example ... Necromunda juves might qualify as another. And Karamazov pretty much looks like a nagging old grandfather. I'd say elderly and children are already present, unless we're talking even older or younger than those? But at that point we'd probably get to a level where they would not be fighters anymore ... or were you looking at civilians? For civilians really do not get much limelight, I fear.

That said, a 40k rulebook did have this line in its description for daily life in the 41st millennium: "[...] Feral children fight over the dead flesh of the fallen, their struggles lit only by flickering luminas set into crumbling masonry. [...]"

Crimson wrote:If it would be up to me they'd even have heels like in Blanche's artwork

Ughh... please, no heels - they can have their place with some of the assassins, but not in the infantry. Battle Sisters are warriors first and foremost, and heels would be a tad too much for my personal sense of realism.


For an example of women being integrated well into a setting, go pick up a Battletech book. It's almost refreshing how gender plays next to no role whatsoever there.

Actually, here's a funny test for y'all:



...

.. so, how many of you noticed that the exotic dancer was her father, and not the mother? I know of several people who missed this, including me during my first read-through of the entire document.
That's how society indoctrinates us when it comes to gender roles / expectations. It's subtle, innit?

 Jimsolo wrote:
I think that female characters are on the sparse side in the setting, but I don't find the setting to be particularly misogynistic. If the setting has any fault when it comes to gender relations, it's that it's far, far too chaste for my preference. I'm fine with family-friendly entertainment, but when your violence and mature content are at the 'R' and 'NC-17' levels, respectively, while your sexual content is well within 'G' standards, it makes for a rather odd imbalance, I think.

There are heaping amounts of sexuality in 40k.

Most of it just happens to be between seven foot tall super soldiers.

 Lynata wrote:

Disciple of Fate wrote:40k is very dark and gw might think it will turn people off if they write too much about the ''brutal slaughter of the .... female regiment''.

Dunno about that ... looking at some of the fluff bits in which the Sisters of Battle play a less glorious role (Sanctuary 101, GK anointment, ...), the writers seem to have little problem with describing the death of female troops.

It may be fear of the customers, as you say. Or maybe it's some abstract idea about an archetypical image of where the soldier = male, where SoB don't really count as they are more like an army of Jeanne's d'Arcs. Not even truly misogynystic but rather just set to a very specific picture of how an IG regiment "should" look like. Similar to what I touched upon earlier when I remarked how media are dominated by 30-something white male action heroes, often with cropped brown or black hair, and three-day stubble. It's not racism either, it's just that this is the first thing that comes to their mind when they try to think of a hero. Which in turn is a result of the image society has managed to instill in them. Kind of like a vicious cycle where people get this idea because that's what they grew up with, so this is what they show the kids, who will grow up with it, and have the same idea, and will show it to their kids, ...

Disciple of Fate wrote:If women get fully accepted in the fluff, like 50-50, when is it time to include children or the elderly? The Imperium doesnt make much of a difference (whiteshields) on age if you can fight.

With the Whiteshields, you already mentioned one example ... Necromunda juves might qualify as another. And Karamazov pretty much looks like a nagging old grandfather. I'd say elderly and children are already present, unless we're talking even older or younger than those? But at that point we'd probably get to a level where they would not be fighters anymore ... or were you looking at civilians? For civilians really do not get much limelight, I fear.

That said, a 40k rulebook did have this line in its description for daily life in the 41st millennium: "[...] Feral children fight over the dead flesh of the fallen, their struggles lit only by flickering luminas set into crumbling masonry. [...]"

Crimson wrote:If it would be up to me they'd even have heels like in Blanche's artwork

Ughh... please, no heels - they can have their place with some of the assassins, but not in the infantry. Battle Sisters are warriors first and foremost, and heels would be a tad too much for my personal sense of realism.

I think its still different in the SoB question (you expect them to die, just like space marines if victory isnt an option). They have been trained most of their lives with good equipment, a bit like stormtroopers (a bit of a stretch but comparable). Im talking about just regular female guardsman(women?). The question is if people would still enjoy a book like 15 hours if it was about an all female regiment for example. I think they are afraid to cross a moral line. That is, large scale description of women and child soldiers (under 18 like whiteshields) in some of the more gruesome fiction. Black Library writes book that can be quite harsh sometimes.
On the question of the idea of a hero is male. Its just a question of history mostly. It has many great women, but as long as they werent hacking and slashing their way across some battlefield (like Jeanne d'Arc who you mentioned) they arent really remembered. War has always been important for humans, but its never been really seen as the area of women. This is why the idea seems strange to us. But if you really go beyond just popular history you can find a lot of strong women behind men. But because they werent rulers (which required an active military/combat role) most of us dont remember them, which is why the concept might seem a bit alien.

 Void__Dragon wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
I think that female characters are on the sparse side in the setting, but I don't find the setting to be particularly misogynistic. If the setting has any fault when it comes to gender relations, it's that it's far, far too chaste for my preference. I'm fine with family-friendly entertainment, but when your violence and mature content are at the 'R' and 'NC-17' levels, respectively, while your sexual content is well within 'G' standards, it makes for a rather odd imbalance, I think.

There are heaping amounts of sexuality in 40k.

Most of it just happens to be between seven foot tall super soldiers.

The idea that all sexuality is between men and women is intertwined with the very modern notion of feminism. The Ancient Greeks were all for love between men and they (with the notable exception of Sparta) had very anti-female societies. I honestly think there might be something in the notion that mysogony is tied in with repressed homosexuality, being a bi-sexual mysogonist myself

 Lynata wrote:

For an example of women being integrated well into a setting, go pick up a Battletech book. It's almost refreshing how gender plays next to no role whatsoever there.

Battletech is actually really good on that score. Deadlands was pretty good about it too. (Also, remarkably good at avoiding being racist, especially given the setting.)

Well... I *am* waiting for an Inquisition-style novel, in the vein of James Bond, where the main character has to seduce his/her way through the ranks of potentially-heretical Hive nobles, while being demonstrably, and openly, homosexual in their non-professional life.

It would be kinda like HIMYM.... in space.

Disciple of Fate wrote:I think its still different in the SoB question (you expect them to die, just like space marines if victory isnt an option). They have been trained most of their lives with good equipment, a bit like stormtroopers (a bit of a stretch but comparable). Im talking about just regular female guardsman(women?). The question is if people would still enjoy a book like 15 hours if it was about an all female regiment for example. I think they are afraid to cross a moral line. That is, large scale description of women and child soldiers (under 18 like whiteshields) in some of the more gruesome fiction. Black Library writes book that can be quite harsh sometimes.

Hmmh, whilst I see your point regarding SoB, for the books I'd suspect it is less about a moral line and more about expectations from the customers. Even here on dakka we have a number of users who have in the past expressed their disapproval of women in the military, so by making a novel not feature female IG, it ultimately makes the book "safer".

It's a shame, but that's business I suppose. The ones to blame are mostly the fans, or at least a portion of them.

Disciple of Fate wrote:On the question of the idea of a hero is male. Its just a question of history mostly. It has many great women, but as long as they werent hacking and slashing their way across some battlefield (like Jeanne d'Arc who you mentioned) they arent really remembered.

And even when they were hacking and slashing their way across some battlefield, they often aren't.
History is written by the victors - I guess this includes gender.

Let's see if public perception shifts a bit more in the coming decades. At least mankind has begun to uncover a lot of lost documents or artefacts and tombs scratching on what is still common perception. Nowadays, we even know of female mercenary captains. And the only reason this bit of history was preserved was because that particular adventuress (who also served as a soldier in the army of the Papal States for some time) was sued at a court for having tried to impersonate Jeanne d'Arc. No-one would have bothered to write down her story if it weren't for some German-Imperial clerks filing a judicial report. How many more women like her lived and fought, unrecognised and unappreciated by modern history?

Psienesis wrote:It would be kinda like HIMYM.... in space.

lol

Pitch that idea to BL - maybe Mitchell will pick it up

 Lynata wrote:

Disciple of Fate wrote:I think its still different in the SoB question (you expect them to die, just like space marines if victory isnt an option). They have been trained most of their lives with good equipment, a bit like stormtroopers (a bit of a stretch but comparable). Im talking about just regular female guardsman(women?). The question is if people would still enjoy a book like 15 hours if it was about an all female regiment for example. I think they are afraid to cross a moral line. That is, large scale description of women and child soldiers (under 18 like whiteshields) in some of the more gruesome fiction. Black Library writes book that can be quite harsh sometimes.

Hmmh, whilst I see your point regarding SoB, for the books I'd suspect it is less about a moral line and more about expectations from the customers. Even here on dakka we have a number of users who have in the past expressed their disapproval of women in the military, so by making a novel not feature female IG, it ultimately makes the book "safer".

It's a shame, but that's business I suppose. The ones to blame are mostly the fans, or at least a portion of them.

But in the end the moral line is made by us as a society. From here the costumers are brought forth. Remember that altough many might resent the fact of women in the army its also might be a different aspect. GW also gets quite a bit of money from teenagers, with mostly their parents paying. Good luck explaining to a mother of a 12 year old that this book is about the fall of Havenspire, in which the ... female regiment fought a heroic but doomed struggle, being sufficiently graphic. My local gw manager (great guy, this isnt critisiscm) has the worst time trying to explain some darker aspects like slaaneshi deamons, how do you explain such a strange thing to a normal person? Most of those parents give the strangest looks, thats without even seeing their face when looking at the prices Most already find the hobby weird without such details. Remember how they changed the deamonettes, I remember bare nipples, but that seems to be a no go nowadays.

Just to be clear I have no problem with women in the army or anything. Im all for equality as long as it serves purpose, not getting random quotas like they sometimes do nowadays (sometimes you just have to pick the best person for the job regardless of race or gender, even if it might be a male whih already fills 80% of a company).